Copyrights, Fan-Art, and You

[practicecactus]

While I admit I am not terribly familiar with the particulars of other companies going after fan made stuff, I am an unashamed star wars geek and like to look in on the replica prop maker scene.
Of course Lucasfilm could sue every replica costume and helmet maker selling stuff out there. For example, the majority of darth vader helmets on ebay alone, are made from molds, of molds, of original helmets. There are star wars licenced helmets and costumes for sale, albeit much cheaper and poorer quality than the fan made stuff, so of course they could send them all 'cease and desist' letters, but they seem to let it slide and look the other way. I suspect it's mostly because of the good the 501st do. They have set a high standard for representing star wars, do charity work, and have the thumbs up from Lucas himself, even used for premieres of star wars related things, like dvd launches or tv ads. So while they are a 'nonprofit organization', of all the hundreds of members, the majority of the props and costume pieces are made and sold by artists, amongst themselves.

 

[HauntedPuppet]

I am quite the same, having worked with friends on props for fan films myself. What you are saying is quite correct and in some instances I have even seen molds of molds of molds of molds used to make helmets and greaves etc, even prosthetic pieces.

My point is more of the legal standpoint. Copyright law dictates that one has to be making a profit from the replica or it is not in breach. This is the only point I was making when bringing up the starwars thing.

Peace and may the force be with you . . lol.

 

[HauntedPuppet]

That is correct,
However if one were to really read that overview of the act (which is highlighted as NOT legal advice, meaning it cannot stand up in court) one can find a heap of holes in it.

Yes Australian copyright law does include provisions for satirical purposes but not all things are covered by Australian copyright law. AU copyright law mostly deals with things that Originate in Australia and it lets International copyright law or the countries own Copyright law take care of the rest which is why they always include a statement to that end just like in their previous statement about provisions.

Having no provision for something is only relevant if there is another law for it, for example. It is actually only relevant if one is to read the entire Copyright Act.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

The main thing is that they have no case. One can make and film whatever they want (within logical reason) as long as they do not profit from it. If there is no profit it is perfectly legal.

It is not that Lucas Film has refrained from going after them, its that they have no legal grounds to go after them.

You're right in theory, but wrong technically.

The idea that there is some kind of "not for profit" exemption written in to copyright laws in the U.S. is a frequently repeated myth. Right now, if you were sued, whether you charged or profited from something can affect the damages a court will award. It can also sometimes come in to play in fair use cases (which sometimes look at factors like intent and profit), but even if you give something away although the likelihood of being hassled about it is low to non-existent, it's still usually a technical violation.

However, what's interesting about non-profit fan activity like fan films is that a lot of intellectual property lawyers believe if someone like Lucasfilm actually fought a case over a fan film they would probably loose (as you said, they don't really have a case). That would create case law that would effectively make fan films explicitly legal. The catch is that in order for that to happen somebody has to get sued, go to court and win. That's a very expensive proposition.

My point is just that as written, you can't (technically anyway) do fan films and the like. For all practical purposes though if you're not charging I can't really see why you'd ever have a problem.

 

[RedPiggy]

I was under the impression that Lucas DID go after fanfilms/fanfiction. The uproar and threat to his bottom line was so hot and heavy, he "saw the light" and even gives his blessing to atomfilms.com, which has an annual Star Wars contest. I wish Fraggles and Pokemon could see the light. *sigh*

 

[spcglider]

Actually there have been a number of cases and starwars is not the only series to have a big run of fan films.

The main thing is that they have no case. One can make and film whatever they want (within logical reason) as long as they do not profit from it. If there is no profit it is perfectly legal.

It is not that Lucas Film has refrained from going after them, its that they have no legal grounds to go after them. Money hungry Lucas would sue if his lawyers thought he could.

Actually, you are incorrect above. And I can easily explain why.

Lets say someone makes a replica Rowlf the Dog puppet and they film him doing something that is potentially damaging to the image and value of the intellectual property. It doesn't matter what that activity is nor whether they've made money from it. In fact, it doesn't even matter if they've distributed it or shown it to another human being. According to American Intellectual Property laws, (and I differentiate here because I do not know international particulars) they are engaging in illegal behavior.

Yes, that's right. Every fan film out there is breaking the law. And that's just the facts. That's how the law is written.

Its a matter of pure economics as to why rights holders don't completely squash fan films. They can't afford to. So 99% of the stuff goes on without even so much as a "cease and desist". Particularly offensive stuff is killed right away, but there is also the long standing tradition of "parody" that allows for some of it.
And, of course, there is something to say about the "free advertising" end of it as well. There's a logic to not alienating the fan base that made your property popular in the first place as long as what they are doing doesn't damage your property.

But you cannot assume an activity is legal just because no lawyer has come along and stopped you from doing it.

