This video was on youtube … it was not even two weeks and it was removed
Please copy fast as this will not be long before the copyright is gone
-“How do you guys want us to know about Buck Tick if they snapped the videos?”
-“How do we want this new generation of fans to meet the band?”
***When you find rare videos from the band share those you’ve never seen
Everyone who finds in my files that I know has been removed by copyright I will post
But copy fast because they will remove for sure ok ;)
Because the credit/copyright question, so the original video should be deleted, there amella has remix music so will not have problem~ if you still not watch the animation, you can support to amella’s remix one~ it is very wonderful
Do you know how rinks go about payng for skaters' music? (licensing fees) Wonderful blog!
Thanks for asking!
I fear you may have misunderstood my previous posts on this matter. The rinks have nothing to do with it. It is the federations - the national governing bodies- who are the ones with the arrangements. I am not certain of the particulars, I believe it comes under most “fair use” agreements. The skaters are covered by the federations.
This video was on youtube … it was not even two weeks and it was removed Please copy fast as this will not be long before the copyright is gone Question: -“How do you guys want us to know about Buck Tick if they snapped the videos?” -“How do we want this new generation of fans to meet the band?” ***When you find rare videos from the band share those you’ve never seen Everyone who finds in my files that I know has been removed by copyright I will post But copy fast because they will remove for sure ok ;)
An app developed by Reborn for Tsuna to catch new, potential famigilia members. It detects strong flame potentials in the vicinity and once detected, Tsuna has to throw clams at the person. Actual clams at them
Still a work in progress since Reborn is hoping that the scientists can have the clams open up and capture the victim.
Tsuna heavily disagrees with this “game” and questions the copyright infringement, to which Reborn says “I can do what I want.”
I tend to get a lot of questions about copyright and the legality of mentioning certain things in a story. When I get one question, I usually start getting a lot more and most of them are the same questions over and over again.
Can I use the title or name of X in my story?
Titles cannot be copyrighted, so yes.
Can I mention real people in my story?
As long as it’s not slander or libel, yes.
Can I mention real places and brands in my story?
As long as it’s not slander or libel, yes.
Can I use song lyrics in my story?
Only if you wrote them or those lyrics are in the public domain. This applies to quotes from other material as well. In the US, the majority of works created before 1923 are in the public domain.
Can I mention another writer’s characters in my story?
If these characters remain fictional characters, yes. For example, you cannot talk about Harry Potter in your story as if he’s a real person within your story’s universe. Your superhero characters cannot interact with Marvel characters unless you’re writing for Marvel and have permission.
Can I mention other books in my story?
See the first answer.
Can I publish fan fiction?
With the exception of a new program through Amazon (and there are a bunch of requirements, from my understanding, to get fan fiction published through that), no.
Can I get sued for writing fan fiction?
Yes, but the likelihood of that happening is almost none if you just post it online. Making money off fan fiction can get you in a heap of trouble.
I’ve seen some people publish books in a universe they did not create. How do I go about publishing a (for example) Star Wars novel?
You have to be an established author to get a chance of adding on to an established universe. Even then, you don’t come up with the idea. You’ll be approached on the subject. You must be the chosen one.
It’s not so much that history is happening in the Second Circuit, it’s that Judge Lanvin, writing for the court, has explained “The Law of Fair Use” clearly and comprehensively, whle acknowledging that it can happen even when the use is for commercial purposes.
If you want to read the whole thing, here’s the case - in sum,
Google’s digital copy of the copyrighted works in question provides a “search function, is a transformative use [and] augments public knowledge [but is not] a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs’s copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them.”
What’s important for everyone, and particularly relevant for transmedia creatives, fandomers and anyone who’s been inspired by something else and gone on to create a follow-on work?
While authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks to advance by providing rewards for authorship.
[The crucial question re Fair Use is ] how to define the boundary limit of the original author’s exclusive rights in order to best serve the overall objectives of the copyright law to expand public learning while protecting the incentives of authors to create for the public good.
As the US Congress regularly and continually examines changing our copyright laws, these are two things that are very important to keep repeating.
