Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jough]

That site is DEFINITELY infringing, and Onstad could get all INDIGNANT WITH LITIGIOUSNESS about that site if he cared to.

INDIGNANT

[Roger]

what good is this comic strip to me without alt text ?

That reminds me, I was wondering the other day about what happens to the alt text when Onstad prints the strips.
But then I saw a poodle with a puffy tail and forgot all about it.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Carlos, response from the bovine community?

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[side_show]

Roger, your avatar is terrifying.

When it comes to copyrighting, this issue isn't related to intellectual property, which would be like you know, the concept  of "generation X," which is the intellectual property of Douglas Coupland, vs the novel "Generation X," which is the copyrighted novel of Douglas Coupland.  There's a difference between copyrighted material and intellectual ideas - e.g.: Andy Warhol had this idea to turn a can of soup into art, so the actual graphics of the soup can are the copyright of Cambell's soup, but the idea of turning that image into art is the intellectual property of Andy Warhol.

Beyond that,  Is it legal to reproduce anything you like in a blog?  Yes, because a blog is, conceptually anyway, your opinion on a subject.  When a blog is just a place where you reproduce other people's stuff, then you are actually not making a blog, even if you try to call it that.  I think it's fair to say that a blog that just culls articles and gossip for the AP and other sources (like so many do), or one like this one, is not really a blog at all, and is there for just a website that is infringing upon copyrights.  But who the hell cares?  Ya, ya, Onstad might lose a few readers every so often to this other site, but really, if a reader takes any genuine interest at all in Achewood by reading this guy's site, they will then find the actual Achewood site, this person will see the ads on the actual Achewood site and maybe even buy a T-shirt.  The internet, though large, is also very cyclical, so in the end, it's really a non-issue, especially for someone like Onstad, whose chosen the net, with all its pluses and minuses, as his medium.

[jough]

In the U.S. you can't copyright, trademark, or patent an idea or concept, but only a concrete work or physical object.

So the concept of Generation X is free for the world to use/discard/abuse but the text of the novel belongs to Coupland.

It is absolutely not legal to reproduce anything you like in a blog.  However, just because the IP holder CAN sue you doesn't mean they WILL.

Of course, if they're aware of it, they'll probably send you a cease and desist, because in the U.S. if you don't protect your copyrights or trademarks they could fall into the public domain and you could lose them.

That's why Xerox has to be an ass about people talking about "xeroxing" something, instead of "photocopying" it.  It's not that they need or want to sue an old lady who uses their trademark with a small letter and without the TM symbol in her blog, but dammit, they don't want to not have their name be a trademark anymore and have other companies making xerox copiers.

[Roger]

Roger, your avatar is terrifying.

Thanks, I guess.
Polish movie posters rule.

[V-Adore]

See, my suspicion with this thing is that there is some dude (or lady, I suppose) out there who just really prefers to read Achewood in this format, or always misses blog posts, or something who created this as a personal Achewood-viewing tool. I have to imagine that as long as it doesn't spread beyond this dude/lady, Onstad won't bother to make an issue about it, and I can't see it spreading far because it's an inconvenient format for those without the maker's proclivities.

That said, it would be sort of nice if the dude/lady could add a swag link or some such.

[ndpatel]

Of course, if they're aware of it, they'll probably send you a cease and desist, because in the U.S. if you don't protect your copyrights or trademarks they could fall into the public domain and you could lose them.

sorry to bump this for no reason, but as the 3L who is about to become a copyright attorney in the room, i couldn't let this slide. you absolutely DO NOT have to protect your copyrighted work. the second you hit "save" on that novel of yours, it's protected for life+70, end of story.

you DO have to protect trademarks in order to maintain legal protection. cf. apple being all anal about companies making ipod accessories with the word "pod" in them--if "pod" starts meaning "mp3 player" instead of "apple ipod" to the average consumer, apple loses trademark protection. analogous situations with copyrightable materials don't really exist, and since the underlying purpose of copyright law is so different from trademark law, it wouldn't really make any sense for authors to lose protection if they don't actively protect their works.

all about education, suckas!

ps. oh yeah, i lurk pretty much everyday but rarely post, so if anyone ever has any like, copyright questions about their blog or indie band record deal or whatever, PM me and i'll answer as best as i can.

[jough]

ndpatel, since you're an expert, I'm sure you're aware of many copyrighted works that have "fallen" into the public domain (prior to the 1970s) because they weren't explicitly filed or renewed.  For instance, you can do whatever you want with "The Street Fighter" - the Sonny Chiba classic, because some paperwork fell through and the copyright was never properly registered.

As for trademarks, it's even more dangerous.  Xerox and Kleenex have to fight vigilently to have their trademarks upheld, and some dictionaries actually list kleenex as a lower-case synonym for "facial tissue."

