#IP Law

[spaghettioverdose]

[ot3]

Hey! The link to your FAQ wasn't working for me so I don't know if this question has been asked before. I really appreciate your perspectives on AI art. Do you happen to have any resources that you read/listened to on intellectual property rights and the issues with it? I just don't really know where to start with it.

[heres where i cut out a big paragraph of me, once again, bitching about how blog pages don't work on the tumblr app and i think that's fucking stupid]

anyway i dont have any generalized sources on the subject but the tl;dr of it is: intellectual property rights exclusively benefit people who have the resources to pursue sustained litigation. 99% of the time, what IP law is being used for is to reinforce corporate ownership of work that was done by their employees.

the whole disco elysium debacle is a great case study.

The shareholders of ZA/UM accused the trio of, among other things, intending to steal intellectual property (IP) from the company — a curious accusation, considering that the world of the game is based off of a novel written by Kurvitz himself. The case of Disco Elysium illustrates the shortcomings of IP rights as protection for artists. Consequently, it contains a lot of lessons for the labor movement when it comes to the arts, and serves as a reminder that creative workers are, at the end of the day, workers. But this is not just an academic exercise. It’s a human story about the intimate consequences of capitalist exploitation. “I got my soul ripped out of me,” Kurvitz told me over Zoom in April of 2023. “I got my skull cracked open and my brain lifted out of it by a fifty-five-year-old financial criminal.”

another example: alex norris of webcomic name, which you will probably recognize when you see it, has been raising hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past several years to try and keep up with the protracted legal battle over maintaining ownership of his own work.

I have been fighting this case since 2019. It arose out of an agreement to make a boardgame based on my webcomic in 2017 but the publishing company has used this as an opportunity to take all of my intellectual property, and has even claimed ownership of Webcomic Name as a whole. I can't go into more detail here, but the details of the case are publicly available to read online.

Then, in a 2024 update:

I have essentially won the main case based on the decisions made last summer. The Judge has clearly stated that I own my comics, and that the other party has infringed on my copyright. It is not over yet, as there are still a few things that need to happen. Hopefully things will all be wrapped up this year. After 6 years of legal battling, I can’t wait to be free of all of this. Hopefully, this second case will backfire, and they will be sanctioned for filing it. But to get to that point requires a frustratingly large amount of work, time and money.

An interesting thing about both of these two specific instances is that they involve creators who had entire bodies of work produced around the specific IPs that were stolen from them before they even began partnering with corporate entities to produce works. which is insane! you can spend years writing novels, drawing comics, and if a company comes in with enough lawyers they can own those ideas.

this is pretty distinctly different to me than instances of work you do while being employed by a corporate entity being owned by that corporate entity, because at least you know what you're getting into there to some degree, but i still think that's bad too. consider stuff like the owl house and gravity falls, two disney shows made by people who very very clearly did not like working for disney. disney owns their ideas, their characters, their worlds, because that's the price you pay for having an animated show produced.

essentially it's very very clear upon even the slightest examination that intellectual property in no way exists to codify who the creator responsible for specific creative concepts or works is. it exists to turn nebulous things like 'ideas' into market commodities, and to funnel the profits made by the labor of individual artists and writers into corporate bank accounts.

the only person who has ever really benefited from IP law as an individual trying to lay claim to their own work is ken penders, who notoriously won his suit to have ownership of characters and storylines he created. heartbreaking: Worst Person You Know Gets An Unequivocally Deserved Legal W.

The comics continued under Flynn’s direction as if nothing happened, but things started looking grim in late 2012, when Archie suddenly fired its entire legal team. The company had been unable to produce Penders’ work-for-hire contract, which would have given control of his creations to Sega. Penders claimed the contract had never existed. A heavily circulated Tumblr post outlining the case (which has been corroborated as a reliable source by Penders) explains that while Archie did provide a photocopy of a contract allegedly signed by Penders in 1996, Penders claimed that the document was a forgery. That it was neither an original copy nor a contract from the beginning of the writer’s tenure at Archie meant that its validity was questionable. Making things worse, Archie couldn’t produce an original copy of any previous contributor’s contract, meaning that any writer or artist who had worked on the Archie Sonic line could potentially follow in Penders’s footsteps and reclaim their work. “So are you saying prior counsel blew it?” the presiding judge asked Archie counsel Joshua Paul in a May 2013 court session. His reply was unequivocal: “Absolutely, your Honor.”

So yeah. Owning the work you do as an artist is only something that happens when the people trying to profit off of it show unprecedented and staggering level of incompetence in their legal teams.

Then, alongside not owning the concepts and ideas you produce while working with corporate entities, there's the issue of NDA regarding specific pieces you've produced. This causes a LOT of trouble for freelance illustrators/character designers/concept artists, etc. Looking for work is very hard when the past three years of pieces you've drawn can't be added to your portfolio. Some people have password protected pages on their portfolios that they use for NDA work, but I believe the right to do this varies depending on your contract. I'm not 100% sure. In cases where the project you worked on eventually comes out, that's one thing, but there will be instances where the entire project gets canned after all the work is done, but is still under NDA so essentially all of your work has been taken from you, crumpled up into a ball by a studio executive, thrown in the trash can, and legally you are not allowed to go pick it out of the bin and try and flatten it out again.

