Millennium Falcon clock

Everything Else
21

I would have to disagree. If the artist doesn’t want merchandise to exist, then merchandise shouldn’t exist. Can I produce a Calvin and Hobbes phone stand for my own personal use? Sure, and I have. I can even make them and give them away, but can I sell that phone stand? Absolutely not.

Of course this is different than the mass market stuff. Disney has merchandise for all of it’s properties, yet they let these artists continue to create and sell products using their IP. Watterson doesn’t have any merchandise, and the artists generally respect that (aside from a few “in the style of” items or those horrible Calvin peeing on stuff stickers)… or Watterson has great lawyers. I suspect that if I put my C&H phone stand on Etsy I’d get hit with a cease and desist pretty quickly.

3 Likes
22

I’m just gonna drop this video (maybe for the second time? If so, forgive me)

1 Like
23

I agree @chadmart1076. Just because the copyright holder is not looking at a particular avenue for their work, does not mean that they would want it commercialized.

Certainly derivative works fall under fair use, but the moment you start selling them it becomes a completely different animal

1 Like
24

Definitely a hard row to hoe! The idea that you can change an idea by 10% in order to avoid infringement is a myth. There is no magical degree of change that will make an idea “safe” from IP infringement. Factors that a judge will consider include whether or not the person creating the second work had exposure to the original, as well as whether or not the derivative work impacts the profits of the original. (There’s more, but I’m trying to avoid the soap box)

Don’t mean to lecture, and please forgive me for beating that poor sad horse again … but if there is one thing that I can contribute to this forum, I’d like to help cultivate awareness and a healthy respect for IP.

Agreed. I think a lot of companies recognize fan art for the wonderful tribute that it can be, and they see how it can actually help to promote or popularize their brand. Blizzard is a great example of a company that actually seems to encourage fan art. Disney OTOH, has a reputation for being downright vicious about their IP… don’t mess with Mickey! :wink:

5 Likes
25

Absolutely. I appreciate your opinion.

  • Tom
26

True for Mickey. But they still encourage the written (& satirical videos) of alternative or enhanced story lines in the Star Wars universe. Fan fiction is a major reason Star Wars lasted 40 years.

3 Likes
27

Fair point! I was just noticing @chadmart1076 's comment about Disney being so liberal with their IP, and I do see what you guys are saying. Wonder if their stance varies depending on the character or storyline? You’re so right about SW, but I’ve also seen retail costume designers get smacked down for designs based off of characters like Ursula or Maleficent.

1 Like
28

Us copyright and patent laws are terrible. Maybe after foreign trade, healthcare, deficit, etc., somebody in Washington could come up with some laws that actually make sense :wink: not holding my breath.

2 Likes
29

So I watched most of that video, and the gist of it seems to be that I should be fine creating all the fan art that I want, provided it doesn’t disparage the IP, and provided I’m not trying to pass it off as created by the IP owner, and provided I’m not trying to sell it.

It can’t be sold legally however. Still, the holder of the IP may or may not care unless you generate enough profit that they decide that they want their cut. As he asked the mystery artist “have you ever sold something with someone else’s IP?”, “yes”, “have you ever gotten in trouble for it?”, “yes”, “and when was that?”, “When I made over $100,000.”

And I looked on Etsy and there is a ton of C&H stuff on there… not that that makes it OK.

1 Like
30

Honestly I’ve never heard anybody say that before. I’m curious what you see as being wrong with those laws. (I’m not looking for a laundry list… Say your top 1 or 2.)

  • Tom
31

Top #1 for me. Someone searches patent applications, buys some of the more obscure patents from individuals and failing companies with no intention of producing a product. The intent is to make money by suing or extorting every other company that has any similar idea. Basically making money for doing nothing and producing nothing. Patent trolls.

7 Likes
32

So do you suggest that every person who applies for a patent should be required to file a business plan for it? I, personally, don’t think that’s a good idea at all.

Many many many discoveries are made that have no practical application at the time. You need to patent it as soon as possible so when you (or somebody) finally figures out something to do with it, your base is covered. Aside from possibly some morality issues, I see nothing wrong with “patent trolls.” I certainly can’t see a practical way for laws to be changed to discontinue the practice without severely damaging the intended use of patent applications.

