#they're probably protected under copyright law | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hyunverse · 2 years

Text

1:12 pm — seo changbin.

no warnings. fluff. short drabble.

you have the house all to yourself today.

a yellow sundress settles just above your knee, flowing beautifully because of the wind coming in from the open windows. you love having the house to yourself, gives you the chance to blast your favourite music and spring clean. on lonely days when the house is clean, you like to indulge in your hobbies while a random youtube video plays on the tv screen.

it’s one of those days where you decide to spring clean. after vacuuming the entire house, and dusting off the book shelves (taking extra care with the glass shelf changbin keeps his awards in) it’s time to tend to your plants. pots of healthy indoor plants scatter in the house, vases of colourful flowers sit on empty spots.

changbin loves gifting you flowers. you’ve been together with him for a good amount of years, and in those span of years, he has given you flowers one too many times. almost a weekly occurence, you would say. name any species you can find at the local florist, changbin have probably given it to you at some point. he doesn’t care that there’s no special occasion — a beautiful soul like you deserves to be surrounded by beautiful things, he had told you at some point.

while you water your tulips with fresh cold water, you could hear the bell ring. you whip your head towards the door, eyebrows furrowing as a finger carresses a tulip’s petal. you place the jug of water onto the desk, and wipe your hands on your apron.

no one awaits in front of you door. your view is empty, only a quiet neighborhood save for a car driving away. you squint, furrowing your eyebrows when you realize it’s changbin’s car. you look around once more, light gasp leaving your mouth as soon as your gaze meets the ground. a bouquet of flowers laying there. right after you pick it up, your telephone rings, showcasing “lover” on the screen.

you couldn’t stop your lips from tugging into a smile.

“honey,” his voice greets you on the other line, “do you like them?”

“like them? i love them,” you beam. changbin could imagine the smile on your face, and the sparkle in your eyes — thus he smiles, too.

"the heart shaped flowers are called bleeding hearts — i was shocked to know the name, but it means unconditional love! the purple flowers, heliotropes mean eternal love. the camellias mean adoration. i asked the florist for flowers with meaning," he lightly laughs, "then i chose the flowers you'd love."

you bite your lower lip to stop yourself from crying, "they're perfect, binnie. so perfect.

he hums, the sound vibrates from the speaker and right to your heart, “good, then. i wanted it to be perfect for my honey.”

you melt at his words, “thank you, baby. but tell me, why’d you leave them on the doorstep, hm? why wouldn’t you give it to me in person? i want to see my favorite person.”

changbin sighs — he could picture the pout that adorns your face, “yah, honey. if i saw you, even for just a split second, i wouldn’t want to go back to work. would want to stay in your arms the whole day.”

“seo changbin — you’ve been married to me for three years now, and yet you still have no self control!” you click your tongue, laughing breathily. truth is, your heart’s warming at his words.

“how could one have self control when they’re in front of a goddess like you?” he rolls his eyes, “i’ve got to go now, love you sweetheart.”

“love you too, binnie.”

#k-labels #seo changbin x reader #changbin x reader #skz x reader #stray kids x reader #changbin skz x reader #changbin fluff #seo changbin fluff #changbin drabbles #changbin drabble #seo changbin drabbles #seo changbin drabble #changbin oneshots #seo changbin oneshots #changbin imagines #seo changbin imagines

374 notes · View notes

neu-apostolisch · 1 year

Text

the public domain and characters

collected and mostly unedited comments about the public domain

Note that there are debates about whether characters themselves are copyrightable entities or if they're just elements of a larger work that is subject to copyright. I tend to agree with the latter. That's not really explored here, but it exists.

The way public domain of characters works is weird.

