Well, that's certainly a lot to think about. I'll admit that the whole topic of copyrights in reference to this site is an interesting one. And since you asked, I should mention that no, I never gave much thought to the matter.

In a practical sense, it doesn't make much of a difference to me either way. If we were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Brad was in violation of some copyright laws, and that any of us who had used them were in the same boat, I still wouldn't be all that concerned.

I've seen numerous occasions of various folks online that have done a whole lot worse than what Brad's doing. If any action was taken, it was usually just a cease and desist order from a law firm.

So I doubt much that anything is ever going to come about in terms of bringing the copyright police down on Stripcreator's head, unless someone goes and rats us out to Groening.

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

quote:

---

I just wanted to say that it's particularly funny that artistic types take out their aggressions via art. They have that old, "If you piss me off, I'll draw you like a ninny" complex.

That's funny to me.

---

It's funny to me, too. Matt Groening did a "Life in Hell" comic strip about this very subject called "Your Guide to the Modern Creative Artistic Types". It's one of my faves. The strip is a matrix that shows the creative types down the left side, and across the top are the categories of dominant personality trait, secondary personality traits, distinguishing features, haunting question, and how to annoy them. The strip shows many creative types, including writer, painter, poet, and actor. At the bottom is cartoonist, and on the right under 'how to annoy them' is the warning: It is unwise to annoy cartoonists. I love that. Like the whole comic strip was just a big warning not to piss off cartoonists. Brilliant!

I'm having trouble visualizing that. Could you scan it for me and post it?

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

For what it's worth, I don't think many people do give much thought to copyrights. That's not an accusation, it's just an observation, based on experience.

It's really sad for those individuals who make their living at creating intellectual property, because they are essentially at the mercy of the general public who doesn't seem to feel concerned or even know at all that copyright infringement is not just stealing, but it's morally wrong, too.

LOL

...but if it makes you feel like a better person to belittle my opinions, more power to ya.

---

Anything you took from my statement other than its "yours is but one opinion" thrust is from your own imagination and compettitive nature.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

ObiJo, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but citing arbitrary excerpts from one web page you read in an hour does not go very far to convince me that copyright violation has not occured.

---

There's two ways I can tell when I've won an argument (or, more accurately, that the other person feels they've lost) - 1. They attack me rather than my arguments and 2. They fall into the old opinion maelstrom. (That's just my OPINION. I'm entitled to it. This is like the fetal position of debates.)

I appreciate the history lesson on copyright, but it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. I presented a counterargument to what you said. Something that nullified your assertion that stripcreator is breaking copyright law. You offer no counter argument, but instead pat me on the head, saying you appreciate my enthusiasm, but that random excerpts from a webpage won't convince you.
I doubt you even read the page. If you did, you'd see that it covered specific court rulings on copyright law, and did so in an unbiased manner.

You raised an assertion. I raised counter points. You sidestepped.

Address my points, and we can have a worthwhile debate. Hide behind your patronizing attitude, and we can't.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

I didn't know that! I think I'll wonder over to Groening's site now and buy much merchandise!

Little much?

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Sadly the only worthwhile comment I can add to this discussion is that Bongo HAS appeared in the Simpsons a couple of times, as a stuffed toy in Maggie's bedroom.

Sorry.

I still say we just contact someone who works for Groening and ask them what they think. Every other artist has been fine with their art being used here, I don't see why he would be any different.

---
Dad was flammable

I'm not surprised Groening slipped Bongo in there somewhere. Do you know if Akbar and Jeff ever made an appearance?

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

...but if it makes you feel like a better person to belittle my opinions, more power to ya.

---

Anything you took from my statement other than its "yours is but one opinion" thrust is from your own imagination and compettitive nature.

---

Or maybe it's because of the following from that email you sent me a month ago:

quote:

---

Yes, but you're so fun to pick on. I'm making a pool
now to see whether you reply. Part of me thinks "Yes,
she's a power-hungry control freak, her eye will start
twitching if she doesn't get the last word." I hope
it's not true, since this is just a waste of my time.
You're super intelligent but tainted, so I don't value
anything you say. I'm really only writing back to you
to get a few more jabs in, since you're the first
person in my bad person list, so I feel no remorse
about doing it. And, it gives me pleasure to kick you
around a little since, well... since you're you.

---

No, probably just my imagination.