Since we’ve had discussions here about what “transformative works” actually are, and how they differ from “derivative” works, the Court’s explanation is very handy: "The word “transformative” cannot be taken to literally as a sufficient key to understanding the elements of fair use. It … does not mean that any and all changes to original text will necessarily support a finding of fair use . … Derivative works generally involve transformations in the nature of changes of form. …“
A further frequent topic here has been whether fair use can ever exist when the follow-on user (like Google Books was here) is a commercial entity and/or making a profit with the follow-on work. The court said that while a commercial motivation can weigh against a secondary user, “we see no reason why Google’s overall profit motive should prevail as a reason for denying fair use over a highly convincing transformative purpose.” Whether a follow-on use is commercial or adjacent thereto is less important than the harm the secondary use can cause to the market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work.
If there is no (actual or potential) harm and the copied material is used for for new, transformative purposes, Fair Use is likely.
Even where there is a loss of a sale - or even multiple sales - of the copyrighted work that fact “does not suffice to make the copy an effectively competing substitute that would tilt the weighty fourth factor in favor of the rights holder in the original. There must be a meaningful or significant effect “upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
(Note: if someone can tell me where the Schuyler Sisters pic comes from so we can credit, we’d really appreciate it!)
-he was on #Dantheman ?!
-i’m so done with this guy jesus christ.
-how do you feel in one word?
-FREAKING SELF PROMO?! DanandPhilShop.com
-the make up video
-lipstick on the bed/carpet
-“me and phil share every interest”
-> aw he went to dinner with his mum
-he’s eaten before the liveshow
-nawh he’s proud that so many of us joined in with the red nose day thing!
-his grandma :D
-New Muse song
-New Kedrick album
-NZ x-factor thing
-his obessesion with Kanye West.
-the MCR Thing
-nawh Phil really likes instrumental music
-The Walking Dead
-danisnotonfire video by the end of the week (probably friday)
-new merch soon (early april)
-uhmn he mentioned Troyler?! :D
-Nickelodeon :DD omfg!
-> “need to copyright that shit”.
Question: what’s happening on the 21st of march?
Answer: *mumbles* i may upload a video..(idk i think he said that…correct me if i’m wrong!!)
-he stayed longer :)
-phil was outside and busy
-Game Of Thrones
MENTIONED PHIL: ||||| ||||| |||
I HAVE A THREE THINGS TO SAY!!!!:
(Please hear me out! Omg)
- FIRST OF ALL, PLEASE DON’T FREAK OUT IF HE’S A FEW MINUTES LATE. He’s a human being.
-PLEASE DON’T MENTION PHAN IN THE CHAT !! Dan may get uncomfortable again..and you don’t want that, right?
-Okay..good..anyways..this was a fun younow!! But it also was an emotional roller coaster jfc!! It was funny and hilarious and stuff but then he started talking about instrumental music and stuff and got kind of serious and idk how to feel now. I’m not sure and I don’t want to alarm anyone cause I might be completely wrong but HEAR ME OUT OKAY?
->this younow got me thinking…don’t worry Dan was very happy in the show and everything is fine between Dan and Phil. They are not fighting or anything as some people thought but I feel like something is going on behind the scenes…idk maybe they’re just busy but I feel like these little shits may be planning something or idk. Dan often starts to read out a question and then just mumbles because it could give something away? And he can get really awkward when he reads the chat. I’m sure some people would say “the question was just inappropriate” but idk. Could be..could be…. It’s just a feeling. Tell me how you feel please? Am I going crazy or is there anyone who feels the same way???
Please don’t hate me! :/ (I know my English is not perfect..)
I love you guys!! (My ask box is open..feel free to talk to me!!)
We often get questions around copyright. Can I use this song lyric in my story? Am I going to get sued out of existence if my character quotes a movie?
First, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. The below is general information that pertains to the United States. If you have more questions or live outside of the United States, please contact a legal professional in your area.