This has all been pretty art-focused because that's the kind of circles I run in and where a lot of my interests lie but the truth is none of this is even remotely close to as evil IP law gets. I've saved the most egregious for last: The Lakota Language Consortium

The Lakota Language Consortium had promised to preserve the tribe’s native language and had spent years gathering recordings of elders, including Taken Alive’s grandmother, to create a new, standardized Lakota dictionary and textbooks.  But when Taken Alive, 35, asked for copies, he was shocked to learn that the consortium, run by a white man, had copyrighted the language materials, which were based on generations of Lakota tradition. The traditional knowledge gathered from the tribe was now being sold back to it in the form of textbooks.

When you're in defense of IP law, this is what you're siding with. This is the rational endpoint of IP and it is neither a fluke nor an example of the concept being twisted against its original design. Art, culture, language, it belongs to whoever is most capable of turning it into a product. The economic incentives of producing and distributing arts and culture demand this is how things be.

Meya says his work is a vital tool in preserving the Lakota language, which did not previously have a standardized written form. He estimated that there are fewer than 1,500 fluent Lakota speakers left and that over the last decade and a half, the organization has helped add 50 to 100 more. “Just because money is involved in it does not inherently make it an evil thing,” Meya said in a recent interview with NBC News. Most of the products his organizations make are free, he said, but the cost of printing textbooks has to come from somewhere. “That tends to be sometimes part of the rhetoric, ‘Oh, there’s money involved. It must be, you know, part of the overall colonization effort.’ Well, you know, that’s just not realistic.”

Artists looking to force their way into the class of people who gets protected by these laws are not looking out for their community. They are not protecting anything but their own perceived financial interests. Intellectual property will never, ever benefit the most marginalized members of creative communities and anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is huffing some serious copium.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone can or should 'own' things like Ideas or Specific Aesthetic Flairs. But even if you do believe in that, IP law isn't the framework for handling it.

[tim-official]

after reading robert kurvitz's novel (supposed to be the first in a long series) and playing disco elysium (one of the most beautiful things i have ever experienced), and then seeing his studio and his life's work wrenched away by IP law, kept from him - i have zero respect for anyone who suggests that IP law could be expanded to help "protect artists from theft of their work" or any other vaguely-stated offence to your notions of artistic integrity. you should have no respect for this position either. it is an indefensible position. if you hold this view you are either 1) legitimately want to live in a world where all stories, all art, all expression is closed-source and gatekept by the moldiest, least-human lawyers that nintendo, disney, and universal music group can dig up or 2) you are a useful idiot for group 1. you cannot make this work

[toastedpopsicle]

Imagine believing there's anything just about imprisoning someone over fucking video game clips. IP law is such flagrant violence and so fucking counterethical to the natural act of creation.

Remember that if you think ideas and images can be owned, you agree that violations of that ownership deserve the full violence of imperial carcecal systems.

[titleknown]

I will say, a big part of my salt wrt the "AI" Art debate is that like...

...Well, I've hated the modern copyright/IP system for years before this, and in that time I've come across a lot of people who not only think the current state of copyright is good, but that it should be even more draconian.

Like, I have seen the arguments that derivative work is inherently lesser rather than its own millieu, that artists getting collective access to the work of generations is "cheating" and it being walled off is just fine.

I've seen arguments that copyright should be perpetual, from my college producing teacher no less, who's most major producing job was on one of the worst modern horror remakes ever (The Fog).

Hell, I've seen arguments that derivative works should not exist at all, for fear of diminishing the sacred rights of the author. The guy who did that chased me off the server I was on, so there's some extra bitterness there.

The point is, I've seen for years all of these shitty arguments defending modern copyright and wanting its reach to go further, and I see the big arguments against AI art and I see the fact that they're coming from that same ideology. Like, not even the broad strokes, but even the same specific arguments about "stealing" and effort, they're mirror images.

And I see that they're trying to and distressingly often succeeding in radicalizing people towards that same ideology, despite how we constantly see that ideology really fucking things over in stuff like the Internet Archive case or the various purges of fangame sites and piracy-preservation sites.

And it really pisses me off and makes me feel alone that people don't believe me when I tell them this, despite my long outspoken-ness on and knowlege of this subject, because my reach is less than the Realistic Pokemon Guy (Who's always been gatekeep-y, even over traditional art), an NFT bro-ette and a literal ex-RIAA ghoul...

[derpymule]

Hey, I don't appreciate you saying what I believe without even knowing me. I'm Ancom, I don't believe Capitalism provides anything but starvation wages for anyone except the rich fucks at the top. However I am pointing out that while we are *stuck* in this situation, stealing from another artist, not some corporation but an artist, is kind of shitty and taking what they could possibly need to survive.

By your logic, Disney could take someone's artwork, copy it and make it their own, with no payment, no need to do anything. Said artist could be surviving paycheck to paycheck, barely scraping by, or not even surviving paycheck to paycheck, needing medical/financial help, and they're desperately trying to get commissions in order to get it. But hey it's just art and it didn't *steal* the original, right? So Disney shouldn't have to pay or do anything, right? That artist should just get fucked because they put all that work into something, and someone else came along, scooped it up, and just claimed it as their own. Personally I'd rather corporations like Disney didn't exist, but this is the world we currently exist in.