Here's a Superman example: The way to think about copyrightable characters, is that characters themselves are not really copyrightable. What is copyrightable is the first issue of Action Comics where Superman appears, and the literal visual art of Superman. So even though some of that is going into the public domain, it’s not the same as Superman (esp. the modern iterations of him) going into the public domain. Think about the uh, USSR Superman from the Red Son arc. That’s obviously a totally different interpretation and perspective even though it’s still Superman. Regarding the visual art of Superman, a bunch of that stuff is not super open to copyright anyway. Like DC does not have copyright over every superhero with a cape and red/yellow/blue coloring because that’s nonsensical. So like yeah, Superman’s going into the public domain, but not as much as you think. Which is mostly fine tbh. Copyright law is meant to protect people’s unique ideas and expressions.

Since sherlock holmes as a character is tied to the very first story about him, sherlock holmes himself is in the public domain, as well as some of the earlier stories. But the later ones are still under copyright protection so that’s why you see the same few Holmes stories and characters adapted a bunch. Also, unique elements of subsequent adaptations are still protected. So even though Holmes himself is in the public domain, you couldn’t make a film or show that was basically a copy of like, BBC Sherlock or the Robert Downey Jr films.

As another example, Winnie the Pooh the original character is in the public domain but NOT the disney version of him that specifically wears a red shirt. Applying this to something like Mickey Mouse, it seems like Mickey as a character will slowly start to enter the public domain, but since Disney’s gone and reinvented the character so many times it’s likely to come in waves.

I will forever repeat that just because something isn't copyrightable doesn't mean it can't be monetized or otherwise subject to different parts of intellectual property law like trademarks or patents. Continuing with the discussion of The Mouse, certain images of Mickey have become synonymous with Disney branding and trademarks are indefinite so they will probably always have some level of control over the character.

Trademarks' purpose is to protect branding elements in order to protect consumers from buying scam products that look like the more popular branding. And yeah, exactly right. They would have to vet any uses of Mickey to ensure it was only the unprotected elements of Mickey. And even then they’d have to be a bit careful because Disney is pretty sue-happy about their intellectual property

So you couldn’t brand a store with public domain Mickey stuff such that it looked to be a Disney themed store because that might mislead consumers.

#law shit #us copyright law #copyright law #selfpost #public domain

3 notes · View notes

griseldagimpel · 1 year

Text

Regarding AI-generated works being allowed on AO3: while I do understand that identifying AI-generated works if they're not identified as such isn't an easy task, I do feel like it's probably in AO3's best interest to prohibit them, even if it's enforced in an "honor code" manner. (I.e. if you're caught, the work gets taken down, but AO3 shouldn't be, like, putting together a team to identify such works any more than they do for song fics that also violate the TOS by containing the full lyrics of a copyrighted song. If a work is reported as AI-generated, the necessary evidence should be a confession by the author.)

Here's why. And disclaimer, not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.

AO3 maintains - and I agree - that fanworks should be recognized as copyright protection.

But if fan works are still somewhat untested ground where U.S. copyright law is concerned, AI-generated works are not.

Under current U.S. law, AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted. That's established law with precedent already.

By permitting AI-generated works, I worry AO3 is muddying its own position.

#Ao3 #copyright #ChatGPT

4 notes · View notes

slbakershomosexualagenda · 2 years

Text

The thing about writing in the Lovecraft Universe is that not all the monsters and gods are public domain or fair use. You'd actually be surprised--- I know I was because I assumed everything I'd ever seen included in like, a TTRPG was fair game. Nope.

Part of me writing this series has been me checking every single thing I want to include for who wrote it, when, has their estate made a public comment somewhere, or for the still-living contributors, what does their website say.

Copyright law/license shit is kind of a minefield, and I'm not going to pretend like I know everything about it, but here's kind of how I've gone about it:

Because this project is using these characters as a form of "critique and commentary" (it's a black comedy, so, duh) I could insist it's all protected under parody law. Though a lot of the estate holders are American, I'm not. Parody law isn't as well protected in Canada, and regardless, this is supposed to be a low-stress little side project for me, I'm not only not interested on dying on that hill, I don't want to go near it if I don't have to.

