> -MWS- wrote:
Can you clarify that a bit?
For instance, how about the following set of circumstances:
1) I draw Beavis and Butthead on a piece of paper 2) I draw Beavis and
Butthead on a computer and print the page 3) I draw Beavis and Butthead and
ask a friend of mine to print it 4) I draw Beavis and Butthead and pay Kinkos
to print it 5) I draw Beavis and Butthead and pay XYZ decal company to make
decals
Where is the line drawn between somebody minding their own business and
lawsuit potential?
Tom
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:51:43 -0500, Thomas Pope writes:
For the record. I am not a copyright lawyer, I don't even play one on TV.
> For instance, how about the following set of circumstances:
It is my understanding that if you draw something or take an actual show shot
and try and pass it off as a real B&B picture, you are in trouble.
If you draw something yourself, and never try to claim it as a B&B picture,
you are probably all right. Its o.k. to make parodies of copyrighted works for
example. And as long as its original art, you should be o.k. By original art I
mean not copied, not traced, but original.
This is my understanding. Not that this would necessarily make someone print
your decals however.
> At 07:51 AM 1/27/2000 -0500, you wrote:
If you are not using the drawing for Parody or News Commentary/Review
(the
two main catagories of "Fair Use"), then the line is drawn at #0 - all
of the above are infringements. Whether you make the copy by hand, or by
other means, doesn't matter - it's still considered to be a copy if it
is recognizably the same. Your chances of being taken to court, however, vary
widely by the circumstances and the disposition of the copyright holder.
Example: There was a daycare center in Los Angeles (?) that had made some
hand drawings - made by the staff and kids - of Mickey Mouse, Minnie
Mouse, Donald Duck, et al, and was using them as decorations in the main play
room. Disney successfully sued them and had them removed as copyright
infringements. Disney got a lot of bad publicity over this, but they *were*
within their rights as copyright holders to do so.
Example: I contacted Five Rings Publishing / WOTC a couple months back
in order to get permission to use the "Clan Mons" for decals on my Clan War
miniatures - specifically I wanted to be able to decorate any sashimono
banners on the figures. While I got a legal blanket approval for *anyone* to
do so, it was with the restriction that it would be for personal,
non-commercial use only. Because of the "personal use only" part of
that permission, I can print up my own decals using Clan mons, but I cannot
give
anyone else any of the decals - whether I charge for them or not.
Someone else could print them up for their own use, but they could not ask me
to do it for them.
> For the record. I am not a copyright lawyer, I don't even play
I've had courses on copyright law (as part of a communications MA, I'm not a
lawyer either), although it was a while ago. IIRC
according to laws in the US (as they were in 86-87, when I took
these courses), if you create an drawing which is sufficiently similar to the
original character as to cause confusion that it is the original character,
then you are in violation.
Eg if I drew Snoopy, and published it, I'd never have a problem because no one
would possibly confuse it with the work of Mr.
Schultz--instead they'd be saying "Isn't that a hippo with
dermatitis?"
My professor said that there was no hard and clear definition of where the
line was crossed, it was largely a case of "Stand back 20 feet and squint".