My counter is this: what exactly has the artist lost in this situation? Their followers will still know they made the work first, so there’s no loss there. People who would have found it will still find it, and if it’s posted online they’ll have proof to show those people that they made it first. It’s not like the copy entirely replaces the original, both exist and the original will remain exactly as popular as it would have been anyway.

But, there’s an added aspect. These days, if a corporation steals fanart or something, they get massively called out. The company takes a reputation hit and the original artist gains a massive following from the publicity the drama produces. This is, unequivocally, a loss for the copier and a win for the original artist, no copyright law needed. Now, why exactly do you think this wouldn’t happen in a world without copyright law? Companies may try to steal works, but they will basically always get called out on it. And even if they didn’t, they’re still introducing a large amount of people to that specific kind of art, people who may very well search for more of the same and find that original artist. And even if only something like 1 in 1000 people do this, those large corporations regularly get 10s-100s of thousands of engagements, which means 10s-100s of people redirected to this artist.

To follow up on that: is this not a huge gain for the community? If it’s art good enough that a large corporation is willing to associate it with themselves, that means it’s art that will enrich many people who see it. This would have been art only a few people saw, but now it will reach several orders of magnitude more people who may be inspired or encouraged. Imagine if the Mona Lisa, or any other incredibly influential work, had been made by a tiny artist with a negligible following. Would it not be far preferable if a larger artist, one capable of corralling a large audience, displayed it among their own work? Would that not be far, far better for the entire art world? Do you not wonder how much work, how many cultural shifts have been lost to time because a small artist was too protective of their work and so it died with them?

I should clarify, this still isn’t optimal. In the best case scenario, big corporations would take fan works and display them, but they would credit the original artist. And I personally believe this would be how it would generally go in a world without copyright law, out of fear of reputation hits if nothing else (it’s not like it costs corporations anything to credit). But my argument here is that even in the worst case scenario, where corporations “steal” art with absolute abandon, there is still no real loss to the original artist, in fact in most cases there is gain, and there is always gain for the wider community. There is literally zero downside to this scenario for anyone but the corporations themselves, who will lose their stranglehold over IP.

[greatwyrmgold]

If superheroes and supervillains were real, a lot of them would commit trademark infringement.

You'd have gun-toting vigilantes using the Punisher's death-head iconography even if they didn't call themselves the Punisher, which a lot of them would.

By the same token, there would be a ton of petty supervillains in white makeup calling themselves Jokers, even if their makeup skills and cheap costumes did absolutely nothing to make them look more like The Joker than Bozo the Clown.

Local superheroes are gonna call themselves Spider-Man or Cyborg or Deku or Wolverine or whatever. What are the IP holders gonna do? File a cease and desist? Even odds that the cops are out for blood, or at least trying to arrest the local menace for some overblown charge.

And don't get me started on capes who steal their names from other capes that actually exist. Kid heroes who look up to Exampleman calling themselves Example Boy or something. Sleazy pros choosing a codename that implies association with a big-name hero who doesn't know they exist until they receive complaints from fans. Villains trying to murder each other over the right to call themselves the Crimson Reaper.

[cadyrocks]

A short overview of Nintendo's recent stance on tournaments running their games:

fee for competing (including location fee) capped at $20 - say bye to tournaments run at convention centers, which is kinda moot anyways, because...

Maximum of 200 competitors offline, maximum of 300 online

Maximum payout of $5000, $10,000 per 12-month period per TO.

Sponsors are completely banned

You can't use character art or logos in your tournament's branding

Online tournaments have to use Nintendo's online services (RIP Melee/Brawl online play - Brawl technically has it, but nobody uses it because it's completely awful)

Your tournament may not "Include anything that damages the value of the Nintendo brand and Intellectual Property" - hello vague and threatening legal clause

Can't sell food, water (!!!), or merch at events

Commercial events require a direct negotiation with Nintendo - if you remember Smash World Tour, you remember how this tends to work out.

Can't use accessories/controllers not licensed by Nintendo (for example, controllers modded for accessibility purposes)

There's more, but that seems like the most important stuff.

Utterly disgusting shit.

[ecrivainsolitaire]

Open Art Guild – Testing the boundaries of collective IP ownership

Experimental release: Dr. T’chem’s Office (authorised for personal and commercial use)

I’ll try to keep this brief (you can read the full thesis statement here) but as we all know, intellectual property law is broken. It’s being exploited from every side and art workers are more vulnerable than ever to automation, copyright theft and myriad other unforeseeable forms of theft from the proletariat. We as a collective need to come together and work towards the creation of a better future.

The Open Art Guild is my proposal for the first of many steps towards a far away but necessary goal: the eradication of intellectual property as it pertains to the arts. It’s based on the open source standard and the creative commons, and the goal is for us to start creating a future where we stop thinking of artworks as private property to hoard, and start sharing the responsibilities and the benefits of their creation with the collective. And as I am proposing the idea, I should give the first step.