---
I am a delicate fucking flower. https://beacons.ai/jesskent

why shouldn't bongo stay!?

oh.

I can't believe Brad let a newb push him around like that.

Well if newbs have that much power here... Hey Brad! Give me all the money you made from this site last month! Right now! =P

---
Peace and Love.

No one even mentioned my replacment Bongo :(

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Is that the bunny from Alice in Wonderland?

LadyJ, Obi, could you please take your fight somewhere else? It's detracting from the main issue here.

---
Dad was flammable

Yes.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

Sadly the only worthwhile comment I can add to this discussion is that Bongo HAS appeared in the Simpsons a couple of times, as a stuffed toy in Maggie's bedroom.

Sorry.

I still say we just contact someone who works for Groening and ask them what they think. Every other artist has been fine with their art being used here, I don't see why he would be any different.

---

I would agree that contacting the artists involved, or the mega-media congolomerate that controls that intellectual property, and asking them would be the safest thing. However, be prepared to get smacked down. There's a substantial difference between a comic that someone posts on the internet and a comic that has been syndicated worldwide for over twenty years. What the media companies are afraid of, why they're so violently opposed to the apperance of intellectual property law infrigement (DMCA be dammed!), is that they know that if they give anyone an inch, they'll lose a yard.

People are exceedingly clever, and any loophole can easily become what the media companies perceive as an excuse to rape and pilliage their bottom line. After all, it's all about money.

Try going to google and doing a search on "intellectual property" or "copyright law dmca" or "copyright and internet" and you'll pretty quickly get a sense that companies are throwing lots of money at congress and anyone else who'll listen in an attempt to stop up the gigantic hole that's already been opened in their profit margins.

---
"In the end, everything is a gag." - Charles Chaplin

quote:

---

Doesn't Brad know anything about copyright infringement? He's profiting off of your donations, which go to the exploitation of copyrighted cartoon characters.

Does Brad care about this? Does anyone care?

Talk amongst yourselves.

---

Get fucked, lawyer boy.

---
What others say about boorite!

I'd have to argue that he does get fucked. That's why he's so calm and logical in the face of this non-stop wave of "clever" retorts.

---
"In the end, everything is a gag." - Charles Chaplin

Disney is the fronthead of destroying the very thing that made it rich, namely, public domain. Steamboat Willy's copyright will be up in 2003, and Disney wants to change that. Disregarding the essential point of limited ownership, Disney is basically trying to circumvent the very idea behind Copyright laws.

If I recall, Jefferson would be kicking ass and taking names if he saw what is going on in Congress regarding copyright these days.

And he'd do it with a gun.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Was it "get" or "fucked" that eluded your keen legal mind?

Hahaha. That's how we greet newbies around here. By "we" I mean "me," and by "greet" I mean "insult and see if they go away." But you do sound like a lawyer boy. What are you trying to prove? That there's a big jaywalking crackdown afoot? Ooh.

If we want to talk copyright, or "intellectual property" (misnomer), I'm going to have to bring up the notion of a limited statutory grant in certain uses of a work, and the purpose for which this grant was invented. You're wrong about several things. You're right, though, that copyright owners are extending their legal privileges into areas previously unimagined, at the expense of copyright users.

That's what I meant by "get fucked." Read between the lines!

---
What others say about boorite!

e.g.,

quote:

---

I would agree that contacting the artists involved, or the mega-media congolomerate that controls that intellectual property, and asking them would be the safest thing.

---

That's about as safe as running through Hell with gasoline drawers on. I guess legal advice is worth what you pay for it.

---
What others say about boorite!

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the discussion. It is the fucking discussion! We're discussing whether or not stripcreator.com is violating copyright law. Wake up.

quote:

---

I presented a counterargument to what you said. Something that nullified your assertion that stripcreator is breaking copyright law. You offer no counter argument, but instead pat me on the head, saying you appreciate my enthusiasm, but that random excerpts from a webpage won't convince you.
I doubt you even read the page. If you did, you'd see that it covered specific court rulings on copyright law, and did so in an unbiased manner.

You raised an assertion. I raised counter points. You sidestepped.

Address my points, and we can have a worthwhile debate. Hide behind your patronizing attitude, and we can't.