Now, to the answer. I’m lucky to have a friend who’s not only a great beta reader, but also a patent attorney. He explained it to me like this. If you’re writing a fanfic you want to post it on the internet, make no money from it, and include a little blurb about the rights of those songs/quotes/whatever belonging to their respective owners, the likelihood of you getting a cease and desist is slim. Part of the reason is the copyright holder has to show that you somehow impacted their bottom line negatively. Many authors and entertainment franchises realize if their works become popular, people will write fanfic. It’s part and parcel of having a fandom and it’s rare the legal teams get involved. There are exceptions to this; Anne Rice comes to mind.
If you want to publish this, whether it’s self-published or through an agent/publisher, the simple answer is you can not use any lyrics without purchasing the rights. Song lyrics have their copyright rigorously enforced, so if you use them without purchasing the rights to do so you will hear from a legal team. For quotes from movies or tv shows, you’ll have to confer with an attorney as some instances may fall under fair use. Purchasing rights can be a long and expensive process, and publishers won’t offset the costs. While there are online guides about purchasing rights, this may be an instance where it’s better to err on the side of caution and consult a legal professional.
Finished my first full-color comic! I had a lot of fun with this.
Explanation: our school was commissioned to make advertisements for Airstream and our school would get one of their travel trailers in return. So we were given “assignments” in which we were supposed to promote the company. (I should add that the company doesn’t like to pay for advertising, even when their biggest marketing problem is that people don’t know the trailers are still being produced.) Airstream wanted us make designs that would appeal to people our age, pushing the idea that we are all “potential airstream owners” although they were aware that this was a financial impossibility. On top of all this, there was no agreement that any of the students would get paid if Airstream chose to use their work… there wasn’t even a discussion about it apparently, until we raised a little hell.
It’s really cool to see how students and certain administrators worked hard to produce great artwork that Airstream couldn’t use for promotion: incorporating other copyrighted things, things of “questionable taste,” and things that flat-out had absolutely nothing to do with aluminum travel trailers. As for me, I made this comic.. hope this backstory can help you enjoy it more!!!
- Nat has been stripped from her status as a strong female character because she, a human, has feelings for another human.
- The Twins are no longer important or victims of atrocious acts of war because their heritage was changed to fit to the time period in question, copyright laws, and constructs of a cinematic story arc as it pertains to Stark weaponry as well as to serve for a REASON for their hatred and hostility.
- Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and Dollhouse, is now a racist and a misogynist. This is due to the points listed previously.
OTHER NOTABLE HAPPENINGS:
- Tumblrminded folk continue to destroy everything they touch and be proud of themselves whilst doing it.
- We head towards a grave over-correction in our culture. Because….
- Intelligence is being sacrificed while, simultaneously, information is abounding. People have great access to a wealth of information, yet few practice the discipline of researching the sources, seeking objective truths, thinking for themselves or considering all the aspects.
In short, knowledge is a weapon. And without conscience discernment, responsibility, and reasoning it is a damn dangerous one.
So I have some fall out boy and twenty one pilots graphics I made that I wanna put on RedBubble but doesn’t that violate copyright? Because the band isn’t making a profit, but I see band stuff on there all the time?
With the growing question of copyright and other similar laws, I wanted to ask what Voltage Inc's thoughts were on fan made material? Particularly if artists accept commissions or sell fan works of your characters? Is this something you'd like ended?
Description: The work is a copyrighted cartoon by artist Chip Bok. The caption of the cartoon was altered, but the copyright and signature remain, making it look like this work is by the artist, when it is not. You can find an original copy of the cartoon here: http://www.creators.com/editorialcartoons/chip-bok/31500.html
The content has since been removed, in accordance with U.S. law and Tumblr’s own copyright policies.
At Tumblr, we implement a strict three-strike policy against copyright infringers. The notice we received counts as one strike against your account. If you receive three uncontested strikes within 18 months, your account will be terminated. You can contest this notification by following the instructions for a “DMCA Counter-Notification” found here: https://www.tumblr.com/policy/terms-of-service#dmca. A successful counter-notification will remove the strike against your account.