Which is why I am announcing the release of my short story series, Dr. T’chem’s Office, into the Open Art Guild license. This is an episodic HFY comedy series about the office hours of a sleazy yet well intentioned xenoanthropologist in charge of human integration into the crew of a spaceship, who happens to find them fascinating. You can read the first few instalments here:

| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 |

The basics of the license go as follows: I’m giving any artist permission to use the assets of my artwork (in this case, settings, characters, plot lines and other unique concepts) both for personal use and for commercial use, provided they commit to crediting the original artist, giving away 30% of any profit back to the hands of the collective in the breakdown the guidelines specify, and giving the same license to any works they create derivative from this series. Any artist can join the Guild by remixing existing artworks in its database or voluntarily submitting their own works. For the time being this prototype model will have to rely on the honour system, but I have outlined the basic guidelines for a platform dedicated to facilitating the Guild’s business and income redistribution.

The purpose of this experiment is to test whether this system is financially viable, what modifications it needs, and how to enforce it. It’s also a way to study what the community thinks of this model. To summarise the implications, here are the pros and cons as I see them.

Pros:

- All fan art, spin-offs, third-party merchandise and other forms of adaptation become automatically authorised and monetisable, provided both the original artist and the remixer are active members of the Guild.

- All adaptations are automatically non-exclusive and must give away the same rights as the original, diminishing the incentive for massive corporations to try and scam an artist out of their intellectual property.

- It effectively unionises freelance artists of all fields to balance out negotiations with non Guild entities.

- It encourages artists to continue their output in order to reap the benefits of the Guild, by using the redistribution system as an incentive, instead of the current status quo where artists are actively fighting market forces all by themselves in order to make enough time and resources to work on their craft.

- It provides a safety net where everyone is invested in the continuous welfare of everyone else, giving a sense of class solidarity and facilitating donations and shared resources.

- It motivates artists to invest in each other, as the growth of one means the growth of the whole Guild.

- Eventually, if the project succeeds and the proposed platform comes to exist, it would effectively create a universal basic income for all Guild members, as well as a self sustained legal fund to protect their assets from IP theft by non Guild entities.

- It will give you complete control over whether your art can be used for AI dataset training, on an opt-in, post-by-post basis, so you don’t have to wonder who might be stealing it. If the platform is created, all works whose creators have not authorised to be used for this will have data scrambling features to make sure thieves can’t use them.

Cons:

- It will require all Guild members to permanently renounce to 30% of their profit, in order to build up the funds and distribution system.

- It will have to be built entirely on trust of the collective, at least until a platform can be established, which may take weeks or may take decades depending on lots of unpredictable factors.

- Leaving the Guild will require all artworks shared with the collective to become Creative Commons; once you renounce your right to monopoly of your IP, it’s permanent, no way to go back. This is necessary in order to prevent asset flippers and other forms of IP scabs to join the Guild, extract other people’s assets and then scram.

- Due to banking regulations entirely out of our hands, some artists will have participating in the redistribution. If the platform ever becomes a reality, one of its main goals will be to remedy this immediately.

This proposal requires a high cost, but it provides an invaluable reward. If the system works, it will empower all artists to profit from their work and protect it as a collective. If it doesn’t, all that will have happened is that you will have created a lot of Creative Commons art, which financially isn’t ideal, but artistically is extremely commendable. Even in the worst case scenario, corporations will not be able to hold your art hostage with exclusivity deals. To me, the benefits vastly outweigh the costs, but I do want to emphasise: there will be costs. This is an effort to subvert the entire way art has been monetised since the 1700s. It will require a lot of work, a lot of people, and a lot of time, to make it work. But I believe it can work. If you believe it too, you are welcome to join the Open Art Guild.

Please do read the guidelines for the Guild and the guidelines for the platform before you start creating, and give me whatever feedback you have. If it’s good, if it’s lacking, if I’m overstepping legal boundaries, if you can find loopholes, anything. I tried to make it airtight but I’m not a legal expert. This is not my project, it is a project for the proletariat. Everyone should have a say on what they’re signing on for. And regardless of what you think, share it with all artists you can. This will only work if as many people as possible participate.

Doctor T’chem’s Office’s license

This work has been released under the Open Art Guild license, and has been approved for reuse and adaptation under the following conditions:

For personal, educational and archival use, provided any derivative works also fall under a publicly open license, to all Guild members and non members.

For commercial use, provided redistribution guidelines of the Guild be followed, to all active Guild members.

For commercial use to non Guild members, provided any derivative works also fall under a publicly open license, with the explicit approval of the artist and proper redistribution of profit following the guidelines of the Guild.

For non commercial dataset training of open source generative art technologies, provided the explicit consent of the artist, proper credit and redistribution of profit in its entirety to the Guild.

Shall this work be appropriated by non Guild members without proper authorisation, credit and redistribution of profit, the non Guild entity waives their right to intellectual property over any derivative works, copyrights, trademarks or patents of any sort and cedes it to the Creative Commons, under the 4.0 license, irrevocably and unconditionally, in perpetuity, throughout time and space in the known multiverse. The Guild reserves the right to withhold trade relations with any known infractors for the duration its members deem appropriate, including the reversal of any currently standing contracts and agreements.

[thecurioustale]

Art Begets Art and the Law Should Respect This

I believe in the tradition of folk art, which is to say: Borrow liberally and lovingly.

It's a practice we've been mostly sterilized from embracing in our modern corporatist society, where all of the big-name, commonly-recognizable "IPs" are imprisoned behind layer after layer of obnoxious lawyers with nothing better to do than torment the innocent. It's a terrible thing, a deprivation of our cultural oxygen—a crime against art and ethics.

