A Copyrights Discussion

I think Jafo is the man for this question.

No. Sorry, this really doesn't need to be done again. Not your fault if you have missed the intermittent fireworks in the past, but this is a *really* sensitive issue with some people.

I would suggest putting 'copyright' in the search box and looking over past discussions. I don't remember what the "blowout" discussions were called. If anyone does feel free to chime in. It would save a lot of explanation just to post a link.

https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?BID=WC&id=213038#214060

Frogboy stated an opinion on this very unfortunate thread.

https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?id=144654

Dunno if his opinions have changed, no big deal either way, was all my fault, honestly.




[Message Edited]

Well, there is two sides to that coin. Basically, fan art is copyright and/or trademark theft.  The corporation holding the copyright is the only one who can decide if they allow or not derivations of their work. In the past, we used to reject such works. And sometimes we still do. Some admins feel that it's just wrong. But, the fact remains that just about every wallpaper site on the web hosts such fan art. So, we're left thinking "If I want a really cool Lord of the Rings wallpaper why can I go just about anywhere but our own site to get one?"  So, yes, in theory it's wrong. But should we be more catholic than the Pope about the issue?  We admins are a little torn in this issue, therefore are often inconsistent about what wee let through.  At the moment, it tends to be, if it's done tastefully, if it's artistically interesting, if it incorporates some commercially copyrighted elements (not just plainly upload integrally a wallpaper obtained from the movie's web site), and if the source is properly stated, then we may let it through.

The GOV site for Copyright, Trademarks would be the place I spent some time browsing around...

The costs for infringing can be staggering financially...

Travis knows his opinion really doesn't matter. I don't run this site. My opinion only tells me what to upload and how to comment. Therefor I find the discussion of copyright rules very pointless here. We as citizens and nonrunners of this site really have little say unless we somehow change the opinion of the admins. That being said, no matter what the admins do (let more things through or less) there will always be dissenters. Why continue pointless discussions?

If you don't voice your opinion, why bother visiting the board at all Travis? I know I'm not gonna change anything, but I could set of a spark that 6 months down the road it triggers a backthought in an Admins mind and subconsciously he thinks different...you never know. Point is a voice not spoken is a voice not heard or whatever that saying is.

I know this touchy subject...but I am all for fan art...so long as the user doesn't copy/paste. An original skin based on Lord of the Rings should be allowed no questions asked. But if someone had to ask about it...they would most certainly get the "copyrighted" answer. It just doesn't make sense to me...just wanted to let y'all know which side of the line I'm on.

/me goes off to read those other threads...

Personnaly, I'd rather do without fan art altogether here.

The frustrating thing for some is that universally, Copyright Law is not consistent.

Example...

In the US [where this site is hosted] there is a reference in Copyright to 'fair use' which is often argued as the 'get-out-of-jail-free' card for fan art.

This is NOT the case in Australia. [for example] Copyright law here [there] does NOT allow the making of that 'backup' copy of your music CD [as everyone likes to do].....the interpretation of the Act is literal not liberal.

Although, as is stated, 'everyone does it', or in the case of fan-art walls, etc.....you can get them anywhere so do we as Administrators of this site have a 'holier than thou' attitude or right to restrict their being hosted here?

In an ideal world I think everyone would love to have it all totally black and white, but we don't run the world, only a wee bit of it.

My personal preference for a 'fair' and equitable solution to this whole situation is to demand that any images or works  not wholly owned by the submitter be provided with links to the copyright holder so it is clear to everyone who genuinely OWNS the works, so WHEN their removal is demanded by said owner the Admins know the request is legitimate.

Needless to say the prime areas of issue with all this are those that are wall related.....walls, logons and bootskins.

Generally these areas have works submitted to them sitting there waiting for someone with enough strength of will [read 'thick skinned'] to sift through and reject those which are too 'not quite right-legally'....then of course be bombarded with upset rejectees...

When it is all said and done, it is the cumulative policy agreed upon by the site's community as a whole which determines what and how things are handled and or accepted.

Now and then someone from left field or the far right will come along and claim we as a whole are not doing enough or are doing too much....

But 'mostly' I think we're getting it right...

Personnaly, I'd rather do without fan art altogether here.

Ditto!

