OD REQUEST: The Simpsons Hit & Run

copywritten

Ah man... I need to get that video game. Anyway, I guess since the Simpsons is part of the culture it could be made I guess. This subject is really touch ang go.

copywritten

I think the term you meant to use is 'copyrighted' The second half of the compound word 'copyright' is from the noun 'right', meaning something due one by law, custom, or privelege, as in "You have the right to remain silent."

EC: Reference the sticky thread "IMPORTANT! Re: Requesting skins" at the top of the messageboard.

But i don't see any lawsuits about vice city... and the simpsons hitnrun is a game--- also you can only sue if its something everybody uses and sees. I dont believe that this would result in a lawsuit. If so please do tell.

you can only sue if its something everybody uses and sees

Well there's an interesting perspective on the law...

As for creating an icon to launch a game, this is one of those gray areas. Software developers tend to turn a blind eye to the creation of an icon using their copyrights, just so long as it is only used to launch their software. It's still not legal technically, but it's highly unlikely that they would persue legal action in such circumstances.

/me senses the potential outbreak of yet another copyright discussion and exits the thread in terror...

oooh, thanks thats one new thing i learned today SD.

Shameless Designs senses the potential outbreak of yet another copyright discussion and exits the thread in terror...

The annoying thing is, there shouldn't even be any 'discussion' on copyright. It's not something that's open to interpretation in this day and age, so any arguing against it only comes down to stubborness and wishful thinking.

However, it doesn't hurt to remind folks every so often how things work when questions like these come up.

/me considers how to pour oil on the waters without letting it reach the flames.

grayhaze, I agree with you that reminding people to respect the copyright and other intellectual property rights of the creator(s) is a good thing. These rights are among the most valuable rights an artist or author has, and deserve to be honored, protected and defended by all.

Law, in general, however, is very much open to interpretation and is constantly being reviewed and revised by court cases, legislators, and administrative agencies. Intellectual Property Rights law is also one area that many people here quite properly feel passionate about. The opinions of many are easily available if you type 'copyright' in the Search field of this message browser.

Let's just say here that these opinions differ in many respects and as a result, when the subject comes up, we often get a sometimes heated discussion going here as a result. I was trying to make light of this one to avoid yet another of those long threads on this topic that stirs people up and won't resolve the issue anymore than the other threads have.

"Law, in general, however, is very much open to interpretation..."

Not in terms of skins and themes. We aren't journalists, educators, librarians, or authors engaged in satire, review, or documentary. This isn't akin to any interpretation of 'fair use'. You don't have to read the "interpretable" law; just read the EULA or the 'Terms of Use' on the website of the product.

If tomorrow 'ripping' were made legal, would you start uploading each other's work? So what if 'fan art' is hard to do anything about? So is warez. At the very least, offer commercial artists the same respect you expect when you upload your own work.

Baker Street... I agree with you completely on the subject of the Fair Use provisions of the law. I personally feel that if there is any doubt whatsoever about a work being copied or derived from the work of another, that the original author's rights should be protected and defended. Period.

My post said nothing about supporting ripping, warez, or a liberal interpretation of fair use. In fact, grayhazes comment regading icon use

Software developers tend to turn a blind eye to the creation of an icon using their copyrights, just so long as it is only used to launch their software. It's still not legal technically, but it's highly unlikely that they would persue legal action in such circumstances.

is the main reason I said anything at all. You know better than most how many times this subject has come up here, and how many people get fired up when it does. All I was trying to do by my post was to attempt to tactfully refer others to those other posts and not start another brouhaha.

Sadly, it appears I failed. And for that I apologize to all and sundry. But please don't take my words out of context and mischaracterize my statement as a support of a liberal [mis]use of the Fair Use provisions. It's simply not true.

No need to apologize. I understand that you were trying to be diplomatic.

Software developers tend to turn a blind eye to the creation of an icon using their copyrights, just so long as it is only used to launch their software. It's still not legal technically, but it's highly unlikely that they would persue legal action in such circumstances.

That's about what i was meaning...