I know I say this once a year, but it seems like it needs to be repeated once a year, you do NOT own the copyrights to fanworks.
Poprageous may or may not be shitty, but they are under no obligation to obtain permission from purplekecleon to use Pokemon characters on leggings. They only need PCI’s permission. Even if PCI granted permission for purplekecleon to make the fanart (unlikely) in the first place, poprageous would almost definitely still need to obtain PCI’s - not purplekecleon’s - permission to sell it in another form.
Fanartists - you have zero rights to works involving non-original characters.
And, as always, I say this as a fanartist.
This is dead wrong. You should either be ashamed of your ignorance or admonished for purposely misleading artists.
Fan artists, you have 100% of the control over who gets to use your artwork in cases where fair use does not apply.
Nintendo owns Pokemon. PurpleKecleon owns the fanart she created.
Nintendo owns the rights to Pokemon. PurpleKecleon owns the rights to the fanart she created.
What is wrong with you? Why do you think fanartists own the rights to works with copyrighted characters? They don’t! Please don’t lie to artists - it’s this misinformation that sends them into idiotic rages. The only instance in which a fanartist MIGHT be able to claim rights is
1) if it’s an obvious work of parody - and even then, the originality still needs to be in the majority (e.g. I’m honestly not sure whether 50% off would lose a suit or not)
2) If it’s a transformative, not derivative, work. Transformative means to make it into something new - making it a part of a larger whole. Not just drawing it in your own personal style.
If one person creates a character and claims copyright, that is it. When another person draws that character, they don’t suddenly get a piece of that copyright.
Please don’t spread this misinformation.
There are some fandoms you cannot publish fanfic for. You literally will get sued just for writing fanfic. Because you, as a fan, own ZERO portion of the copyright, and the original creators exercise their RIGHTS to restrict content creation. Even if the derivative work you created was done with your two hands, it doesn’t mean it’s not derivative, and it doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Again, I’ve made fanworks and I’ve bought fan-produced materials, but don’t kid yourself and pretend it’s actually legal.
You are absolutely 100% dead wrong. There are very few circumstances in which the rights to your own work are automatically owned by someone else. In fact I can only think of one, and it’s when you have a written contract saying so.
If you made it, you own the rights. If it’s a derivative work, then yes, the owner of the source material can try taking you to court, and you might lose and be forced to stop selling or showing your work. That doesn’t mean you don’t own it. The owner still can’t take your work and share it or sell it or even re-derive from it without your permission, because it’s your work.
You’re mixing up the rights to the source work, the rights to the derived work, and the “legality” of the derived work. They are not the same thing.
Where did you even get this idea? Your list of exceptions, too, is a really distorted version of what constitutes fair use.
eta: this is, of course, based on US law; i don’t know how other countries may differ. the berne convention tends to mean everyone’s pretty similar though.
Anonymous asked:Is floraverse not a giant honeypot for undesirables who take other peoples art and sell it without asking for permission if everything has to be published under a creative commons license that allows anyone to do anything with everyones art so long as the signature is intact? You are annoyed if some dipshit sells mousepads or whatever with your art on it behind your back, right? Are you prepared to see a lot more of that with the added bonus of the total inability to do anything about it?
kecrambles answered:If someone is uncomfortable with the idea of anyone using their ideas or art, then they’re better off not participating.
Release the low-res art online if you want to participate but worry about people printing it off.
the whole point of creative commons is that it’s not behind her back any more; the license explicitly gives everyone permission to do that
copyleft (or even more liberal MIT-style licensing) is totally scary but it means more people can create more interesting things without worrying about treading on any legal toes. there will always be dicks in the world and you are probably best off not worrying too much about what they do. if all they’re doing is reselling your art as-is, what’s stopping you from doing that yourself? and if they added their own spin to your work, well hey, you just helped someone else do a little bit of creative expression.
creative commons is for enriching culture as a whole, at the cost of letting your children go explore the world for better or worse
i might have to write a big ol’ serious post on copyright and copyleft now
Anonymous asked:I'm just conflicted being a freelance artist myself, who depends on my work being sold for a living. It would definitely hurt me if others just sold my artwork and did whatever they'd like with it, as I am not a big company and would really suffer if someone just scanned comics that I've made and sold it digitally for cheap. I think I'll likely consider submitting to floraverse, but maybe not put as much effort into it as I would if I got to still own my art/characters.
why not sell them digitally yourself then?
fwiw people tend to flock to updates, which a bootlegger can’t very well provide
but yes, entirely your call
Anonymous asked:Does that mean you can literally take a bunch of art from the group, and as long as each artwork is credited, sell the book ? This is what is hanging me up with the liscense.
yes
of course, the book would also have to be licensed the same way, so someone could buy the book and scan it and give it away for free
or you could sell your own book!