Names of characters are not copywritable, but likenesses are. If a character doesn't show up, it'd be reasonably safe to mention they exist by name at least. Still, I've aired on the side of caution with some copywrited Lovecraft Universe characters depending on what context I'm mentioning them by not using their proper name, just alluding to them. Example: "Cthylla/The Hidden One" as "Daughter of the Hidden Deep", "Secret of Secrets." (Note: that's actually the funny thing about authors who convert their old fanfic into original lit. The often don't actually remove the content that makes it possibly copyright infringement, lol. 50 Shades was similar enough to Twilight Stephanie Meyer probably could have sued--- the only issue being that neither works were unique enough to have a super strong case . . . And E.L.James really exploited that with her cover art choices and stuff like that.)

Some characters are TECHNICALLY inventions of Lovecraft, so likely public domain (though even that's kind of jumbled), but it gets murky since a lot of the lore written about them was from different authors. There's not really a good answer when it comes to characters like this (Sidenote: did you know that in Oz The Great and Powerful they had to be careful as to what specific shade of green they made the wicked witch because she's not actually green in the original books? But, you know, people kind of expect the wicked witch to be green now even though MGM still holds the copyright on that version of the character. I dont know why that was never an issue for Wicked, but, whatever.)

It was Lovecraft's wish that writers keep adding and expanding to his universe and concepts even before any of his works entered the public domain (though IP law was a lot different back then) but that doesn't mean every creator that contributes feels the same way. I've hunted down every public statement on the matter I could find to see if they express any opinion on that matter. I've seen some sites state that certain creators are "very understanding" as a secondhand account but unless I could find a direct statement from the creator themselves, I've taken that as a no. So for some characters, out of respect for the author, I've tried avoiding using their creations all together unless I feel it's kneecapping the intent of my storyline (the premise of my novellas is kind of hinges on the metacommentary of living manifestations of fear) where I insert whole new creations that I hope evoke the spirit of the monster/God they're based on. My headcanon is that they're avatars or manifestations of the characters, but different enough that I'm not stepping on the authorial wishes of their creators.

I know personally in the extremely unlikely event someone wants to use a character or concept I've created as an addition to the Lovecraft Canon in their roleplay or story, movie, video game whatever, I'd be very excited. That's part of the fun of the Lovecraft property, I'm just happy to be included, but. Respecting artist IP is important.

12 notes · View notes

vetusmemoriae · 11 months

Text

Btw I'm doing a DnD campaign and I want some npcs.

If you want to be added (you or an oc), send me the character sheet as an ask.

Send it with the stats, class, and who do you want to be and, if you want, a backstory.

I'm 100% serious about this.

More info about the campaign under the cut (in case you want to do the backstory)

It's not mandatory to have your backstory edited to fit the world, but if you want to use it, go ahead. If your backstory includes things that don't go along, I might edit it, but this is absolutely no profitable so dw about copyright, this is just a campaign with some friends.

Starting, the main city of this campaign is Bascam-meche, the city of masquerades. You can come from outside or be townsfolk, but you must have a mask or else you'll probably be killed.

Why a mask? There's a thing going on in this city: everyone is certain there's a face-snatcher, someone that, if they see your face, will steal it, and it will kill you. Everyone protect themselves with masks, and if you see someone without one (specially if they're pretty), they'll probably be a face-snatcher.

This city hosts all sorts of races except the common one's (aside from human). There are goblins, changelings, githyankis, aasimars, humans... Races that would be excluded anywhere else go to this town, and common races try to not get near it.

This city is dangerous: even if there's a group of people taking care of it, the law all over Zaboyenabaya (the kingdom) is the law.

The graveyard is empty, all corpses sold to the Association of Necromancers of Artham (legal name of the town) to be reanimated as zombies and sold as slaves. But sometimes zombies might gain consciousness, and become a reborn. Reborns, as creatures with consciousness, are protected under the law, and can't be enslaved. For this reason, many owners kill the reborn that were his slaves before, or command them to shut up.

Nonetheless, sometimes zombies might not remember an order and get lost along the way, resulting in a stray zombie, aggressive to everyone except their owner. Stray zombies walk freely among the streets, and this is the reason why this city is so dangerous: you might encounter a stray zombie at anytime, or they might even take over your house.

