creative copyright

Hey, dogs are good.

i’m browsing RedBubble looking for Fallout-themed stickers to decorate my hard drive and laptop with for the school year and

….i did not expect to find so many Monster Factory nerds on RedBubble cashing in on three YouTube videos, holy cow

(bonus Todd Howard that made me laugh:)

I think one of the most beautiful things about writing is that anything can happen.

anonymous asked:

Say every chapter in a book you’ve written is named after a song. Should an index or list of mentioned tracks be added to the end of the book? Also, how can you analyze the copyright page of a book? There are some elements that I still can’t grasp, like the ISBN, trademark... In my copy of ‘Slaughterhouse-Five’ the copyright page ends with “OPM 120 119 118 117 116 115 114.” I see these consecutive numbers in every book I’ve perused. What the hell is it?

This is a really tricky question, because you might be violating copyrights/trademarks if you aren’t careful. Most song titles are not copyrighted, but they are trademarked, so a very specific title without a statement that it’s a song could land you in legal water. A title may be protected through litigation if the artist can show that it has achieved “secondary meaning”, in other words, show that the public exclusively associates that title with the artist. (Think “One love” versus “I write sins not tragedies”.) So if you use a song title in a major way, such as in the title of your work or a major point in the story, there’s a possibility that the Recording Industry Association of America, another group, or the artist can will take issue. FYI, song lyrics are an absolute no-go unless you’re prepared to pay the artist for use.

You mentioned possibly adding a list of referenced tracks, and that’s probably the only way to avoid looking like you’re claiming the song title as your original idea. You’ll also need a footnote (or some other kind of notation) on every single chapter title that references to the page that claims it’s not your original work. Even then, the law is really tricky around these kind of issues and even a list may not be sufficient.

Thing is, I am not a lawyer and the law has a lot of little details around this issue that I am not 100% sure about. You’ll want to talk to a lawyer who specifically works with copyrights, trademarks, and music to get the best answer. It’s often a case-by-case basis. I would honestly not risk any song titles at all, unless the title is generic.

For analyzing copyrights, I’m sorry to say that it’s something you also need to ask a copyright lawyer or a publisher because that’s a specialist question that I don’t have the background to answer. I knew a bit about your first question, not so much this one. You might also be able to find a diagram online that explains some of the basic elements.

Good luck with everything!

A Soul Reborn, an excerpt


What happens when a lawyer meets an Angel?

“Okay, come on in. And you can call me Matt,” he corrected her as he ushered her in, staying in the doorway until she passed before entering himself and closing the door.

“You are an excellent lawyer, aren’t you Matthew…I mean, Matt.” She spun around to look at him as he walked towards the island counter in his kitchen; she held her hands behind her back.

“Yeah, I guess,” he said, modestly.

“Therefore…it is your job to believe someone is innocent until proven guilty?”

“Actually, it’s my job to prove someone is guilty.”

“Oh, I see. So I cannot ask you to suspend your disbelief and accept that I am an Angel until proven otherwise?”

“It would be easier to believe you’re not an Angel until you can prove it.” Matt enjoyed the back and forth, exchanging smirks and smiles with Renee. He was pacing through his kitchen while she stood in his living room; as if he was in the courtroom and she was a witness on the stand.

“So then…I would be guilty of being an Angel?” Renee tilted her head and frowned. Had he stumped her?

“Exactly. But can you prove it?” He waved a finger at her, just as he had out in the hallway. He stuck his hand in his pocket. It was a habit that served him well in court, but perhaps not here.

“With ease,” Renee said with confidence.

“Then prove it.” Renee leered at him and his challenge.

“That’s against the rules.” He rolled his eyes. “But have a little faith.” Matt laughed. “Ask me your questions, interrogate me if you must. And know that I will tell you the truth and be innocent until proven guilty…of deceiving you,” she held out a hand, palm facing up and inviting his acceptance.

“Alright…Renee, if that’s your real name,” he teased her.

“It’s not.” Matt was brought up short, nearly tripping on a kitchen rug. “It’s my human nickname.”

“What is your real name then?”

“I can’t tell you. An Angel’s name is intimate and should only be used by other Angels.”

“You’re not off to a good start. You said you’d tell me anything. Do I need to have you swear on the bible?” Matt laughed and Renee smiled.

“You’re enjoying this. Do you enjoy court this much?”