  • Tom
33

I’ll say upfront that patents laws are far worse than copyright laws, but both have been hijacked to serve the powers that be. I’ll also say upfront that I am all for IP, copyrights and trademarks, but the way these have moved into the modern age are unfortunate.

Copyright Concerns

the stated purpose of US copyright was initially (and still officially) to “stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” The way Disney and others have used their corporate and financial power to both lobby and discourage competition goes directly in the face of that purpose. Part of the reasons, I believe (and I could be wrong here, I’m not an expert) that there were lifespans given to copyrighted material was because it was believed that after a certain amount of time those works should belong to the public for which they were created so as to encourage additional creativity. Ironically Disney (just as an example) thinks they should own the right to Mickey forever, yet all their animated works are based on other peoples works, some of which were certainly copyrighted, but the lifespan of the copyright had ended.

Second, the laws concerning “Fair Use” are so ambiguous as to mean very little. Basically it’s created a system where the ones who can spend the most on lawyers can force their hand every time.

And though there are other concerns my last primary gripe would be connected to fair use in regards to trademark usage. Having done film in the past this one really irks me. Companies can plaster their trademarks everywhere (in public spaces, specifically for the purpose of being seen far and wide) and yet be able to sue because their logo is then caught in the background of a particular shot. This is just my opinion (obviously), but something needs to be done that allows signs, trademarks, ect., that are purposefully place in public view to be fairly used (as part of the common landscape) as long as that use doesn’t disparage or intentionally suggest some type of endorsement. What copyright and trademark laws have done is allow corporations to buy up the public space so that it is not rally public anymore–at least copyright wise.

Oh, and bonus - if you didn’t create it you should be allowed to copyright it in the first place (I know a judge finally overturned the stupid “Happy Birthday” copyright, but come-on, that never should have got past first base in the first place.

Now patent laws–someone already mentioned the whole trolling system that our system seems to promote, and that’s the major problem. The fact that working prototypes are no longer required, that too often simple concepts, without any kind of proof they work are frequently granted patients, and like with copyright law the government has allowed large corporations to shift the law from protecting the greater good as a whole, to becoming a weapon against every-day creativity.

I’m on a soapbox now, and I’ve already preached my sermon for the week so I’ll stand down. Again, I believe that copyright and patent laws are necessary for a society to function he way it should, but our laws and the governing bodies that oversee them I believe have lost their way some what.

10 Likes
34

The length of copyright terms has certainly become absurd, thanks to Disney’s lobbying to extend copyright duration every time Mickey comes close to landing in the public domain.

The US Constitution empowers Congress to create patent and copyright laws “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

But with the way the copyrights keep being extended, “for limited times” has lost all practical meaning. :frowning:

9 Likes
35

There are whole books written on how to repair the patent system and discourage the type of patent trolling that lock up technologies. Don’t have a preferred solution. Just a personal opinion that I think of patent trolls to be a waste of skin.

6 Likes
36

Disney will hunt you down and kill you & your progeny if you mess with 101 Dalmations stuff :smile: They’re incredibly protective of that one. Funny that it was a film they almost didn’t make/release. Lots of internal conflict at Disney Studios (and Walt himself) on that one.

3 Likes
37

I just think of my engineer friend who works for a major international medical device company, who once said to me,
“A big part of my job is going through internal idea notebooks, and red-tagging the ones we can’t even start thinking about working on, because some underlying bit of process here or there is owned by someone else, who for whatever reason either can’t or won’t develop it. There is probably a cure for cancer sitting on a shelf somewhere, gathering dust.”

3 Likes
38

Yep. The company I used to work for spent millions over the years buying patents off the trolls. I think it was just easier.

1 Like
39

It is a fundamental issue of property rights. We determine who has a right to property. Those with property have more power. Too bad we can’t agree to make valuable property more accessible to all.

7 Likes
40

Like Tesla opening their parents to all. Elon’s explaination was he was trying to develop sustainable transportation, and if he laid intellectual landmines behind him it defeated the purpose.

10 Likes