As I have said in the past:

RE: "fair use".

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."

Here is section 107: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

**

"Fair use" might have fuzzy definition, but wallpapers, logons, etc are still well outside anything that has been found in favor of in the past. We are not educators, journalists, etc. We are artists, making art and then sticking our names on it. We have no right to use work that these companies *PAID* to have produced, and own exclusively.

As we have seen with The Skins Factory, the entertainment industry is taking notice of the type items we make. My opinion is if we distribute images *for free* that belong to the artist or their commercial entity, we severely limit their ability to sell or exclusively distribute such images in the future. For that reason we should allow them to decide what is made and what isn't.

Regardless, they all have 'Terms of Use' that specifically forbid reproducing and redistributing such material. When we reproduce a wallpaper to make a theme or a logon, it is no different than taking one of The Skins Factory's skins and converting it. Both were made for-hire by the entertainment company, and distributed freely.

Anyway, look around at sites that allow such and see what becomes of them eventually. This is a matter of self-respect, imho.


[Message Edited]

PS...

Wincustomize can run their site any way they like. I respect them and believe when they are contacted for something to be removed they do so with zeal. I do think, however, anything less than zero tolerance will always provoke questions like this, and about as often as the previous one has slipped off the front page of the messageboard.

Amen. Besides, there is no such thing as 'original' fan art.

Like Hus i have often wondered about this subject........I remember the last thread although i think i must not have kept pace with it so i will re-read it and try and catch up. Regardless of this I hear what some of you are saying especially the points made by Jafo and Baker Street which certainly make sense.......Jafo, one thing that i really did not appreciate or consider is the difference in copyright law between two countries that you have highlighted......interesting

i look at it as a matter of honor. sure il take skin's and modify it and tweak it,etc.
when i do upload port's, it is with the original authors permission and he gets full credit for his work. if i get no permission it stays here on my desk...end of story.

In this world of (what can i get away with?) i refuse to follow the trend....

if some one else paid for or put the hard time in to make a piece of work, then it's THEIR work not mine...

as for fan art...i think if a company dosent mind fan art it should put a clause in their EULA allowing fan art .( stated company in wishing to further extend our fan base will consent to "fan art" being made. in exclusion of afore mentioned will be any fan art that is obscene, racial,sexual or deemed insulting to said company (please see fan art full EULA page)for further details. any images used from this site must have said companys permission.
[Message Edited]

Fair use applies to how I as an individual, educator, student, researcher or reporter may reproduce a copyrighted work. Distribution of that reproduced intellectual property is strictly limited to those purposes. I personally won't engage in any use outside of that, or aid or abet others in violating intellectual property rights. It's that simple to me.

If I see something I believe to be a violation of someone's IP rights, I will e-mail an admin. That's my "job" as a community member. They will investigate and take what they feel is an appropriate action. That's their "job", and I respect them for doing it well. The legislators of my nation have the "job" of writing the laws which govern IP rights in my country. If I don't like the way the laws are, I let them know.

You are all free to debate this issue to your heart's content, or, more likely IMHO, discontent. It won't solve anything, but if it makes you feel better, go for it. In my previous "job", I fought on three continents, watched some good friends die, and left a bit of my own blood behind because I believe in your right to express your opinion. I look forward to seeing it in print. My only hope is that you also respect the right of others who also post and may not agree with you.

The future will be forged by the bounderies made today...."Art for Art Sake"...Most artists consider it a compliment to see their work used it good taste. With the art of skinning its a new fronteer and as WinC seem to be ahead of the game or one of the better studios their way or no-way.

Most artists consider it a compliment to see their work used it good taste.

..... no, I think most artists consider it theft......

Most artists consider it a compliment to see their work used it good taste. ..... no, I think most artists consider it theft......

Further to that, I find that those 'skinners' who talk about how much of a compliment it is to have one's work used by another in theirs to be those people who feel they have to justify what they are doing.

You'll very rarely find a legitimate skinner making such a claim, but you'll find a large number of 'rippers' doing so.
[Message Edited]

a skinner will feel it a compliment if u ask them and they say yes .. if they say no then thats it .. if u do it any ways they feel robbed and riped off....
[Message Edited]

thread seems stuck. hmmmm...