“Hmmm, not usually. You’re prettier than my usual criminals and witnesses,” Matt said it so matter-of-factly while opening the fridge.

“My name is Rhamiel,” Renee admitted. She sighed as if she’d just let a barrier down, officially opening herself up to Matt’s inquisition. Matt leaned away from the refrigerator door and stared at Renee and her sincere expression.

“I like it,” he said simply. “But I like Renee too. So that’s what I’ll call you, if you want,” he said, respectfully.

“Yes, thank you,” Renee affirmed.

Copyright: S. A. Tyler - @author-s-a-tyler

anonymous asked:

It's preposterous to claim that any fiction based on character (and not plot) is fanfiction. This is a push by fanfic writers to seek a specific kind of legitimacy of their work by circumventing the pesky question of the source of the characters. It's an absurd proposition to claim that any character driven work is fanfiction. Without the existence of the original work which inspired a fanfic writer, they wouldn't be writing about these characters and have to list all the character disclaimers

My point was that they are using the characters to explore them in a way that is impossible to do otherwise. I never argued there wouldn’t be fanfiction without use of original characters. What I did argue is that defining fanfiction that way, as I had recently realized, doesn’t feel right to me. We’re setting fanfiction apart as if it’s the use of other people’s characters that makes it different. But there’s stuff that uses other people’s characters that the rest of the world doesn’t seem to see as “illegitimate,” the way they seem to view “fanfiction” (like, for instance, “Elementary,” or “The Aeneid”). My thinking was that, actually, what we’re calling fanfiction is actually a super-character-driven work that’s setting it apart. And yeah, calling it fanfiction seemed apt at first because much of the character-driven work of that ilk was using other people’s characters, because otherwise it’s difficult to re-work the stories in a way that has impact, and was being written by fans, because it was hard for those fans to get into the larger creative culture. But, as those of us who grew up reading and writing fanfiction have started to get the tiniest of toeholds in other forms of culture, and as we’ve started to have access to more means of getting our creative production out there, we’ve started to import more of a fic sensibility. So that you can write “fic” without writing about other people’s characters, I think. And also you can write about other people’s characters without writing “fic.” Whether or not something is “legitimate” doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not something is called “fic.” Copyright law doesn’t work that way. You don’t just stick a label on something and make it illegitimate as a form of creativity.  

Also, copyright law doesn’t require disclaimers. 

Another handy cheat sheet for copyright, fair use, creative commons, and public domain! Everything a student needs to know for their next project or paper.

Open letter to Taylor Swift

Dear @taylorswift,

I’m writing you this open letter to talk to you about how fan made videos and fan vlogs are continuously being taken down on YouTube for containing copyrighted content from your music videos, as well as live footage from your tours.

Now, I know that it’s your legal team handling everything and not you personally. And that is exactly why I wanted to reach out to you about this subject matter in the first place, because I strongly believe you’re not even aware it’s happening to this extent. Don’t get me wrong, I understand certain content needs to be protected because it’s trademarked and there are rude people in the world who make profit off of content that you have legal ownership of.

But I just want you and your legal team to understand that’s not our aim with uploading these videos we make. We make these videos for fun to share with other fans and friends who will get excited over them with us, as well as in the hopes you may see them one day. We don’t make them for profit. You have stated yourself that the thing you love the most about your fans is that we’re original and imaginative; you’ve said you love seeing everything we get up to with our lives and seeing all of our creativity…

But our creativity is being limited and constricted; the documentation of our lives is being concealed from you, as we’re unable to upload it and share it with you because of it being removed by your legal team. We always make sure to include disclaimers stating that it is just a fan video, we own nothing, and no copyright infringement is intended. We put in bold that all content belongs to its original owners and all rights are reserved to the respectful parties such as yourself, the record label, the director, the producers, the editors etc. But they still get taken down and it feels extremely unfair. Especially because there are a multitude of other fandoms in which this doesn’t seem to happen to.

Take the Supernatural fandom, for example. All the cast and crew enjoy seeing what their fans create so much, they actually hold ‘fan-made video competitions’ at almost all of their conventions. They share the YouTube links to said fan-made videos, supporting them and praising them - I am in no way saying you don’t support your fans or anything of the sort; you have given to us graciously and done so, so much for all of us. I am also aware that in the past you have also shared videos your fans have created, and still continue to do so - but my whole aim of this open letter, is to bring to your attention that at the rate your legal team are going, you’re not going to have anything original, creative, or imaginative by your fans to view and enjoy.