It's odd to see adverts in trade magazines for writers that have to remind people to use the upper case X for Xerox.  Check out the back of Writer's Digest any month and you'll see a bunch of little ads from companies I never would have thought people would use in the generic, like Ford or Coke (evidently people down south call all soda "Coke"?).

And of course, since you're an expert, you're also aware that Apple lost a case last year where they tried to claim "____pod" as their trademark.  In general, you cannot trademark household words - hence "iPod" (a made up name) and Apple Computers but not just "Apple."

Anyway, to the original point of this thread: IT IS NOT OKAY TO REPRINT ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE IN YOUR BLOG

On this, I think all the experts can agree.

[theauthors]

?

[ndpatel]

true information presented in a charmingly snippy manner

sure, prior to the 1972 act, copyrights expired after 30 years unless renewed for a secondary term. however, that is no longer the case, and it's even a little bit more confusing, since as members of the berne convention, we have to restore full protection to foreign authors who didn't renew.

but all of that is basically irrelevant to the average person who wants to understand this, since you're granted protection for life+70 at the moment you fix your expression of an idea to a tangible medium. no papers to file, nothing to renew. ever. i promise.

also, having something "fall" into the public domain because some paperwork wasn't filed is remarkably different than losing entitlement because you haven't vigorously pursued action against infringement, which is what you originally suggested.

as for trademarks, well, the money isn't made "in general." take a look at this list and tell me about "in general" again. "hotsauce"? "airport"? "numbers"? those seem like household words to me. re: the ipod thing, apple may have lost one high-profile case, but that's really not the end of the story. how many mp3 players are there on the market with the word "pod" in the name? you'd think if apple didn't have the right to that there'd be, i don't know, maybe another one, or something.

i still love you though, man.

Fixed link. - Jough

[jough]

Oh sure, you can register trademarks which are household names, but only for particular uses.  For instance, I could put out a product called "Airport" - even a computer-related product, as long as it wasn't a "wireless hardware/software solution."  Even then, the language is so broad that I could probably fight it in court should they decide to sue me.

There are a number of mp3 players with the word "pod" in their names.  There are even more mp3 player accessories, speakers, computer accessories, lamps, etc. with the word "pod" in the name - because they're looking to trade off of the iPod name.

I think the only reason you don't see more players with the word "pod" is because they want to differentiate themselves FROM the iPod, which is the market leader, and it may not make business sense to remind customers of your competitor's product in the name of your own.  And of course, "pod" doesn't exactly mean "music player" - it's really kind of a stupid name when you think about it.

I never suggested that copyrights had to be protected like trademarks - just that it was illegal to reproduce anything you'd like in a blog.  There is no special blog law that lets you copy someone else's work fairly.  At least, nothing outside of standard Fair Use, which is WAY more limited than most people think it is in order to be fair.

Things that ARE completely fair to use, though:

The likenesses of celebrities (although not any particular photo unless you take it yourself)

VERY short excerpts from a larger work

A single frame from a feature-length film

Something that highly transforms the original work (photo-collages, images photoshopped to the point where you can't even identify the original, etc.)

Parody (although parody hasn't had as much protection lately as it has historically)

Much of Fair Use and the Public Domain has eroded over the past 30 years.  Copyrights, which were originally intended to be limited, are now for all intents and purposes unlimited, since they extend beyond any reasonable expectation of a lifetime. 

Mickey penis should have been in the public domain for years now, but isn't.

[CortJstr]

Actually, IIRC there was recently a case where a US court ruled that a sample of a song, even if the sample was transformed so that it's totally unidentifiable in the end, is not fair use. But this was several months ago so I could be misremembering. I do recall the Beastie Boys being involved somehow, though.

[ndpatel]

Of course, if they're aware of it, they'll probably send you a cease and desist, because in the U.S. if you don't protect your copyrights or trademarks they could fall into the public domain and you could lose them.

I never suggested that copyrights had to be protected like trademarks - just that it was illegal to reproduce anything you'd like in a blog.

well, pick one.

as for the mp3 player thing, try this: go buy one.

i think we agree on most of these issues (i too, am a member of the EFF, and have an article coming out this spring about open source in china) but my point was that copyrights and trademarks are protected in different ways.

[miles]

Actually, IIRC there was recently a case where a US court ruled that a sample of a song, even if the sample was transformed so that it's totally unidentifiable in the end, is not fair use. But this was several months ago so I could be misremembering. I do recall the Beastie Boys being involved somehow, though.

I've heard that "Paul's Botique" was at the center of a lawsuit that pretty well changed the game of sampling.  I've heard that nothing similar will ever be made in the US legally.  It would be way too expensive.  This would have been years ago, though, right?

I'm fascinated by this stuff.  Good discussion.  Where are you going to law school, ndpatel?