---

OH YEAH!!! Step into the ring, bitch! Let's dance!!! I patronized to you because you're acting immature and childish. You deserve to be ignored, but since many in this forum seem to be taking your knee-jerk intellectualization as actual wisdom, it's probably worth it to respond to your so-called "points".

quote:

---

I want bongo back. I want to be the one who gets bongo back. I want to be who gets a ticker-tape parade for getting bongo back. I want to be the one bought drinks and hookers at every stripcreator meet for that great day I got bong back.

But mostly I just want bongo back.

---

With this kind of attitude you're already showing that you aren't even interested in an honest, open discussion. You go out on the web and desperately search for ammunition that you hope will support your rigid and close-minded stance. It's scary because you think this is about winning an argument. Scarier still is the idea that you zealously want to reinstate the unauthorized use of a copyrighted cartoon character, without really stopping to consider the implications.

quote:

---

The entire bredth of my copyright knowledge was gained in the last hour from here.

From that page:

quote:

---

Court's are more likely to find a parody to be a fair use, that is, non-infringing or diluting, if the parody appears in a traditional medium of protected free speech, finding such use to be "noncommercial". For example, the First Circuit reversed the district court's finding of dilution against High Society magazine's 2-page feature "L.L. Beam's Back to School Sex Catalog," depicting models in sexually explicit positions, holding that the article was protected as a noncommercial, editorial or artistic parody.

It offends the Constitution . . . to invoke the anti-dilution statute as a basis for enjoining the noncommercial use of a trademark by a defendant engaged in a protected form of expression.

A protected form of expression. That's the key right there.

---

---

You are claiming that stripcreator.com is a protected form of free expression. But "a protected form of expression" is NOT the key here. You've completely missed the meaning of the citation as it applies to stripcreator.com. While creating and publishing images on a website is a protected form of expression, it doesn't automatically mean that what you are expressing isn't infringing or diluting. That's for the courts to decide. And do you really think Brad wants to take the risk?

The key phrase that should stand out in your head is "more likely to". As stated in your citation, "Courts are more likely to find a parody to be fair use..." This doesn't automatically mean that courts will find in your favor just because you're publishing in a "traditional medium of protected free speech." And, as stated in my previous post, I question whether or not a court or jury would see that the use of this site is non-commercial in nature. The exchange of money is happening, and in return for your 'dontations' your comic strips gain greater placement on the website. (Comic strips that could and probably do contain unauthorized copyrighted characters, I might add). It's a subtle form of manipulation or upselling, and it gives the appearance of impropriety. It goes to prove intent of commercial gain.

Also, you've not even begun to define what constitutes a fair-use parody, or if the comics contained within stripcreator.com would be considered by the courts to be parody or not. A parody, as defined by Merriam-Webster is "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule." They imporant phrase is closely imitated. The copyrighted characters contained within stripcreator.com are not close imitations. They are scans of the actual drawings. In the case of the Bongo drawings, even though they weren't scanned in directly by Brad, he took them from someone who did.

quote:

---

Copyright law has always been a battle betweeen two entities: the rights of ownership, and the freedom of expression. And courts have stumbled around clumsily trying to define the balance that will throw these two entities into equilibrium with each other. Courts have overriden each other, contradicted each other, nullified and reversed each other, the whole time blindly groping for this balance.

Except in one case. In one case, the courts have been very consistent. Freedom of expression, without dilution to a trademark, and with no intent of commercial gain is ALWAYS LEGAL.

ALWAYS.

---

First you openly admit to doing research for only one hour, and then you proceed to pontificate. "Copyright law has always been..." Well. All hail the copyright expert! After an hour of reading you know what copyright law has always been! Copyright has NOT always been a battle between the two entities you mention. Copyright law is about striking a balance between protecting the rights of creators and protecting the access of readers. Specifically, it's a balancing act which attempts to give protection to the creators and authors of original works, while at the same time preventing anyone from getting too much control over information which may generally benefit the public.

You also claim that freedom of expression without dilution to a trademark is always legal. ALWAYS. First of all, dumbass, freedom of expression isn't always legal. For example, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. You also can't transfer obscene or indecent information to minors via online services. You even need a permit to exhibit a movie or TV show. The Communications Decency Act has also enacted further rules which limit your so called "free speech". You cannot speak words that could provoke the average listener to violence, for example.