There will be no more vlogs of your fans attending your tours, showing you the behind the scenes footage of the experience they had that you loved so much when Karlie showed you hers. There will be no more fan-made music videos or parody videos that are well thought out with strong attention to detail for you to share with your friends and family. There will be no more of your fans digital creativity for you to share with the rest of the world.

I know you can’t control every aspect of your business, and as I stated above, I understand why there are copyright infringement laws put in place. All I ask is that us fans are given a little leeway when it comes to uploading fan-made music/parody videos and vlogs with footage from your music videos and live shows in them.

Making fan videos can take a lot of work; the time and effort put into editing takes a lot of dedication and so much thought and detail goes into them. I’ve seen so many amazing fan videos - not to mention been extremely proud of some of my own - that don’t deserve to be taken down and slapped with a copyright infringement notice threatening to remove our YouTube accounts, when we have done the right thing and put in writing that the videos aren’t made for profit, we own none of the content and all footage belongs to it’s original owners.

In conclusion, I appreciate all the hard work that goes into making your music videos - from the producer hiring key personnel and arranging distributors, the director scouting locations and controlling the artistic and dramatic aspects, you filming your scenes, the costume department and the team in post production (who don’t get enough recognition because editing is fricken hard) - and I’m not trying to take away from all of that time, effort, dedication and hard work of those people. I just want us fans to be able to create something we’re proud of - that we think you’ll be proud of - and be able to share it with yourself and other fans.

I love you so much, Taylor. Everything you’ve ever done for not only us fans, but for musicians and artists of every form everywhere, is amazing and has always come from a place in your heart. I’m not 100% certain you’re even able to do anything to make it so we’re able to upload fan-made music videos/parodies etc but if it is possible at all, it would honestly not just mean the world to me… But to all of us who get inspired by you and your music to create something beautiful to share with you.

Thank you for reading this. I love you.
Love, Natalee

Creative artists … are mankind’s wakeners to recollection: summoners of our outward mind to conscious contact with ourselves, not as participants in this or that morsel of history, but as spirit, in the consciousness of being. Their task, therefore, is to communicate directly from one inward world to another, in such a way that an actual shock of experience will have been rendered: not a mere statement for the information or persuasion of a brain, but an effective communication across the void of space and time from one center of consciousness to another
—  Joseph Campbell, “The Masks of God, Volume IV: Creative Mythology” (Copyright © 1968 Joseph Campbell Foundation)

Well, since I keep misconveying my opinions on copyright, to the point where I keep coming off as sounding like I don’t want copyright at all (Which is not actually my opinion), I might as well make a post detailing my opinions on what changes I’d want to copyright in plain and simple form.


  • Copyright duration in the US should go back to its pre-1976 duration of 56 years.
    • For clarification’s sake, that would mean that everything up to 1959 as of now would be Public Domain, which I think is pretty fair.
    • An exemption would be made for characters who are major “Mascots” and “Logos” of their companies, to throw a bone corporate entities to keep them from whining, but it would need to be super carefully designed without allowing for loopholes for corporate abuse to take huge swaths of characters out of the public domain because “They’re logos now!” with a key target of we-do-not-want-to-let this-happen being the hoarders of Conan’s trademark despite all the original Howard stories being Public Domain
  • Our orphan works laws should be changed, but mainly against large corporate entities who either hoard works without re-releasing them or cannot use them due to rights tanglery, not via forcing smaller creators to have to register everything like some bad proposals have said.
    • My idea for a nonprofit to buy up such works & cult classics would be a stopgap in the meantime, but I would stress that it would be from corporate rightsholders, not vulture-ing off smaller creators
    • Also, more protection for authors who archive and circulate works that are under copyright but would almost certainly disappear if not for that such archival, such as wildly out of print books or ROMs of games left to rot (Like, as Superbunnyhop mentioned as an example; old Pong roms), or even fan translations of works never brought over to a certain country, though there needs to be a “transition process” when that work gets re-distributed by their rightsholders, or (again) a way for it to go into the Public Domain if that redistribution will never come.
  • More protections for non-profit fanworks, or even money-making works like Let’s Plays that don’t do much in effect to harm the actual licensing of the original work, to avoid stuff like NIntendo’s persecution of all those fangames.
  • Less “law” and more ‘ideology,” but I do wish creators felt freer to release certain elements of their work into the Public Domain. and by elements I mean more akin to beasts or materials or artifacts or multiversal entities or versatile characters rather than works as a whole
    • Not under obligation to mind you, lord knows a lot of creators have very good reasons for the keeping of their stuff closed (The cases of Candle Cover, Slender Man, and Pepe the Frog being key examples), I just wish more would consider that as a viable way to let people play in their sandbox.
  • My examples for this going well would be the way nerd culture has inadvertently done this with Frank Herber’ts Sandworms and Spice or everything in the Cthulhu Mythos.