Because danger attracts danger, people in Bascam-meche became weary of others and might be aggressive if you do not know the customs. An outsider means easy prey, and easy prey attracts predators.

Still not sure about who are you?

Go scroll 5etools, choose a race that is not common (anything besides elf, half-elf, gnome, hafling or dwarf, if you want to be one of those you might be an outsider), class (always lvl 3 if not justified in the background), and a background if you want to. Here are some general ideas:

You might be a reborn.

You can be a blacksmith.

You can be a student on The Academy.

You can create an oc and let it be a zombie, an enemy.

You can be a random aristocrat with no job.

You can be an usual on a tavern.

You can have a breadshop.

You can be a vagabond.

You can be a traveler writing a traveling guide.

You can be a marine.

You can be a soldier.

You can attend the local theatre (as an aristocrat)

You can be a cultist.

#Dnd #dungeons and dragons #dungeon master #ttrpg #Rpg #board games #Dragones y mazmorras #d&d #dnd character

0 notes

davidmariottecomics · 1 year

Text

Copyrights and Wrongs, Part 3

Happy October and welcome to the spookiest month!

This week, we're continuing the long talk about copyright! This week I wanted to talk particularly about fan works and their place in the copyright conversation, as well as a couple last sort of fundamental concepts that're probably helpful to have down. And, as unfortunately so often happens, I was given a real in for it!

That Batman "Comic" Not to dip too deep into next week's topic, but because it's timely, a tech bro shared the Batman "comic" he made with AI on Twitter. I'm not going to link to it. If you've managed to avoid it, it's better you don't see it! But let me tell ya, it's a piece of hot garbage. Bad from top to bottom. I'm not *exactly* sure who all it stole from, but it is CLEARLY stolen art. There's definitely Brian Bolland and Gary Frank in there, and I think either Mike Allred or Jonathan Case Batman '66 art. I also wanna say Ty Templeton, or someone in the Batman animated vein. The lettering is god-awful (more on that in a minute). There's no intention behind the compositions, there's no storytelling, there's no thought to the gutters or the pacing or internal logic. But the tech bro who shared it sure seemed happy with himself. He sure seemed happy with the would-be scammers and anti-social losers who were hyping his stolen valor up. And I'm sure he'll be happy when his Twitter paycheck rolls in because he's verified and benefiting from the profit sharing of making something controversial.

But here's where copyright gets a little weird.

So, he can't copyright the comic he made. Under current regulations, materials made by AI are not recognized as original creations. And he *literally* didn't do anything. He just shoved a word salad of "prompts" into the generator and let it roll. Even the other really terrible AI comic from earlier this year had the text recognized as copyrightable because at least that jerk wrote it, even if the art was not (because, again, all stolen). But even if this douche had done anything to actually make this comic, he still wouldn't really have copyright.

When is Copyright Applicable? I'm going to take a bigger step back for a second, just to get the last couple conceptual things down.

When a work is "fixed", it falls under copyright in the U.S. If you draw a picture of a cool dog on a napkin, that's as protected by copyright as if you made a major motion picture or this very blog. Copyright only doesn't apply when a work isn't fixed--if you've got an amazing idea but don't have it down on paper (or computer or whatever way of getting it out of just your head), it doesn't count. It doesn't need to be published, necessarily, but you need to document that you've put the work into the world in some way. And when you've done that, you hold the copyright to what you've created.

Now, there is an extra step in U.S. copyright law, which is registration. While you automatically receive a copyright for creating a work, protection is enforcable once a work has been registered with the U.S. copyright office. Basically, if the government and lawyers can look up and see that you have the copyright--that you took action to protect it--that makes it that much more powerful in legal proceedings. Because we're already talking about him, Batman is copyright of DC comics (and their parent company, Warner-Discovery or whatever they're called nowadays). Batman's a registered copyright, so DC's got their paperwork in with the copyright office and if they want to enforce their copyright, they're going to have a lot of power to do so. We've already talked in the last couple of weeks about the ideas of fair use and work for hire and people being given permission to make new works under a copyright, so do keep that all in mind going forward.

