Was that the Blimp OF Doom story? That story rocked.
Giraffe, I was having a really, really bad day… (Still am, kinda), But this made me laugh. Thank you. 
Doh. It was. i should have finished reading your post before asking 
How? I can’t think of any way to copyright a character.
The character could be considered off limits because of the resulting material being a derivative work, but that’s part of the protection of the work, not a protection of the character.
I can think of no aspect of a character that falls under the categories protected by copyright.
Can Hal Briston sue me because I have sex with sheep?
*Oh, wait, I meant to say * “if I decided to have sex with sheep.”
See generally, http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/krofft.htm
You are right, there is no category of copyrightable work for characters, specifically:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html
But that’s true of just about every claim of infringement. Cases of wholesale copying are pretty rare.
Here is an article about character protection under copyright and trademark law. http://www.publaw.com/graphical.html. Graphic characters are protected, those described textually generally aren’t. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html
Animated characters can be copyrighted when presented as merchandise.
Cheers, mate.
This still seems like an iffy extension of the laws to me, but clearly the protection does exist.
See, the place where your analogy turns stupid is that I did not, in fact, agree to be born in this country. The matter was pretty much out of my hands. And I don’t necessarily have the ability to just go to a different country. First, I’d have to find one that would allow me to switch citizenship. Plus, there’s quite a lot of money involved in such a relocation. I’d have to give up my job, I’d probably have to leave most of my stuff behind. And then there’s the matter of all my friends and family who I’d never see again.
Now, which of these limiting factors applies to an internet messageboard? I’d say, as a conservative estimate, that absolutely none of them apply. You came here of your own free will, you agreed to the terms of use, and you can leave any time you want, and it won’t cost you a dime.
Now, that’s not to say that there’s never a legitimate reason to complain about the way the boards are run. The thing is, your reason is nothing like legitimate. It is, in fact, so incredibly stupid that it borders on retarded. It wouldn’t have taken much effort to actually find out the rationale behind the board rules, or the basics of how copyright laws work. But you didn’t bother to do that. Instead, you went off on a half-literate, spittle-flecked rant calling the people who run this board a pack of thieves. Which, incidentally, was also pretty stupid. Nobody has
“the right to steal” anything. If you have the right to something, and you take it, that’s not stealing. Stealing is when you take something that you don’t have a right to. So, really, your rant was pretty much entirely discredited before you got more than nine words into the title.
If you don’t like being called an idiot, you have two options: don’t act like an idiot, or don’t post in the pit. I’m thinking that option #2 is your best bet, here.
I think you’ve figured out precisely what it is you’re doing wrong around here: you keep using words in the threads you start. Try doing it the other way. I think you’ll have much better results.
It’s not because “no one has their eye on them.” It’s because most of them actually understand the issues they’re ranting about. Anyone who starts a stupid pit thread is going to get their ass handed to them. The fact that almost every pit thread you start ends up making you look dumb isn’t because we’re all out to get you: it’s because you keep starting genuinely stupid pit threads.
Pointing out that every single aspect of your OP is entirely devoid of merit is hardly a “nitpick.”
No one is piling on to you because what you’re complaining about is “impossible to change,” they’re piling on to you because what you’re pitting doesn’t need to be changed, and in fact, is preferable to any other method of running the board. Your pit here was founded on profound ignorance. We’re all here to fight ignorance, after all, and as it turns out, you’re working for the other side.
True. And there’s nothing wrong with ranting about things that suck but can’t be changed. The problem here is, the thing you’re ranting about? It doesn’t suck. That’s why your rant is stupid, and that’s why people are making fun of you.
Yep. If you post something in a public place, the public is going to comment on it. Terrible, isn’t it? If you want to be able to write something that is totally free of criticism, by a diary. Anything you post on here is open to public consumption, and to public response. You don’t like the responses you keep getting? Then either improve your posts, or stop posting. The pit is, by nature, a hostile place. You’re clearly aware of this, as your OP to this thread itself was bombastically hostile. To act surprised when people respond to you in kind is, to be frank, hilariously naive.
Copyright protects creative expression. A character, manifested in a drawing and given a backstory, may constitute sufficient expression to be protectable. For example, in Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the character Count Nicholas Cogliostro was a copyrightable character that was jointly created by Neil Gaiman and Todd McFarlane:
This article posted on the Web goes into more detail on the Gaiman case:
DC Comics Inc. v. Reel Fantasy Inc., 696 F.2d 24, 217 U.S.P.Q. 307 (2d Cir. 1982), proceeded from the assumption that D.C. Comics owned copyrights in the characters Batman and Green Arrow.
Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 199 U.S.P.Q. 769 (9th Cir. 1978), said, regarding various Disney characters said “*t is difficult to delineate distinctively a literary character. … When the author can add a visual image, however, the difficulty is reduced. … Put another way, while many literary characters may embody little more than an unprotected idea …, a comic book characterwhich has physical as well as conceptual qualities, is more likely to contain some unique elements of expression. Because comic book characters therefore are distinguishable from literary characters, the Warner Brothers language does not preclude protectino of Disney’s characters.”
Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 199 U.S.P.Q. 769 (9th Cir. 1978): “The essence of defendants’ argument is that characters are never copyrightable and therefore cannot in any way constitute a copyrightable component part. That argument flies in the face of a series of cases dating back to 1914 that have held comic strip characters protectable under the old Copyright Act.”
Detective Comics v. Bruns Publications, 111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940), ruled that the character Wonderman infringed on DC’s copyright in the Superman character:
It could only have been that story. I’m surprised that you only had to defend it once.
Confession: I haven’t read the whole thread.
Your Confession: You didn’t read the legal notices when signing up for the board? Hmm…hey, hang on, here’s a contract for your soul. There’s no need to read it…come’on, it’s harmless…just sign it!
It’s been applied by the courts as far back as 1934 and Congress has not shown any inclination to contradict the doctrine. So, not iffy. It’s pretty solid law.
Since Andrew has started the pit thread maybe in respond to the video game issue, I think I’ll post my response here:
Ah come’on. There’s nothing new under the sun. The chance of genre-breaking, frontier-smashing and world-shocking game ideas are over, unless if it involves werid-looking googles, virtual realtiy and acting like an idiot while playing the game.
You cannot trademark or copyright ideas. How many FPS clones are out there, and how many are more successful, or just as successful than their original ancestor? And why? Because each of them innovate. Innovation isn’t coming out with new stuff – it’s more like evolving existing one.
Technically, you cannot copyright ideas. And if you come up with one good idea, then most probably you can come up with even more that can enhance your original idea, making the final product uniquely yours in the end.
And saying that people will steal (or even might) steal your idea is a bit of a hurbis, don’t you think so? “Ooh, I got such a great and wonderful idea that no one has heard off and it’s going to rock the world!” Most likely, it won’t or someone else already thought of it, implemented it, maybe in the days when computers make beeps for music and there’s only 8 bits of colours to play with.
This type of attitude is not welcomed in some game development forums I go to, especially in www.rpg.net, so I suggest that you rein back the paranoia. Or maybe to stop over-rating yourself.
(And sharing of ideas is good. Ideas bounce off ideas, giving you more cool stuff. Like you starting the OP… )
Just a curious thought - say I post a short story here, and eventually get the story to be published, say in a book or elsewhere. Could I request that the original post be removed?
Well, you could request, I suppose, but the point of the provision in the user agreement is that the Reader doesn’t have to remove the post. And they might have very good reasons for doing so, one being that it would be inconvenient, especially if a lot of people started making such requests.
Another thing the Gaiman court did was reject the notion that only a comic book or movie character, not a purely literary character, could be copyrighted.
There was a 1954 case, Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc., 216 F.2d 945, 104 U.S.P.Q. 103 (9th Cir. 1954), which gave author Dashiell Hammett the right to reuse the Sam Spade character in further novels after Warner Bros., the producer of The Maltese Falcon, tried to claim that they held copyright interest in Spade. But the way the court did that was to say that literary characters were not copyrightable.
The Gaiman decision rejected this holding. It said that the Ninth Circuit was probably trying to use just any argument to reach the right result (i.e., not letting Warner Bros. prevent Hammett from writing stories about his own character).
So did I. I used that phrase today on another message board.
Its the Ning Ning Ning that keeps making me laugh. So poetic, so true.
I think that, even if you get the post removed, by putting it up on a messageboard, you’ve pretty much surrendered your “first publication” rights. (Certainly your “first electronic publication” rights). Which doesn’t mean you can’t sell off subsidiary rights to another publisher, of course. But “first publication” is kinda like virginity; once it’s gone, it’s gone …
(NB. I am not a lawyer, and certainly not a copyright lawyer. I just write stuff occasionally, and have thought about getting it published, and have read up on the technicalities a tiny bit. So I could be completely wrong about, well, just about anything, really.)