So yea, not so much “Down with copyright entirely” as “An expansion of the creative and archival commons, keeping copyright more to protect small creators rather than huge corporate behemoths”

Just clarifying, and god do I hope I didn’t say anything stupid…

I’ve never been asked that before...

I just got a Message on Reddit from someone actually doing due diligence and tracking down a funny image from the internet to see who originally made it and ask for permission to use it. I didn’t think anyone ever actually did that.

So on the off chance this ever happens again, I guess I should make one of these.

Just shoot a link to me if for some reason you wanna use my stuff (although that map is Paizo’s in the first place, so aaaaaaaa I don’t actually know how copyright works and I’m writing a blog post at 4am.)

If for some reason anyone wants to make Murder Hobo tee shirts or something, though, get in touch with me.
(Just kidding, I don’t want to get sued by Paizo, don’t make Murder Hobo teeshirts)

No one ever taught me
how to unzip
the unfamiliar margins of my heart.
There was always a bulletproof glass
lingering between the vivid pulse
and the eager fingers that wanted to squeeze the life of it
into their pores;
and no one could ever convince it
to shatter
because they were the ones who had put it up
in the first place.
Bolt after bolt,
one pin after another,
following instructions passed down through generations.

I have taught myself
to unlock fragments of what I thought to be me,
drowning past shame in little pieces of gauze
that I quickly threw away
for fear I had let too much weakness
pierce through the cracks.

I have taught myself
that loose screws won’t mean you’re falling apart,
only to fight their tightness
with my bare hands
for the wrench had been hidden long ago
by those who denied me a hug too much.

I have taught myself
to love
to hurt
to feel
while all you ever did was
to silently encourage me
in the strenuous process of building walls
around a soul
measured in praise and yellowing diplomas.

Don’t congratulate yourself
on putting circuits together
and plugging me in
and then wonder why,
at the other end of the line, you’ll only hear a void

You have no right to sculpt me
from cold, raw stone
and then wait for me to offer you
the little burning heart
I have sewn on myself
with care and patience,
mustering up the courage
to show it to the world.

So stop saying “I love you” just so you could hear it back
caressing your ego
because common sense taught me no other response
and my heart cringes painfully when some mere letters of comfort don’t come out naturally –
because I was taught they shouldn’t.

—  “copyrights”, luana gavan

In todays lecture after we had a presentation from Tania, the very last of first year, Andy led us through a powerpoint of the semester’s many topics, such as Materiality and Surface through to Form and Function, Pretty and Ugly Design, Appropriation, Copyright and Creative Commons, Design Ethics, Crafts, Strategies and finally, Design Futures. 

In the last workshop of the semester we looked at more presentations of peoples work coming to the very end of the metamorphoses recipe card creation process. after doing this we attempted to tie up the loose end of our projects such as our ideas for how wed present our cards as a group on the day. our group discussed looking at presenting it in terms of packaging seen in supermarkets “Catch of the Day”, Saatchi & Saatchi (2008), we were thinking of glad wrapping our cards to the table, however i think e then decided to go with a picnic theme more suited to the differing spread of our cards.

You cannot close a species.

After taking a class on copyright laws and getting an a+ (100%) I learn a few things that are helpful. 

You  cannot own a species and prevent others from creating a character based on the specie. For example witchpaws “sushi dogs”.

Even tho witchpaws closed the sushi dog species, she cannot stop others from making one as she does not own the dog species, closed eyes, size of the dog and the scarf design/position. You are free to create a character with similar design and it will be 100% copyright to you and you will not get sued. 