But something that's also important to mention here is that Batman is also trademarked! And the basic idea of trademark that is different from copyright is that trademark is about iconography and naming associated with official sources. And Batman's trademark is somewhat famous. Even though he often no longer wears it, if you think about Batman, there's a distinct chance that you picture a yellow oval around a bat. It's the Bat-Symbol (and the Bat-Signal). It is inherently indicative of Batman in a way that just a bat outline by itself isn't. And because of that, it's been trademarked (same as Superman's S-shield on his chest). It is a distinctive brand identifier that still gets used today. And the old story is that because DC was very concerned with the trademark, they asked Frank Miller to use the bat-oval in Dark Knight Returns and he compied enough when he had the oval part shot off and broken and then it was just a big bat for the rest of the run. The importance of trademark is it has different enforcement standards than copyright, and if it's registered, it's another hugely powerful tool in legal proceedings because it is about the relation of a brand to a company, rather than that of an author to a work. The yellow oval recognizes that Batman is a DC product and therefore carries DC's standards (and DC's logo is it's own way of identifying it as a company brand). Beyond that, if you look at a DC comic, chances are it'll say something like "All characters, the distinctive likenesses thereof, and all related elements are trademarks of DC." The iconography of costumes and standard visual depictions has entered the realm of trademark.

Batman is not, however, patented. Patent is the other big form of intellectual property ownership and recognition in the U.S. I'm not going to talk about patent too much because it does tend to be the least applicable to comics, but the short version is it is used for inventions. Basically it says if you make a new type of salad spinner, and you publish and register the designs with the government in a way that could be replicable by someone who has the understanding of how to follow your instructions, you can maintain exclusivity for a time. Where you might see this in comics is if someone created a new printing process and their printer was the only one legally allowed to use this process for a time, or--weirdly and conversely--if someone made a machine that was like a big pen that produced physical reproductions of AI generated images, that machine could potentially be patented.

Derivative Works, Transformative Works, and Fan Works

One of the major rights granted to a copyright holder is control over derivative works. As DC owns the copyright to Batman, they get to decide who makes all new Batman material--both new comics and who is granted licenses to make toys and shirts and umbrellas and whatever. They own every part of the comic--the script, the art, the lettering, the full execution including things that may've been cut--and they also have the right to change it however they want, from edits like fixing typos to using a story as the basis for a totally different work in a totally different medium, which is a transformative use of the work, another major right held by copyright.

It's October and for Chris Samnee, that means it's Batober, where he draws a Batman (or Bat-Family member) a day. They look great. And, as we've clearly established, Batman is owned by DC. Because Samnee doesn't own the copyright, the existing claim on Batman would supersede his own on the original art. Now, at the moment, it may fall under fair use. The art itself is original and not a recreation or tweaking of existing copyrighted materials. It's being posted for free without a commercial component. And it isn't a danger to DC or Batman--either through competition of sales or through depicting the character in a way antithetical to the copyright holder. But if Samnee sold it--which I think he does sell all his drawings at the end of the month--maybe that changes things.

Let's say you make a Batman fan comic. If it is, just for example, not authorized by DC (implicit in being a fan comic), attempting to be a serious take on Batman and the related characters rather than parody, done in the style(s) of existing Batman art, tracable to existing Batman assets, and being used for a proof of concept to promote a non-DC business, boy howdy, they would have the option to claim infringement. And if you sold that comic, they'd really have a strong standing. It is inherently an unlicensed derivative work and, particularly if you didn't actually put in any work to make it your own, you've got no claim on it being transformative. I usually don't side with major corporations--and obviously fear their interest in co-opting this technology for their own purposes (btw, shout-out to the WGA on getting some AI protections in the new contract and on generally holding out on their strike until they got a good deal! Here's hoping for good to come SAG's way, and the way of all striking workers, soon)--but if more corporations wanted to start filing infringement notices on the AI grifters who are stealing their stuff, I'd be in favor of that.