As an artist myself, I often have to thread the needle of building upon the inspiring works of others while still remaining within the letter of our outrageous IP laws. It's something I think about a lot.

In Galaxy Federal, for instance, I mentioned last time that the name "Galaxy Federal" was inspired, among other things, by the mention of the "Galaxy Federal Police" title screen of the original Metroid game. When I was settling on this title for my series, I also found that Galaxy Federal is the trademarked name of a bank. I spent considerable time and mental resources, years ago, to determine to my satisfaction that it is permissible under the law for me to use this title.

I have to do way too much of this bullshit, and I know it'll still be for naught: If I ever do become an even remotely successful author, I'm sure I'll be sued anyway, probably for something I never even realized was an "infringement" despite all my vigilance. Because, at the end of the day, for big corporations and for IP trolls, our IP laws are just a racketeering scheme—a side hustle. I mean, Best Western trademarked the word "seniority." If someone wants to sue you, they're gonna find a way.

I am not really a "from scratch" writer. I don't sit down at a blank page and just come up with prose from first principles. My art is almost always inspired by things that I experience in my life, or by the ideas that result from those experiences. Sometimes—frequently, even—my inspirations come from things that are copyrighted or trademarked. I have written in the past about the influence of the video game The Secret of Mana on me as a kid. Among many other inspirations, that game has a neat sandship in it, and that's why the desert easts of Relance are prevalent with sandships.

Over the years I've become a pro at reinterpreting IP-blocked inspirations into usable, original ones—both in terms of the legal research I've done and the skills I've developed at transforming an IP-blocked inspiration into something usable. I've also become more knowledgeable about what I can get away with quoting directly: Certain things cannot be copyrighted, and trademarks have a finite zone of applicability.

It's all a very needless and skill-intensive ballet to achieve something that should be directly accessible. Obviously, there do need to be limits. As an artist myself, I am keenly aware that I wouldn't want to have no special claim to my own work. But if I were to rewrite our outrageous IP laws—and over the years I have amassed considerable material for a book on this—I would make it vastly easier for artists and the public in general to "borrow liberally and lovingly" from the sources that inspire them. Our current IP laws are like a crime-ridden police state: The security is in all the wrong places and just doesn't work. We could relax the laws considerably without hurting artists, and potentially even tighten them in other respects to better combat trolls and thieves.

But in the meantime, here's my advice: Don't let it daunt you. Dance the friggin' ballet. Get good at transformation. Liberate intellectual property from its prison in spirit if not in substance. And, when you're fearless and/or sufficiently obscure, just straight-up pirate. I think society has a duty to reject unjust laws through word and deed.

I don't usually don my pirate's hat, but I do sometimes. When I published the Prelude in 2015, for a limited time I also published a free companion soundtrack consisting entirely of, gasp, copyrighted music. Nowhere is the horror of our modern IP laws more evident than in the realm of music. What I did was basically create a curated playlist, to help set the mood of the story. I don't know if anyone even availed themselves of that soundtrack, yet for me to license all of those pieces to make my limited-time links lawful would have cost me thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars! All for something that it's possible nobody other than me even listened to. That's a crime against art. And it's a crime against artists. Our draconian IP laws hurt small artists the most. If I had had thousands of fans, I'd have been able to pay to play—and I would have done so, or perhaps I would have spent the equivalent money to hire composers to write an original soundtrack. But, as a nobody-artist and a poor person, whose own Curious Score musical compositions are long in the making, the lawful avenues are all unassailably closed off to me. This too is an injustice, of another sort.

Doing the companion soundtrack was the right thing to do in the tradition of folk art. None of those other artists (or, let's be real, the corporate goliaths that hoard most of this "content" in their treasure-vaults) was deprived of a single penny; in fact that's one of the great lies of the IP lawyers and their corporate masters: Cultural interchange usually improves income for people whose work is quoted by others. Borrow liberally and lovingly—and give credit where credit is due.

That's the way it should be.

And, one day, that's how it will be again.

[cinema-hallucinations]

Prompt: Create a movie concept set in an post-apocalyptic world the fall of human civilization was (somehow!) caused by overzealous copyright enforcement.

Secondary prompt: Adjust to fit into this background: The copyright enforcement system was designed to be impossible to shutdown. When the first corporation fell in the economic collapse, enforcers could no longer confirm whether the work or patent it supposedly owned could be reused (either via legit license or because of being in the public domain) and they just started destroying or erasing everything, including, for example, the people whose likeness was present in their own licensed portraits. Things rapidly escalated into total civilization collapse. Now the survivors must find a way to register all culture as public domain or be ruthlessly erased.

IPocalypse Now: Remnants of Culture

Logline: In a post-apocalyptic world where copyright enforcement has run amok, a lone survivor must navigate a landscape of intellectual property disputes and copyright trolls while searching for a way to register all culture as public domain and prevent further destruction.

Logline: DMCA was just the beginning.

Setting: The world has been ravaged by a series of "copyright purges," where automated enforcement systems, designed to be indestructible, seized control and began ruthlessly destroying any content deemed to be infringing on intellectual property rights. Cities have been reduced to rubble, libraries and museums have been emptied, and the once vibrant human culture is on the brink of extinction.

