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.
========================================================================
====
=
** Err, Mark, if I did this myself its okay.....
.... what if I did it with a Robot? - that is it was personal use only,
but I had my 'Bot do the construction?......... and what if my 'Bor happens to
be biological and have the name
Mark....?
That's pretty thorny. I'm having a machine (the computer) do this for me (so
it isn't hand drawn). So if I could use tele-operation to do it with
your printer (ie use some remote control to make your printer work) it would
probably be legal. So if instead of having a dumb bot, I have you do it for
me, why is it any different? I'm essentially "making" these things for
personal use. You're not getting paid for it. You profit in no way (in this
example) from it. So it is "personal use"? Isn't it? You guys live in the USA
so who knows... but other than in the land of
the ambulance-chasing lawyer, this seems reasonable to me....
... which has little to do with legality I realize.
> At 03:25 PM 1/27/2000 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:
[snip]
> ** Err, Mark, if I did this myself its okay.....
Not in the States it isn't.
> .... what if I did it with a Robot? - that is it was personal use only,
You
> profit in no way (in this example) from it. So it is "personal use"?
Isn't
> it?
US Copyright laws relief *used* to be based mainly on monies made, but
statutory relief was added over a decade ago to "close" that loophole.
> You guys live in the USA so who knows... but other than in the land of
Yes, the copyright legality here in the States is... interesting.
US Copyright laws don't care what the intended usage is, with the one
exception of "Fair Use" - which is defined as Parody or News/Commentary.
US Copyright laws don't care what the method of reproduction used was. The
test for copyright violation here in the States is really fairly simple.
1) Is it a recognizable copy? 2) Did you get explicit legal permission?
If you answer 1)yes 2)no, you are in violation of Title 17. Personal use,
non-commercial use, hand reproduced, computer generated - it's all the
same. If you answer 1)yes 2)no, you are libel to potential legal actions by
the copyright holder. Potential damages can either be based on monies made
from the infringement, *or* satutory penalties up to $100,000 can be
assessed - even if nary a penny exchanged hands.
Interested parties can jump on the Library of Congress' home page at the
following URL:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
Title 17 itself is at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/ for your
viewing pleasure. Section 501 is what we have been mostly discussing here
today.
From: Thomas.Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca>
> ** Err, Mark, if I did this myself its okay.....
....no, that's not what the man said....
> .... what if I did it with a Robot? - that is it was personal
That's where you're missing it. "Personal use only" is legal only if you have
obtained permission.
Let's take another example, because I still can't believe that anyone would be
willing (much less desiring) to put Beavis & Butthead on anything, especially
a mini you've worked hard on and hope to show to other people.
Let's say Mr.Munchkin wants a fleet of 100 of cruisers but doesn't have the
cash to cover it. He decides to buy one pack, get some RTV, and turn out his
own copies. Personal use only, mind you. Do you think Jon would have a reason
to be upset? He worked hard <TROWEL mode> drew dozens of sketches, groping
dimly for hours towards the perfection of form and
function</TROWEL> <CONFIDENTIAL TO JON> FSE Jerez, not
Claudia--jeez, what are you, a teenager?</CONFIDENTIAL> <TROWEL>
spent late nights carving intricate details and casting figures, and long
weary days calling game shops and distributors, many of whom had never heard
of him (in some cases after he'd had a
thirty minute conversation with them four days previously--but
nonetheless they insisted on terms of net 60, which means "you might get paid
in three months, but don't bet on it"), establishing a reputation and
distribution channels, and meanwhile scraping out, through ceaseless
diligence, a lifestyle which would be envied by any starving Siberian coal
miner
</TROWEL> and Mr. Munchkin wants to cut into Jon's personal
income because Munchkin's too impatient to buy a few cruisers
this month and a few more next month, _and_ he can't be bothered
to come up with his own design?
That's why copyright law exists.
Normally I would remain on the sidelines watching the copyright activities,
but I have a question of my own...
Now...I like gaming magazines. I like the feel of holding a real
printed magazine in my hands, (the Pyramid e-zine is interesting, but it
doesn't beat the feel of a real magazine to me), the smell of the fresh ink,
the excitment of new articals, ect...But I am concerned about wearing them out
by constantly refering to a cool artical.
Is it ok to copy said artical so I won't wear out my magazine?
I have been assuming that this fell under "fair use". Is this so?
Donald Hosford
> Laserlight wrote:
> From: Thomas.Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca>
Ditto.
<Funny -troweling- paragraph snipped.>
> That's why copyright law exists.