Anonymous asked:I understand your comments as well, but my concern is from the standpoint of an indie creator -- someone who would not have the power that Nintendo has to stop someone from selling things of their original characters. Nintendo can shut people down and ask them to stop if they don't like what they're doing, but I would not be able to with my characters and ideas. I don't mind pk and the creators using my stuff for whatever, as it is their main idea, though.
well it’s up to you ultimately
but honestly i doubt you’ll have many problems
there are assholes in the world, sure, but not many of them are going to be swayed by the license anyway; you would not believe how many people sell tshirts and mugs and whatnot with mel’s art on them, and while she can ask they be taken down, who knows how much money has been made by then? it’s not like the money comes back, or goes to her in any way. and nothing really stops the same person from doing it again later.
fwiw i make a point of making all the work i do as freely available as possible, and while one or two people have made a few bucks off of it, for the most part i’m pretty happy just to have made the world a little richer
basically if you are going to submit anything to floraverse, please do this
this should produce Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 and give us the ability to make your stuff canon
the license basically says
- anyone can use or copy or give away or sell your work
- but your name has to be on it
- and they have to use the same license, so anyone can use or copy or give away or sell their work too
note that because flora itself is all going to be licensed as CC BY-SA, if you create anything in the same universe, you’re already bound by the third rule above and have to use a Creative Commons license
there is one tiny bit of leeway: if you don’t want anyone selling your stuff, you can (i believe) use CC BY-NC-SA instead, which is the same except no one else can sell your stuff or otherwise use it commercially (hence the NC, for Non-Commercial). however, if you choose to do this, we cannot ever stamp what you’ve created as canon, because it would add all kinds of insane complications to whether mel can sell comics of her own universe.
ok i hope that clears that up
Anonymous asked:About the floraverse copyright -- It comes off as if let's say I make a character, then anyone can make an entire comic of the character, draw it however they want, and sell merchandise and other things of the character I have created? This makes me a bit uncomfortable, like I wouldn't want to explore this character because of the potential of someone else taking it and doing whatever they like with it without my permission. Or is it more so with "canon" characters like the ones admins make
kecrambles answered:Adding to the last ask, but what I was asking is if it were possible to have others not claim ownership/take over the storyline of the characters we make if we choose to? I am just hesitant to make a storyline with a character if it can be taken at any point and done by someone else. Like, fanart and stuff is okay, but I wouldn’t be comfortable with someone else taking a character I made and saying “hey I like this character but not your story so I’m going to make my own with it w/o permission”
I understand your concern, but I have to use the “creative commons share alike” license, which means that everything in floraverse or using floraverse things also has to attribute the original (by way of linking to the group or being in the group or mentioning it or whatever), and also be share alike
the chances of someone taking your idea/story because they think it would be profitable would be very slim. the work would HAVE to be attributed to you and to the group, and with the spirit of openness we’re trying to promote, it doesn’t make sense that someone would do something against the grain or without even mentioning it to you first if it involved your idea.
please keep in mind that we have to do this so we can use anyone else’s ideas at all, but that *we admins* will always ask before we take and make something canon —even if we don’t need to— just because it’s polite to ask
if you make a note that you’d like people to *ask* about how they want to use your characters first, that should cut down on any incidents that will ruffle your feathers! I’m going to have to make a post on the group to address this specifically later, probably in the big FAQ we have to craft, but I hope for now that this helps!
the spirit of openness is what will lead to the success of this sandbox group for everyone, and I know it’s really hard because a lot of awful “what ifs” arise, but the positive aspects of contributing to something everyone can use I think should outweigh the negative aspects where people are disrespectful and inconsiderate.
consider that without creative commons, strictly speaking, you couldn’t (or shouldn’t) make a character at all
people make their own pokémon derivations and whatnot all the time, of course, but there’s nothing stopping game freak and nintendo from descending upon you with an army of lawyers. if you don’t like the idea that someone else could take your character and do something new with it and sell it… well, how do you think the people who own all the fandoms popular across tumblr and dA feel?
basically there’s no good way for this to work unless everyone’s working on the same level playing field
also note that the license requires that anyone reusing your stuff keeps your name on it, and that derivations use the same license—so while another person could certainly sell a comic with your characters in it, “piracy” of that comic would be perfectly legal
errantimpulses:
This is where are you are confusing "legally allowed” with “owns the rights”.
By drawing some Pokémon, an artist creates additional, new work not covered by any existing rights: the drawing itself. The Pokémon are inextricably linked with the drawing, yes, but the art is a new creation that didn’t exist before, and it belongs to the artist.
An image of a Pokémon is not automatically copyright to PCI; that’s ludicrous. Consider: if PCI had granted permission for an artist to draw Pokémon fan art, would PCI then still own the copyright of the drawing? By your reasoning they would; after all, they’d still own the rights to Pokémon.