Characters:

Elias (30s): A passionate bibliophile and historian, Elias is one of the few survivors of the copyright purges. He carries a hidden database of cultural knowledge, determined to preserve it for future generations.

The Enforcers (various ages and appearances): A faceless army of drones and robots, armed with laser cannons and copyright infringement scanners. They continue to patrol the wasteland, relentlessly seeking out and destroying any unauthorized content.

The Resistance (various ages and backgrounds): A group of survivors who have banded together to fight the copyright enforcers and preserve what remains of human culture.

Plot:

Elias discovers that the copyright enforcement system has become corrupted. With the collapse of major corporations, the system can no longer verify ownership of intellectual property. As a result, it has gone haywire, destroying everything from art and music to historical records and even the likenesses of individuals.

Elias joins the Resistance, a group of survivors fighting to protect the remnants of human culture. Together, they devise a plan to register all existing cultural works as public domain, making them immune to copyright enforcement.

The journey is fraught with danger. The enforcers are relentless, and the Resistance must constantly evade their patrols and find hidden safe havens. Along the way, Elias encounters other survivors, each with their own unique skills and knowledge.

Themes:

The dangers of unchecked technology: The film explores the consequences of allowing technology to run rampant, particularly when it comes to enforcing laws.

The importance of intellectual freedom: The characters fight for the right to access and share information, emphasizing the value of human creativity and expression.

The resilience of the human spirit: In the face of adversity, the survivors demonstrate the power of hope and determination to rebuild a shattered world.

Ending:

Through a series of daring missions and strategic planning, Elias and the Resistance manage to register a significant portion of human culture as public domain. The enforcers, unable to distinguish between protected and unprotected content, are forced to retreat. The film ends with Elias and his companions standing amidst a newly established cultural archive, a symbol of humanity's resilience and the enduring power of ideas.

[casuallyirregular]

(Disclaimer: I’m not trying to discourage anyone from pursuing law. Just trying to prepare anyone considering it)

Law School is exhausting and very difficult. Everyday the reading stacks up and it’s so easy to fall behind. First, make absolutely sure law is right for you. Talk to attorneys, try to shadow someone, work in law somehow, you can also ask current students (including me)!

That said, when you find your niche in law, things tend to work out for you!

[gameshowtrainwreck]

A step by step guide to making something with a niche application in Godot 4, as laid out like a cooking blog giving you a recipe (with art elements I've made for it)

A person has to have influences. Not just in who inspires them to create art, but who inspires them in their planning their avenues of attack, their planning, their sheer fuckin' gumption.  the utter balls they have to even show up after that nonsense they pulled last week. Nobody has ever said that about me, but life has a way of beating every last ounce of shame out of a person to the point where they feel there is the chance that could happen.

In my case, there are the people i think those who know me would say i would pick: people in game shows, people for whom 'bastard' has been an exclamation of both high praise and low curse. People like Jay Wolpert, for being perhaps the most experimental producer in an especially commercial genre (Whew, Shopping Spree, for attempting to make Trivial Pursit somehow exciting to watch instead of just to play); Bob Stewart, for being the man in the right place at the right time (one of those times was hearing Monty Hall tell him that old man goodson was looking for people); Reg Grundy, the aussie tv producer who would go on research trips to new york, spending the entire week in a hotel room with a copy of tv guide, a pen, and a composition book with a masking tape label bearing the caution of "original game show ideas do not steal" —and i am totally not hating on Grundy for that; IANAL but I've observed enough of it to make the opinion that you can protect how a game looks, reads, and sounds, but games are processes, and the intellectual property system here in the US does not protect the processes of baking a cake/formulating a fragrance/giving away merchandise to members of the general public according to arbitrarily set metrics presented as competitions of skill.

There have been at least two or three court cases where somebody *tried* to sue one show for being "too much like" another game show, but those what weren't settled out of court (most recently Tokyo Broadcasting System vs Endemol over Wipeout being too much like Takeshi's Castle), were dismissed outright (e.g. Chuck Barris vs Haim Saban, over the defendant's I'm Telling being too much like The Newlywed Game. The judge said nobody had a claim on inane bullshit and told all parties involved to stop wasting the court's time). Hell, it's the reason why Words With Friends was left unscathed (and eventually bought out) by Hasbro while Scrabulous had to shut down– Scrabulous danced a little to close of the “reasonable person” argument, in that there were actual ways people *could* confuse Scrabulous for Scrabble in that they used a similar board layout, similar scoring, etc.

But my influences extend beyond game shows, like film director/producer william castle, probably the most successful boilermaker hollywood could ever offer out of postwar america; there was a talk he gave to a college class. even though you might be able to tell in the speech that he felt somewhat disrespected by a class who knew him just from the movies he directed, he gave advice that stuck with me, even if the exact quote has peeled off in a couple of places in my mind from age: 'a producer is someone who is willing to step into any role in a project to see it through to completion.’ and I would say that's not just useful for having an understanding of how it all works, but it is incredibly important for a producer to learn patience, especially for anybody a producer works with. By learning how to edit, learning how to direct, and so on, you have an appreciation for the skills you're only just dipping your toes in; these are people who committed to that particular role and they are no less worthy of the patience, respect, and money that you would want for yourself for this.