But... the flip side is y'know, I do appreciate fan works (that are actually created by people)! I've mentioned before, I feel like a zillion times, that as an editor, I CANNOT AND WILL NOT read fan comics for things I work on, nor can I or will I read unsolicited pitches. And it is specifically because of everything we've been talking about. An unsolicited pitch is in-and-of-itself a fan creation until and unless a representative of the copyright holder solicits it.

Most fan works exist in a kind of gray area--legal by virtue of a blind eye and a disinterest on all ends for a protracted legal case. If you create something meant to be taken seriously (even if it's silly, if the intent is to show your skills and tell a story in some fashion that is not obvious parody) that is based on existing intellectual propery, and that has not been created under a work for hire contract, your rights may be superseded by existing copyright. However, there may be some elements that in some way might not be covered by that existing copyright, and the creation of new stories is (well... as long as someone is actually writing them) almost always going to be subject to the question of transformation of the work. What it comes down to is I don't want to stake a claim on your execution of your idea as even an incidental representative of a copyright holder and you don't want to potentially forfeit whatever rights you may have by virtue of having created a derivative work. (As a brief aside, permission does make a difference, but the limits and understandings are still really critical--you can tell me it's okay to read your pitch, but if I say I can't or would rather not, I can't. But if I solicit letters and art and cosplay for specific, credited use in the letters pages of a Sonic comic and I ask every submitter for their okay to print that material, that is understood to be reasonable use.)

I obviously do see fan art and sometimes fan comics and whatever. It's part of existing in the communities on the internet and at shows and in the world. And it can be incredibly helpful to see fan art! I've found some amazing artists that way! On some level, that's a big part of why copyright isn't super strictly enforced in fan and creative spaces. Someone like Chris Samnee drawing a bunch of great looking Batmans for free might help boost public awareness of Batman and you don't wanna hit creators who you might want to work with on infringement (most of the time). You don't wanna pick battles with people working for you or who may work for you (and conversely, the people you're working for, at least most of the time). But as an editor, I need to be hyper aware of what I'm interacting with and how, and as a creator, you need to understand your own limitations too.

This has been really long, so I'm just going to throw in a couple more bullet points on interesting things I wanted to talk about with this.

More like Stinktober. I mentioned Batober earlier and one really interesting and relevant recent copyright case is in fact "Inktober". Inktober is a registered copyright, so the name and specific execution and prompts or whatever are covered as issued by the creator each year. So you can't just call your own practice of ink drawings following prompts every day in October "Inktober". But that courted a lot of controversy both in what infringement claims may be made against it and also in the creator having infringement claims brought against him. It was messy and you'll notice a lot of artists still don't use the "Inktober" naming or specific prompts.

Antragsdelikt/Shinkokuzai and Doujin. This is Japanese copyright law, and not U.S. copyright law, but I think the system around doujin is really interesting. Doujin is broadly a term for self-published works in Japan (and doujinshi is the term for printed works in particular). It's a mix of original works, fan works, and even occasionally stuff that's kind of inbetween. The creator of Sweat and Soap, for example, released a NSFW one-shot of their own book as a doujinshi, so it's not through the publisher or "officially" part of the canon, but it's by the creator. Anyway, the reason I bring it up is a lot of these are fan works that fall under a doctorine called shinkokuzai or (in German, Antragsdelikt), which is the offense can't be prosecuted without a complaint from the victim. So, in Japan, if you wanna make a Chainsaw Man fan comic, unless Tatsuki Fujimoto chooses to send you a cease and desist and act on his copyright, you can't be prosecuted for creating and distributing a derivative work. There it's codified under the understanding that fan works can be really beneficial to an ecosystem of creative talent--both in developing future talent and creating works that are understood to not be competing with but complimentary to in some way the original works by the original creator. It's a flawed system--don't get me wrong, it definitely allows for some really heinous stuff to be created with other people's characters that might not get addressed because if the original creator doesn't know and file a complaint, nothing can be done--but it is an interesting study in how in some places, this stuff can be legally more protected.