And in some cases, I know that George Lucas enjoys some of the fan films out there. I'm not going to defend the man, because that's what he's got lawyers for, but if he wanted to put a halt to all that stuff, I wouldn't put it past him to do so.

-Gordon

 

[spcglider]

I was under the impression that Lucas DID go after fanfilms/fanfiction. The uproar and threat to his bottom line was so hot and heavy, he "saw the light" and even gives his blessing to atomfilms.com, which has an annual Star Wars contest. I wish Fraggles and Pokemon could see the light. *sigh*

I think George's lawyers are smarter than that. Before anything like that would have happened, they would have approached atomfilms and discussed how everyone could profit instead of lose in the situation.

In return for not crushing them like a legal bug, Lucasfilm probably laid down a bunch of restrictions or conditions concerning the content shown in the films (and possibly right of absolute refusal) and gave them the Lucasfilm stamp of approval.

That would have made everybody happy and no wookie fur would get ruffled.

-Gordon

 

[Drtooth]

This is why I've always said there is something fundamentally wrong with current copyright law. It does NOT protect creators from being screwed by a hack with similar ideas. Look at how many Judge show knockoffs there are. No court cases over intellectual property there. Nor where there any when Fox rushed out copies of ABC reality shows as soon as they were announced, especially since it made them look like the ones that originated those shows.


No. It doesn't protect the right people, and often times they go after small people so they can be made an example of. I really think a "not for profit/fan works" clause SHOULD be added somewhere, but it never will be. Theoretically, if someone made a terrible Spongebob clone series for television, they get away with it... but you put up a fan video (or Youtube Poop) of Spongebob, and you put you're putting your life in your hands. Even if Nickelodeon releases a press release that says "Oh, we LOVE when people make fan videos." Bull.

And theoretically, fair use or not, companies could yank all these little fan sites and wikipedia pages for the same reasons as well. The problem is, it's BAD business sense to do so.

That said, no company really understands a creative fan base and what it can do. Youtube videos made "Never Gonna Give You Up!" relevant again, and the cartoon shows Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario World. Both sold pretty good on DVD, and they have the fan base to thank for that push. There's even an unofficial online British comic series called "Sonic the Comic Online" which continues a long lost comic book magazine. And really... it's stuff like this that raises demand. Locking things up in a safe and saying, "YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!" doesn't make money, nor does it help.

We've been very fortunate that humorless, greedy companies haven't killed fan art yet. But all it takes is for one overreaction to lost profits to enforce a law they wouldn't follow themselves. After all, we may not legally be able to steal their ideas for money... but they could take any uncopyrighted original series and characters and make a TV show out of it legally.

 

[charlie bird]

I have to admit if someone copied my ideas exactly,to sell ,I would not be too happy.However if some one made a simular replica of one of a famous pupppet that I built,if I did have a famous puppet, I'd probuably feel glad some one took that much interest in my puppets,BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO COME UP WITH THIER OWN IDEAS.Each puppet buider should be free to use thier own ideas, that is how they become a good puppet builder ''what is the reason to know how to make puppets if you can't come up with any thing to make?''.
ps:the capital letters were not a axcident

 

[HauntedPuppet]

But you cannot assume an activity is legal just because no lawyer has come along and stopped you from doing it.

I am not sure people have realized what I have said.

I used the Lucasfilm thing as an example.
For them to sue one they would have to sue them all or the defense would use the others as examples. This is sort of an "implied precedence".

After the thousands and thousands of parodies both commercial and amateur with almost no one experiencing any trouble I would be extremely surprised if anyone were to experience any trouble from copyright lawyers.

Example:
Disney could have sued the FOX network show Family Guy for many things including their depiction of Burt and Ernie being gay amongst other things but instead they sued and LOST over a parody of a disney song.

This along with any number of "character damaging" parodies can be cited. Especially those on YouTube and other internet TV sites.

Example:
In a StarWars Fan Film mainstream characters have been depicted including a white guy playing Jango Fett, originally a black character. (played by a New Zealand Maori in the real films). Darth Maul's back story is depicted in another film using the actual Darth Maul character as well as the voice of the Emperor.

Family Guy again was never sued over "Blue Harvest" or "Something Something Something . . . Darkside" both of which are direct (and possibly damaging) parodies of the first two films from the original trilogy. Getting as bad a depicting Obi-wans character being a pedophile. However there are a number of internet rumors saying both that Family Guy got permission from Lucas to do the shows and that they had no permission.

This doesnt include the THOUSANDS of parodies and films on internet broadcasting sites.

So while it may not be legal in most countries and in a huge grey area when it comes to international law it carries with itself an implied legality because of the sheer number of examples there are out there. If a court case were to ensue the defense would be using the literally hundreds of thousands of examples out there and asking the question of "why my client is being singled out and discriminated against". Its never going to stand up in court or if it does it would be rare.

Peace