Which has been why I've been learning Godot 4. That, and I am both too fucking broke to pay anybody else. Also there's the ifetime of neurodivergent trauma has made hyperindependence A Thing for me. That self-reliance, the rural Appalachian definition of it at least, is a Key Sign of Adulthood, and that an inability to do everything on your own is a choice of slothfulness. I can't ask people for help when I am still trying to figure out what it is I need help with. And if I hate being asked to help with no ready instructions on what to do, why would I want to put anybody else through the same thing?

So I try to learn it all and do it all. It's why a man in his 40s is just starting out in a career that most everybody else in his peer group are developing midlife crises over. It's why a man who has worked what was available hasn't been able to work what he wants to do, and why he still weeps at the end of the day over the years where it turned out he wasn't lazy or flawed or worthless, but had to work even harder just to get the same level of normal everybody else had no trouble managing.

I've also got in the habit of writing the stuff I've learned down, so if anybody else is looking to do the same thing, maybe they will have more time and energy to get to places I've not been able to find because I've had to do this, first.

So, if anyone is inclined/interested in making their own quiz projects, or just having a goofy little graphical element to represent a value within a game they are building, here's the workflow I've found so far for making trilons (the old fashioned flippy boxes like you see on $25,000 Pyramid) in Godot4:

(1) Make a new 3d scene. Add a new MeshInstance3D node to it, Look in the Inspector for the mesh just created > look for Mesh in the first entry > click the dropdown box next to it > select New Prism Mesh. Set initial mesh dimensions 1:0.866:1-- whatever changes made after this will keep things conforming to these initial proportions.

(2) find center mass: adjust it along your pivot axis by half of the height ( 0.866*0.5, or 0.433; look for inspector > transform > position > y-axis), then take that result and subtract the height, divided by 3 (0.433 - (0.866/3), or 0.144 in the same field)

(3) make your initial positioning; depending on where and how you wanna put it, the info i need to display on this is a maximum of three lines of text with some graphical highlights added. A landscape orientation will be what I need here. to that end, i set the rotation on the y-axis field to 90, so that only one face is visible to the camera when seen from the front. The pivot for its initial/"home" position itself will be done later.

(4) size it to spec; because we set the initial dimensions in step one, we can use the scale fields to size it to the specifications and still keep things equilateral. In the layout I've designed, I will need three of these, the faces of which being 295x95 pixels. Each face will need to be able to fit these proportions, so the x axis needs to stay at 1, the y-axis needs to be requested height divided by 100 (95/100 or 0.95 inspector > transform > scale > y-axis), the z-axis needs to be the width done the same way (295/100 or 2.95, next field over)

(5) create the controller; create a new Node3D, set the MeshInstance3D as a child to it. this will be what will have the animations attached to it later on. I renamed mine to 'controller,' because I lack an imagination at three-thirty in the morning.

(6) Set its starting position; change focus from the MeshInstance3D to its adoptive parent, bringing its fields up in the inspector. The default state needs to have one face as the only one being visible. The easiest thing I have found to do, especially considering the animations I need to set for this, is setting inspector > transform > rotation > x-axis to -90 degrees, as the animation player gets a little screwy if it tries to go beyond 360, plus or minus. it's a thing, i don't sweat it.

(7) Create the animations. Add an AnimationPlayer node to bring up the Animations panel, then choose the controller node. This will move the entire mesh by the center pivot we set earlier. 

You should notice a key icon in each heading of the transform section of the Inspector, that's for setting keyframes. Go to the Animation pane > click the "animation" button next to the greyed out dropdown box. In the menu that pops up, choose "new animation." 

(7b) For this, since I've got 3 faces on this (and it's possible to use more, it's possible to just have one plane, double-sided. I just figured a trilon was as good a starting place as any), there needs to be 3 seperate stops: from the 1st face to the 2nd; 2nd to the 3rd; etc. that's 120 degrees between each stop. For the first animation, I click the key under 'transform' (and it may ask you to confirm that you're starting a new animation track, it's okay). There should be a checkbox with the word 'rotation' and a dot next to the border of the timeline. 

(7c) Next, advance the animation shuttle (it's that blue stick that glides along the animation timeline whenever you hit the play button) to the other, accessable end of the timeline (it defaults to one second but you can change it), and then add 120 degrees to the x-axis rotation (should be showing 30 degrees). Click the key again to set the ending keyframe. Godot will now rotate the mesh from the position you gave it to start on to the position you gave it to end on. 

Repeat that until you've made animations moving along all three stops. A reset animation will be really handy here, as the default state will be showing a 'blank' graphic I made for this, so any time I need to introduce a new category with it, it will snap back to the ready state.

(7d, optional) I went ahead and made duplicate animations to speed up the rotation to make it seem a little more dramatic as mood dictates-- I went through and selected each animation from the dropdown box, clicked the animation button, and chose 'duplicate.'

it will ask you to give this duplicate a name, and I just attached the word 'snap' to it. I changed the overall length to .3 seconds, and adjusted the position of the ending keyframe on the timeline by clicking on the appropriate dot on the timeline, and changing the value for 'time' in the inspector to the end of the animation (.3).

Will I need to snap-flip whenever an ordinary category is played? Probably not, but I will need that snap-flip to happen if a modifier comes attached to the category (e.g. offering free picks at the board or doubling the value of the pot on a successful contract). I'd sooner have something and not need it as need it and not have it.