Selling at Cons vs. Websites and What Kind of Merch You Have. Ultimately, copyright's strength comes down to enforcement. It is a good thing that people are filing infringement claims and investigating the boundaries of fair use because it does further define and refine what you can do. We live in a very strange system. Like I said, most fan works are in a gray area (and, yes, most professionals also create fan works that they then sell). You can get in trouble for selling your art prints on Etsy or Ko-Fi or whatever because they use licensed characters without permission. And, yes, there are thieves on Etsy who do steal your original art and sell it on other stuff and somehow don't get hit with copyright infringement claims, either because you don't know how to file one or they're good at being fly-by-night or whatever else may occur. Sometimes conventions have people going around on behalf of companies and giving verbal or written cease-and-desists on fan art, though, again, it's pretty rare because most companies don't want to piss off their fans and potential creators, and most artists aren't operating at margins or with materials that are competitive to the originals. And, sometimes, you can be selling something where you would be legal sound because y'know it is understood to be parody or significantly transformative as to be fair use. Like, just try to be aware of what you're selling and where and who else is there and if they are particularly protective of their works.

Okay, I think that's it for this time! Thanks for sticking with me through another really long one. Keep reading for some important stuff in the announcements. Next week, we'll finish talking copyright so you can get your comments submitted to the Copyright Office's A.I. study. Week after that will either be a quick Q&A to tackle any remaining copyright questions that may've occured or will be the other thing I've been working on. See ya in a week!

What I enjoyed this week: Blank Check (Podcast), Craig of the Creek (Cartoon), Honkai Star Rail (Video game), One Piece (Manga), Pokemon Violet (Video game), Chainsaw Man (Manga), Adventure Time: Fionna and Cake (Cartoon), Night of the Living Dead (Movie), The Archive Undying by Emma Mieko Candon (Book), Kaiju No. 8 (Manga), Witch Watch (Manga), Sex Education (TV show)

New Releases this week (9/27/2023): Brynmore #3 (Editor) Godzilla: The War for Humanity #2 (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog: Amy's 30th Anniversary Special (Editor--happy birthday Amy and Metal Sonic)!

Final Order Cut-Off next week (10/2/2023): Godzilla Rivals: Round 2 TPB (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog: Knuckles' Greatest Hits TPB (Editor)

New Releases next week (10/4/2023): No new books from me this week.

Announcements: Here's the big thing: Starting today, I'm doing a member drive over on my Patreon! You can read about it in a public post there! If you join, renew, or updated to the Feature Fan ($10) tier or above, you're going to get a Mystery Comic Grab bag! And as a patron, you're going to have a bit more choice on what all it is! All the info is on there, so if you're curious, please do give it a look! And it'll be going through all October!

If the Patreon isn't your cup of tea at this time, or you wanna do more of a one-time donation, from Oct 3rd to the 18th, I'll have limited time 2-3 comic Mystery Bundles in my Ko-Fi store! Same premise as the Patreon--there'll be a bundle for grown ups and one for kids. They're pay what you want with a $15 minimum. If you send $25 or over, I'll ship you a trade paperback too!

It will be US only on both the Patreon and Ko-Fi just because shipping internationally's very expensive right now. But, for international folks, I will put together a nice little digital goods bundle for ya!

Wanna support me otherwise? I'm on Ebay, there's my webstore, or you can support Becca through their channels! To be updated next week: Gotta see if my laptop has died died or not. Doing that like right after posting. But if I need a new computer, well, I'll be asking for lots of $$$.

Pic of the Week: Do you think Minions nuggets are made with real Minion meat?

#comics #comics editorial #copyright explainer #Minions nuggies #batman

1 note · View note

vulturevanity · 3 years

Note

Hey, as someone who's currently being educated in the entertainment industry, I was wondering if you had any further insight into the situation with Viacom and Wattpad? It's especially scary to me because Wattpad was the first platform I ever uploaded to, and my beloved work is currently on there. I'm considering jumping ship but I'm not sure... I feel like I don't really understand what's happening, but I'm just vaguely afraid.

