#you'd think a lawyer would know more about copyright law!

[britishchick09]

jessica mason: "don't use phantom's andre and firmin because they're copyrighted!"

me: "...but firmin in in the original book?"

jm: "you also can't use piangi or gerard carriere or nadir khan..."

me: "but i used those names in the rewrite! they look and act different from their original counterparts so they're not the exact character... oh no....."

cdaae: "names can't be copyrighted. you can use nadir's name as long as you don't copy susan kay's characterization!"

me:

[snakefashion]

I posted 4,828 times in 2022

98 posts created (2%)

4,730 posts reblogged (98%)

I tagged 2,271 of my posts in 2022

#ace attorney - 616 posts

#dgs - 168 posts

#snakeposts - 100 posts

#aitsf - 70 posts

#dgs spoilers - 65 posts

#bugs - 64 posts

#aini - 58 posts

#fashion - 52 posts

#revolutionary girl utena - 43 posts

#insects - 31 posts

Longest Tag: 135 characters

#and that's why emperor's new groove is the funniest disney film (perhaps film) ever made no i will not be taking questions at this time

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

dgs2 spoilers

#4

post i still agree with but is worded poorly

#3

renaming him herlock sholmes was such a good decision. you adjust while playing the game but it never stops being funny when you stop to think about it. it attracts attention. people want to know what kind of game would name a character herlock sholmes. the character is immediately distinguished from the other 500 sherlock holmes adaptions, there's no ambiguity, people know you're talking about the gay lawyer game. im obsessed. doyle estate who? copyright law is probably the least important reason behind his name change

105 notes - Posted September 20, 2022

#2

this is petty but im so sick of "we don't need any more x queer stories we need more y queer stories" [specifically i mean in reference to value neutral tropes, not people asking for more diverse representation of identities] because we dont have enough of ANY queer stories why do you have to put down coming out scenes and young characters and artsy media and tragic endings and any number of tropes you've decided are "boring" now, you can say you'd like to see specific kinds of stories without saying there are "enough" or, god forbid, "too many" stories of a different kind

108 notes - Posted September 13, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

Haven’t seen this on my dash yet god gotta do everything myself

155 notes - Posted September 5, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

can't believe my most popular post was a repost of a meme.

[confessionsofa-roleplayer]

op of 676604381130571776 - so I asked them once the published confession started getting replies/feedback... it's been a while with no response and I'm kindof freaking out now and unsure what to do.

I sent those confessions in to the inbox over a week ago and have been amping up my development and individualization since. I'm terrified of a No because I've put so much work into developing these characters to make them my own, been through a bunch of concept designs, rewrote over 75% of the world lore completely, gave everybody a custom backstory, did literally everything I could short of changing core features (I didn't want to whitewash or blackwash the characters I was inspired from, for example. Hair/eye/skin colors are the same but hairstyle and outfit and other color pallets are totally different.)

However.. I have been doing a lot of research into copyright law, and according to the principles of: purpose or profit = nonprofit/noncommercial / nature of work = creative / amount of content used = less than 25% / effect on market = none, it likely falls under fair use and i also even checked with a lawyer family member who does copyright litigation, framing it as a "a friend of mine" had this issue to prevent bias.

I'm trying to do the right thing for both my own creative progress and for other people's freedoms and emotions and it's really rough. I don't want to get kicked out of my group for stealing. Some friends of mine said I did the wrong thing by fessing up about my personal project & asking for permission in an 'ignorance is bliss' fashion but the guilt was eating at me, and I wanted to follow advice i was given.

I don't want to erase my hard work, i'm so depressed... people make derivative works of canons all the time. I know so many OCs on tumblr that started out as Fancharacters for a franchise or even Canons themselves. I've even had some people tell me they have OCs based on former ship partner's OCs to fill the void. I don't know if everything's ok or not, or if everything will BE ok or not.

Referencing this post. Mod Note: This reply is cobbled together from a private chat I had with the OP. They requested that I also post it here on COAR. I'm sorry it took me so long to get this put up, OP.

Okay, so the fact that you've altered personality and backstory is good. That makes the characters much more your own, and far less identifiable. For example, I would be much more upset to see a friend writing as a half-orc cook with a backstory that mimicked my own character's, than I would to see a half-orc cook with a backstory that was completely different. Plus, I know I'm not the first person to envision a half-orc cook character and I won't be the last. It's the meat of the character that would matter to me - the stuff that took me time to come up with - not the surface stuff.