Please note that if your account is terminated for repeat copyright infringement, any new accounts you create will also be terminated.
Thank you for your informative blog! About the copyright question. If I let's say, take character (that I love very much) from one work, keep the character DESIGN and personality with some modifications, but drop her to my own world that is very different from the work she originated from, is that copyright issue? When I see character I love, then I tend to take them and fit them to my own work with some modifications, but core stays same.
Again, in case this gets separated from the previous posts, I’m not an expert on copyright law by any means. That said, straight lifting characters, even if you change their name and setting can be copyright infringement. The case I’m aware of is Salinger v. Colting. Fredrik Colting used Holden Caulfield, changed the name, and wrote something that amounted to an unauthorized sequel. Colting was using a different setting, and masked Caulfield by calling him “Mr. C,” but because he was still, recognizably the same character, with an almost identical background, the court found in favor of Salinger. You can find the actual rulings on a google search, if you really want the specifics.
The big takeaway is, it’s not enough to simply rename a character, and stick them in an original setting. While Salinger v. Colting doesn’t directly address it, I’d say character design is something else you need to be very careful about appropriating. In other forms of media, it’s very easy to demonstrate when you’ve lifted a character’s appearance for your work.
You can take elements of a character. You can take the concept, and completely rework it. Copyright isn’t about the protection of ideas, it’s about the specific expression of those ideas. What this means for you is you can take the same basic idea for a character, and completely re-purpose it for your own work. But, the important element is that the final character is entirely your own, and not simply a version of the original character that’s been obfuscated so you could use it.
There is one major exception to this, parody. Usually, we think of parody as taking a fictional work and reworking it to be played for laughs. Legally, parody is taking a piece and reworking it as a direct critique of another piece of fiction. This can be humorous, or played straight. An example of the latter would be Watchmen which takes transparent versions of many Charlton Comics characters (primarily Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, and The Question), and uses them to build a (fairly damning) critical analysis of superhero comics. In the legal sense, Watchmen is parody, even though it’s quite serious.
If you’re starting from a point of looking at a fictional character, and saying, “this person makes no sense, if they were in a world where the writers weren’t cheating for them,” or something to that effect, you have the basis for a critical parody.
If you’re starting from a point of looking at a fictional character, and saying, “I want to use this character for my work,” you need to stop. Step back. Identify the reason the character appeals to you. Extract that concept. And build a new character around that concept.
Everyone takes inspiration. You’ll see, read, or experience something, and say, “I want to use that somehow.” That’s natural. What you don’t, ever, want to do is blindly copy. Bring your understanding or perspective into the piece. Hold it against other factors. Say something for yourself about whatever caught your attention in the first place. Express your ideas, not some other writer’s idea that caught your attention.
David Beckham Gets A New Tattoo To Commemorate His And Victoria Beckham’s Wedding Day And Treble Football Win
David Beckham is no stranger to getting a tattoo or 30, but his latest inking may be one of our favourites yet.
Becks has gone and got a little ‘99′ tattooed on his little finger on his right hand, and the meaning behind it is pretty special.
Nope, it‘s got nothing to do with a love for the flake that comes with a Mr Whippy.
Instead, ‘99′ actually refers to 1999, the year he married Victoria Beckham AND the year he helped Manchester United win their historic Treble - the Premier League, FA Cup and UEFA Champions League.
Lovely idea, right?
Sharing the photo of his tattoo on Instagram, the 40-year-old wrote: “99 was a good year for me …“
You can say that again!
Earlier this month, David, whose favourite tattoos are the ones he has for his children (n’awww), posted a loving tribute to his wonderful wife on their 16th wedding anniversary.
Thanking her for giving him a fab family, he wrote: “16
years ago today was our special day… 16 years on we have our
beautiful children… Thank you for giving me our amazing little ones
…. Happy anniversary.”
16 years and we STILL haven’t been adopted into their family - what’s going on, guys?!
The question is: Will David get any MORE tattoos? And if so, what’s he going to get?
Can we request ‘YAHOO CELEBRITY UK’ in big letters, please?