Also, if PCI granted permission to Poprageous to print and sell Pokémon clothes, Poprageous would still not be allowed to sell someone else’s art.
Incidentally, as Pokémon are designs rather than single works, the status of copyright over them is somewhat fuzzy (which is why PCI holds a lot of Pokémon trademarks as well). A small handful of court cases have handwaved characters as having some sort of copyright protection, but these are species, not even characters. I wouldn’t suggest anyone actually fight them over it, but it’s slightly grayer than, say, adding a chapter to someone else’s book and selling it.
OK, let’s ditch the back-and-forth and go with the law, then. I’ve been giving Chapter 2 (about copyright ownership, which pretty clearly states it goes to the author) and Chapter 5 (about copyright infringement and remedies, which fails to mention anything you’ve said) a reading through, and I’ve found no mention of what you’re saying.
For reference, here are some mentions of derivative works in Chapter 1:
So even mere edits to existing material are covered by copyright — the author just doesn’t own all the existing parts.
Now, we do also have this:
This is the only mention I’ve found of how copyright interacts with unauthorized derivative works.
My reading of it is that the part you create is still covered by copyright, but there is one court case that would seem to indicate you just don’t get any copyright protection at all: Anderson v. Stallone, in which a scriptwriter sued Sylvester Stallone after the plot to Rocky IV turned out to be eerily similar to an unauthorized fan script the writer had come up with. The judge admitted that there was nothing solid to go on here and that the law and prior cases and even Congressional reports about the law were a bit murky, but ultimately erred on the side of Stallone, in the interest of not setting the precedent that the infringer could come back and hit the infringee with a copyright lawsuit. (See section IV.A.4 of the opinion.)
Incidentally, I did find an article about fan works on io9 which mentions this case, and claims that the court said Stallone owned the copyright to the “fan” script. But the court opinion, as far as I can tell, says absolutely no such thing.
I observe a few things here.
For one, this case doesn’t exactly have a nice tidy ending: the court also found that Rocky IV wasn’t actually all that similar to the fan script in the first place, and it was appealed and then ultimately settled out of court.
Now, at worst, this ruling sets the precedent that you don’t have copyright protection on fan work at all, period. Notice that both 103(a) and the judge’s opinion talk about copyright protection of derived work, rather than copyright. I take this to mean that you still own the copyright, but you can’t expect to take someone else to court over it. (The alternative is ludicrous: you wouldn’t know whether you owned the copyright over your own work until you went to court and tried to demonstrate fair use.)
But this is still fuzzy for what’s happening here. Consider that you can own copyright even over arrangements: if you take a bunch of public domain poems and put them in a book and sell it, you own the copyright to that particular arrangement of poems. The opinion even mentions this explicit case as a hypothetical: if one of those poems were still covered by someone else’s copyright, it shouldn’t invalidate your protection for the arrangement as a whole.
What does this mean for Pokémon, which are only covered by the copyright of their designs and lore? A drawing of all of them still produces brand new art of each one, and that art is arranged in a unique composition. The part that infringes PCI’s copyrights is something ethereal: the ability for them to be recognized as Pokémon. Is that more like the Stallone case, or the poem anthology?
Of course the real answer is: it doesn’t matter! Because these questions only matter in court — everywhere else it’s just so much hot air. Part of why this is all pretty murky is that as far as I’ve been able to find, there has never been a single case of a creator taking a fan artist to court. Not once. Anderson v. Stallone is the closest I could find, and that was the other way around!
It’s obvious why this might be the case: fictional universes thrive on fan work — it’s the fucking lifeblood of Tumblr — and to start suing your own fans in the days of the Internet and social whatnots would be utter suicide. Plus it’s basically free advertising, and keeps your thing in people’s minds for far longer than the source material would alone, with absolutely zero cost to you! Why mess with a good thing?
There’s the occasional cease and desist, of course, but those are very few and far between, and usually target fan work that’s getting a little too similar to something the creator has done or would like to do in the future. Which is why it tends to happen to, say, entire polished free derivative games, and not so much to artwork. It’s not like Nintendo is bleeding cash from all the people buying Pokémon prints from Mel; what else are those people going to do, buy Mel’s art from Nintendo?
So! Does Mel have copyright protection over Every Single Pokémon?
That doesn’t matter either!
Do I even need to spell this out? Look what’s happened here: the clothes were gone in a matter of hours, and thirteen thousand people are incensed over this story. There were no courts involved here. Nobody called a judge or a lawyer. Nobody sent a DMCA takedown notice. Nobody even wrote the phrase “To Whom It May Concern”.
Because as it turns out, people care about respecting the ownership of others’ work, and most of us have the same general understanding that fan work is just as deserving of respect as the material it’s based on. If you were trying to get a fledgling Internet business off the ground, which would you be more immediately concerned about? Going to court, or having tens of thousands of people pissed off at you?