And I get what you're saying about skin tones/physical characteristics - but at the same time, since you're trying to distance yourself from the original characters, that would be the quickest and easiest way to help you do it. You're not really washing anything away because, step by step, you're making brand new characters. Now, if something about their physical features is important to the story you're wanting to tell, then yes, keep that, but otherwise altering doesn't hurt anyone. And if you're already altering backstories and such, I think about the only thing you'd probably need to keep the same would be... class, maybe?

Also, I wouldn't worry so much about the 'legality' of it. The initial point was that you were worried how your DnD friends would feel if they found out, not whether of not they'd try to sue you for infringement.

I hope it all works out for the best, but if any of your friends come back with a 'no, please don't do this' then just be prepared in advance to look at what you can do to make each character fully unrecognizable. Although it sounds like you're already well on your way to doing that.

Until you hear back from people, just keep moving forward with how you're doing things. If you get no response, or you do, and people seem cool with the efforts you've gone through to make your versions of their characters unique, then you're good.

If any of them express concern, I think the next step would be to introduce them to your version of their character and see how they feel.

If, after seeing your version, they're still not happy with it, then I would reach out to them about what they think you'd need to do in order to fully distance your version of the character with theirs. Listen to their input and then the two of you can work together to find a version that works best for the both of you. One that works for your character, but also leaves them feeling comfortable in the fact that it's moved beyond who their character is. That might require redoing artwork, which is frustrating, I know. But at least this way, you don't have to redo everyone. And with any luck, it won't even be a thing that crops up.

~ Mod MJ ~

[theseasideskies]

Ok I've seen these clauses in Terms & Conditions before and the (totally understandable) fear from fan artists that this means it's essentially free labor for the company.

I've also heard from others more familiar with Copyright Law that this is standard phrasing in any Terms & Conditions and it's a lot less scary than most people think.

I want to try and explain this (as best as I can via rambling):

Please keep in mind that my experience with this is just asking lawyers that I know (and YouTube explainers like this one from Tom Scott.) And also that Copyright Law is often intentionally vague and broad.

TL;DR - these clauses are just so TGC can repost fan art on social media as promotion. Since posting on social media legally counts as redistribution, TGC just wants to make sure they can't be sued over that specifically.

As explained here, most types of User Generated Content automatically receive copyrighted status if they're original enough (the legal boundaries between original and reused content from the company are often blurry; again, Tom Scott's video is a helpful guide)

"unrestricted, irrevocable, and universal" just means that the right of the company to redistribute the content isn't limited to specific platforms (Twitter, Tumblr, etc) for a specific time. Crucially, "non-exclusive" right means that you as the creator also have these same rights, and the company can't stop you. Furthermore, the company specifically mentions they have the right to license content for further use, which will often include payment. Again because their rights are "non-exclusive", you have the right to turn any licensing offer down.

If, for example, TGC tries to sell fan art for money or uses it to advertise (which would theoretically generate money for the company) you have the right to take that to court. Whether or not you'd win would be dependent on stuff like how "original" the court finds your UGC to be (again, copyright law is intentionally vague for these situations)

Of course, the legality of these things is totally separate from the court of public opinion. As a business, TGC cares at least a little bit about how we as customers feel about them (insofar as it affects their revenue).

This clause is really just there so TGC can repost art to their social media accounts without risking being taken to court about that, specifically. If we as customers are mad about how far they exercise those rights (reposting without proper credit or even using it to generate new content—or as "concept art") then we can respond by not giving them money.

TGC knows this, and if this clause already allows what's basically free advertising without them needing to direct it; why would they anger their customers more? Of course legally they could (though if this was taken to court then a judge could use the vague copyright law to rule either way based on the specifics of the situation), but as a business they would almost certainly risk a lot there.

It's kinda comparable to that fable about the frog and the scorpion. TGC (the scorpion) has the power to do something potentially harmful to content creators (the frog) and they might even be blameless for it, but the consequences of doing so would hurt the both of them.

holdon hold on hold on we CANNOT gloss over this in TGC’s ToS as i have just learned of

so like… they’re basically treating fan content as free concept art… wtf???