(8) Save the scene. 

As of right now, I admit this is only half-useful; I have the mechanics but no way of putting graphics on each individual face of this trilon. Trying to set a texture via the MeshInstance3D > Material > NewStandardMaterial3D > Albedo will just use that one graphic and stretch it across the entire mesh.

From what I understand, I will need to build a custom shader that will divide the face into three, and swap the individual graphics out as the state of play and game logic require. 

When I figure out how to do that, I'll put up what I did to get there.

For now, have a couple pieces of my poor craftsmanship:

[adrianastrix]

From the same directors of "Elderly Alex-Jones-like-TV-host-turned-politician man breaks chair on far-right-on-sneakers-incel-like wet noodle on electoral debate", I present you:

- Horrible life insurance fraud scheme involving the murder of homeless people is commited by a criminal group headed by **Hitler da Silva Angelo**.

- NoFake, an IP Protection agency, has the owners arrested by protecting IP... by copyright-striking small artists and crafters that make football-team-themed cakes, party decorations or niche memorabilia on their platforms and demanding some "settlement money" to not pursue them in court. Police around here investigated them and found proof of extortion and money laundering on their operation, to the shock of exactly no one.

(Context after the break, in case you feel like IP holders demanding settlement fees on copyright breakers shouldn't count as extortion in this situation)

So, for context: when I say small, I mean SMALL tumblr-sized comission artists. People who struggled to pay the 1000 reais settlement NoFake sometimes asked for (strictly speaking, 200 dollars, but remember that, on average, the minimum wage in Brazil is 240 dollars/month or 1,5 dollars/hour, and the average family makes just two times as much - heck, I'm considered someone who has 'a good salary' and I only earn about three times the minimum wage, or 960 dollars/month or 4,5 dollar/hour).

Another important context is that NoFake clients were worried about companies mass producing fake sports memorabilia that compete with the original memorabilia they sell, and that's who they asked to be struck down. But, since Brazilian law allows (and sometime requires) independent workers and small business with only one employee to register as "micro-companies", NoFake could extort those small creators and still legally tell their employers that they were striking only companies.

Yeah, IP law might allow IP owners to strike anyone that infringes their IP, no matter how small the offense is, so the artists in that situation are breaking a law, and settling matters out of court with a fee is legal, but... firstly, NoFake would almost exclusively go after those people who couldn't fight back, and since football team emblems is one of the only themes that adult Brazilians comission consistently, taking that option down their menu flat out bankrupted those creators, while football team owners are often millionaires (or billionaires even) with very dubious origins for their money.

Secondly, those football teams don't have any interest in entering this cakes and party decorations small-scale business and don't offer any reasonable way for people to license their IP unless they run huge business. Heck, they routinely reblog and celebrate this kind of artisanal use of their brand, as it's central to their popularity and to sports fan culture.

Thirdly, I think that the concept of "intellectual property" is hilariously dumb, and we should conceptualize the rewards for designs and identities in a less capitalistic (as in big-factory-owner) way to work out a better system to reward creators fairly.

In the end, at least our police, for once, took the weaker (and illegal) side of things, only to confirm that - whoops! - people who use the law to bully others for breaking it by the letter (but not in spirit) are, as a rule, shady.

[aerypear]

TLDR on Fanworks legality

Fanworks are under Fair Use laws, these vary in countries. (Hint: It is your job to acquaint yourself with your Country’s variation of Fair Use laws.) 

Fanworks are not Public Domain. A piece must be within the Public Domain (have no active license holder due to ineligibility of copyrite protection or copyrite has expired) to be classified as such. The IP (Intellectual Property) is, usually, not in Public Domain. (Hint: it is your job to acquaint yourself with your Country’s variation of IP laws) Here’s a website that has Resources for Public Domain Materials.

Creational spin offs of Public Domain media can become new IP. However, would still need to be registered Copyrite to become Formal Intellectual Property protected under Copyrite laws. (Hint: It is your job to acquaint yourself with your Country’s variation of Copyrite laws.)  Example: Just because Beethoven’s songs are in Public Domain, does not mean I can go and use TSO’s ( Trans-Siberian Orchestra ) variations of Beethoven’s songs. TSO’s Beethoven creational spin offs are under Copyright © – Atlantic Recording Corporation & Copyright © – WEA International Inc.

Fans hold ownership to non IP elements in their Fanworks. This is under Fair Use laws and IP laws. 

The Licensed IP Owner does not have ownership of Fanworks. They only hold ownership over their IP such as Character Designs, Character Names, Location Appearances, Location names, and (sometimes) Plot. All is dependent on what the IP license Protects. Restrictions do apply. (Hint: It is your job to acquaint yourself with the IP restrictions of the Media you create Fan pieces of.)

It is theft of both informal and formal IP to use Fanworks to train AI without permission from both IP holders. (Hint: Copyrite Laws, Fair Use Laws, IP Laws.)

[titleknown]

I feel like one of the most insidious lies copyright maximalists put into the public discourse is the idea that a world with less copyright would just be a more democratized version of our world of IP slop.

Rather than the truth that most of our cultural stagnation comes directly from that sort of bloated copyright terms because, hey, why create anything new when you can perpetually make money off the toll booth to work with the major cultural infrastructure that we call "legacy IP"?