Flasher Archive

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject:	Re: FLASH: Copyrights
From:	Jason
Date:	Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:41:20 +0100

Hi everyone,

I was very interested by this reply. There is an enormous difference between
"Anglo-Saxon" copyright law and "Latin / European" law. French law is probably
the strongest here. In France anything you produce / create is considered to be an
inalienable part of your soul. You cannot sign away that right. If you sign a
contract whereby the copyright passes over entirely to someone else, that contract
is void and all rights come back to you. In company law, however, French law falls
short in this respect. Despite being an inaliable part of you, any creation you
may come up with under an employment contract can become the employers property,
depending on your contract. Wow. In American / Anglo Saxon law anything you create
can be sold or given up in its entirity. Dutch law must follow Latin / French law
more closely than it does Anglo-Saxon.

One thing is certain. If you mess around with other people's creations you are not
being honest with yourself, the world or, most importantly, them. If you mess
around with the copyright of someone who has the means to sue you, you are really
asking for trouble (even on the web). Everyone has it in them to create to a
greater or a lesser extent - the question is, will people like / buy what you do?
If they don't / won't, you need to get someone else in on the deal. And that
someone else should be a) aware that they are involved and b) paid for their
input.

We all traced when we were kids. As adults maybe we should look, digest and be
inspired by. The law is not clear as to what is inspired by and what is copying -
I would venture the theory that he who pays wins. If you copy an unknown you can
get away with much, much more than if you copy an established brand. This is
because a) the established brand has the time / money to find you b) has the time
/ money to sue you (for a lot of money) c) the financial damage you are inflicting
is greater d) the finanial / promotional gain you are getting from copying is much
greater due to the reputation of the known brand.

There are certainly hundreds of other points to be made but the bottom line is
that if you copy a well known brand / character you will benefit greatly from
their image. But you will also fall foul (even on the Internet) of their lawyers.
If you copy an unknown brand / character, chances are you'll get away with it. Two
problems : 1 ) you don't get any benefit from the image (because that image is
non-existent / minimal) 2) you aren't being honest. They may not be able to sue
you but they are maybe more worthy of you respect than the "big boys". AND if you
are reasonably successful and make some money, the original creator will sue you.
You lose. You've been successful but you have no money left. What next?

This is not an attack on anyone, just my thoughts on a subject that comes up a
great deal - why should anyone respect copyright? (Be it music, illustration,
text, photo..) Respect copyright.

Who knows, one day you may take a photo / draw a line / write a phrase that
changes the world.

You'll be suing everyone in sight.

Jason BARNARD

Chris de Deugd wrote:

> Hi Cheri,
>
> Cheri Harder wrote:
>
> > I guess my question is "deeper" than this. I mean, I know I cannot legally
> > "use" their artwork on my site. But what constitutes "use" is my question.
> > If I were an artist that could, by hand, draw a character that was, for all
> > intents and purposes, Mickey Mouse, or could easily be identified as such,
> > am I using their artwork?
>
> Yes. They own that character. The character is a creation that is carefully
> designed - not just a couple of lines. It expresses and communicates something,
> and it costs money and time to do that well. It is only natural that this is
> protected by law. It is someone's " intellectual " property. I am not sure what
> that is called in english.
>
> > If I hand trace their artwork am I using it? If
> > I digitally trace it? I guess I don't know where the line is.
>
> Simple : have respect from someone else's work.
>
> > If I were to
> > find a good artist, as you say, that allowed me to use their artwork, and
> > their artwork bore a striking (or even mediocre) resemblance to a known
> > Warner Bros. character, would I be illegal? Does their copyright extend
> > past their own employee's drawings?
>
> It does. Any resemblance means you are profiting from their work. Tracing it to
> use it is theft.
>
> Hope this helps you,
>
> Christina.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an
email to list-manager