“Though many people believe that copyright protects a creative work no matter what the form- this is not the case; if it was, there would be no patents or trademarks. In fact, there are several categories of creative works which copyright does not protect. One such category is ideas. Since a closed species does not take a specific form, it can not be copyrighted. These closed species are only a set of common attributes as ideas which make it identifiable- that means it could be covered under a trademark as it would identify the artist or their services, but not a copyright as it is only an idea and intangible on its own and members of the species have their own unique attributes (thus making a derivative work) which would technically differentiate them from the original definition of the species. Also, a copyright is only applicible to tangible works, making it even more impossible to gain a copyright over a fictional species as the fundamental components of the species are intangible and ideas- neither can be copyrighted”

I have showed my teacher the quotes above and was told that it is 100% true!

I really hate to burst some bubbles but……..

So if anyone ever attacks you, link this post and  SHIT THEM UP!

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Traditionally, courts adjudicated fair use by considering four factors:

1. Whether the accused work is “transformative” of the original.

2. The nature of the original copyrighted work. Creative works – such as music – are deserving of enhanced protection.

3. The amount and substantiality of the use of the original copyrighted work

4. The effect on the use of the market for or value of the original work.

Over time, the courts (particularly in the Second Circuit, which ultimately would decide copyright disputes concerning Broadway shows) have focused on the first factor — whether or not the accused work is “transformative” of the original — as the defining issue in the fair use analysis, to the point where it now overshadows the other factors.


I received a call from Deborah Mannis-Gardner, the music clearance guru who was responsible for clearing all of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s references to musical theatre and popular music.

Mannis-Gardner agreed with my assertion that “Hamilton” was protected by fair use. It was Mannis-Gardner’s understanding, however, that Miranda specifically wanted to license all of his references to prior music out of respect: “By clearing the songs, Lin was tipping his hat to the hip-hop community,” Mannis-Gardner told me. “When he wrote [Hamilton] he was listening to Notorious B.I.G. and Eminem.” Mannis-Gardner reflected: “It was as if Lin wanted to take that community of hip hop and rap and make the rest of the world recognize that music.”

By taking a form of entertainment (hip-hop) not typically associated with musical theater, and by combining the genres of pop, R&B, hip-hop and musical theater into a historically-pretty-accurate show about one of our country’s lesser-known founding fathers, all of whom are portrayed by persons of color, Miranda created the poster child for “transformative” works.

An important announcement to all ARTISTS who upload their work online.

Shitty people are littered everywhere and they ALL have access to the internet. 

I work at a print shop and you would not believe the amount of rude, ignorant customers that send us things to be printed for things like posters, tattoos, stickers, and more. And almost always it’s an image that I am VERY CONFIDENT they do not have any of the rights to. That they just pulled right off of google and think that it’s okay. This happens in more places than just my job. This happens literally everywhere. 

SADLY I CAN NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT if I can’t see a SIGNATURE or WATERMARK on the image if it’s not owned by a huge company like Disney.

 I have to print these things for them if there is no proof that they don’t own it which REALLY PISSES ME OFF as an artist myself. 

If there IS a signature or watermark I happily ask,

 “Do you have any documentation from the creator that you have the rights to reprint this image?”

 And they never do, so I tell them

 “Sorry we can’t print things that are protected under the creative commons copyright law. You will have to get permission.”

Anyway the most important thing I’m trying to say is 



Last night it was brought to my attention that a seller on Etsy was using one of my Day of the Dead girls for a domino pendant that they were selling.  There was no mention of where the illustration came from and they certainly didn’t consult me before using it.  This is not a witch hunt and although I have placed a screenshot of the Etsy listing on this post, I have taken the shop name off it.  It’s difficult not to think that the seller would be selling my illustrations elsewhere and simply not putting them for sale on their Etsy store.  

Unfortunately this isn’t the first time that something like this has happened to me and my designs.  There is the minority that would choose to cheat and steal, taking my designs and using them to make a profit.  This will not be tolerated.  Which now begs the question, should I watermark my images?

It’s a tough call whether I should start to watermark my illustrations before putting them on the internet.  I was (and still kind of am) against the watermarking of my images - I think that it ruins the overall look and feel of the image.  Besides, I think if someone really did want to use one of my images there would be nothing to stop them from using Photoshop or creatively cropping the image.  

The seller in question has since removed the item from their store but they have not replied to my emails.  On a much more positive note, I am pleased that my illustrations are easily recognised and I have such loyal followers that don’t hesitate to get in touch with me when they smell something a little fishy!  It really does warm my heart!  

<3 Amanda