I'll try my best to explain what I know, but you should take what I say with a grain of salt or two because I'm by no means an expert on copyright law, nor have I interacted with Wattpad before.

When you create a story, a concept for a show, write a book or a script for a movie, you own all rights to it by default. It's your story, and if someone reproduces it without your permission, they are infringing on your intellectual property. But often you want to share this idea, so you need someone who can help you make that a reality. For movies, those people are in studios and distributors, and for books you have publishers. These people need your permission to handle and sell your work legally at the discretion of both parties -- stuff that is settled in a contract.

Wattpad is a self-publishing platform, meaning you can put your work there without the need to go through the process of finding an editor or a publishing house that is willing to invest money into your work. But since the website is not owned by you and people can access your work through it, that effectively means Wattpad is your publisher. And the "contract" that gives them permission to publish your work is the Terms of Service you agree to when you sign up.

There's something most hosting sites put in their terms in order to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits: they give themselves the right to distribution; sometimes that comes with a right to modify your work. In normal circumstances, these are meant to cover their behinds from people who think making their art into thumbnails or changing the type font is an affront to their vision, or whatever. It's not unusual, self-publishing sites' legal departments are paranoid like that. Warrants a side-eye, but usually nothing too egregious comes of that.

What you need to be aware of is sites that say they will own the rights the work itself as soon as you upload it, or that ask the user to waive all rights to ownership of their own work. Those sites exist and they're incredibly shady and dangerous; they hide their intentions under ambiguous legal jargon and rely on people not reading the terms thoroughly, so that when they inevitably steal someone's idea they can point out to the text and say they agreed to it. I'm not at all familiar with Wattpad's terms of service, I'd have to read them and get back to you on that, but if you're really worried you could start by reviewing it and seeing if any of that applies.

The first issue with the Viacom+Wattpad deal is that, depending on the wording of their terms of service, they may very well have the right to sell your work to Viacom. It would be an egregious bad faith deal, it could make them look horrid in the eyes of the public (depending on how popular the appropriated work is and/or how willing the creator is to put up a fight). It would be terrible for their image, but it's still a possibility. All that being said, however, I think it's unlikely that either of these corporations would do that to the people that basically make the site; they're probably going to want to avoid the PR hassle and contact the writers of the projects they're scouting, for a not outrageously terrible deal.

Which brings me to the second and imo biggest issue: they're probably doing this to circumvent writers' guilds and unions. By seeking out amateur work, they're under no obligation to work under the industry's standards set by its workers, and in a way they're trying to prove the point that corporations don't need to cooperate with industry workers, there'll always be content fodder ready to be picked and used in the Worldwide Web. I guarantee you, whatever Next Big Thing they fish out of Wattpad will end up as a subpar production no matter how high quality the original work might be, because they're trying to scounge up non-union labor left and right to abuse just because they can. The truth is, now that US unions are reacting to the nightmare the workers have been suffering under the big names, capital C Capitalists are shaking in their boots, hoping their work force won't be the next one to unleash hell upon them. So they're desperately trying to undermine their efforts.

So, what do we take from this?

The Viacom+Wattpad deal is bad, but more so because they're probably doing it to save money (and in the process, screw over union workers) than due to the (possible, but not too likely) possibility of copyright infringement.

Do Wattpad users need to do something about this?

At the very least be aware of their true intentions. You don't have to delete your account or works/boycott the site unless you feel strongly about this. And if you do end up getting scouted by them? Make the decision to accept or deny their deal with full awareness of the context behind the deal.

#curetapwater #babs does cinema #AGAIN: I am not an authority here #i'm just a film student who feels very strongly about intellectual ownership #if I'm wrong about this PLEASE correct me. I encourage it #oh oof. this is a wall of text #long post

8 notes · View notes