But let's say for the sake of discussion that your sweeping generalization was accurate. In your own words you stated that freedom of expression without dilution to a trademark is always legal. Well, how do you know that a court or jury wouldn't consider striprcreator.com's use of copyrighted characters as trademark dilution? Remember that these copyrighted characters are being used without permission, and in a manner that infringes on the creator's legal rights to use his/her creation as he/she wants.

Again, this isn't the key. Commercial gain isn't the only criteria for determining copyright infringement. Even though you may not have created your comic strips with the intent of commercial gain, it doesn't absolve you (or me) from using someone else's intellectual property without their permission.
Again, as stated in my previous post, I question whether or not a court or jury would see that the use of this site is non-commercial in nature. Also, as I mentioned, commercial gain isn't the only criteria for determining copyright infringement.

quote:

---

From that site again:

quote:

---

L.L. Bean, Inc., 811 F.2d at 32.
In support of its conclusion that the defendant's use was noncommercial (and therefore entitled to a more heighten level of protection than would be afforded to commercial speech), the First Circuit pointed to use of the labels "parody" and "humor" in the magazine's table of contents; that the L.L. Bean mark and the article were not mentioned on the magazine's front or back cover; that the article took up only two pages of a hundred page issue; and that the defendant was not selling any of the products shown in the article.

---

If this isn't a direct correlative to stripcreator, I don't know what is. Think about it, the court said that the High Society article wasn't copyright infringement because it identified itself as "humor", that the article was not mentioned as a means to sell the magazine (same as stripcreator not mentioning Groening and drawing in increased traffic off his name), that the article took up only two pages of a hundred page issue (bongo is one character of hundreds here), and that High Society wasn't selling any of the products shown in the article (just as brad's made it a point to not sell any merchandise other than those featuring Three Reasons - which is public domain). I mean, by christ, that case goes directly to stripcreator.

---

If anything, this case goes against stripcreator.com. The magazine in question above used appropriate labels to identify the two pages as a parody. Stripcreator.com does not provide any such label or disclaimer. Furthermore, the parody above was only a small part of that particular issue. Comic strips on stripcreator.com are the lifeblood of the site. The bulk of the site's content is the comic strips. The issue isn't that Bongo appears in a fraction of the site. The issue is one of impropriety. Brad offers the potential unauthorized use of copyrighted characters on every single comic strip that is created.

quote:

---

The only two things that might negate this are parody and dilution. First off, is the bongo character being used in parody or comment on its original source. Hell no, thealiasmen says! To which I counter

[Click to view comic: 'Obsessed with NS']
[Click to view comic: 'Friggles the clown presents Bongo, the Original Simpson']
[Click to view comic: 'Crises and Musings']
[Click to view comic: 'THE END']
[Click to view comic: 'Oh, Satan! V - Are you suuure?']
[Click to view comic: 'Ted's new roommate']
[Click to view comic: 'fear the moth.']
[Click to view comic: 'Life in Hell']
[Click to view comic: 'average american']
[ Posted comic does not exist ]
[Click to view comic: 'LIFE IN HELL by Matt Groening']
[Click to view comic: 'The rhythm's gonna get ya! Did I say rhythm? I meant lawyer.']
[Click to view comic: 'Jerk']
[Click to view comic: 'You Can't Copyright a Title']
[Click to view comic: 'Sued in Hell']
[Click to view comic: 'Next on Jerry Springer....']
[Click to view comic: 'the death of futurama']

The point, if not now mind-numbingly clear, is that bongo CAN be used for parody and HAS been for parody consistently. I mean, check the dates of the above comics. They span the entire existence of stripcreator. Why? BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE SEES BONGO, THEY THINK MATT GROENING!

---

This is the problem. Bongo is Matt Groening’s creation, and is a recognizable, identifiable, and trademarked character. It is Matt Groening’s legal right to use his character as he sees fit. With regards to parody, how are the above comic strips examples of parody? They are not all poking fun of Matt Groening, nor are they all poking fun of Bongo. And in none of the comic strips above are the drawings of bongo “close imitations”. They are all scans of the actual drawing---a flat-out case of copyright infringement.

There are so many gross inaccuracies and assumptions in your thinking here that I don’t know where to begin.

Dilution occurs through either “blurring” or “tarnishment.” Blurring is when the connection in a reader’s mind becomes unclear between the actual creator’s trademark and your own creation. Tarnishment occurs when the trademark becomes consciously or unconsciously linked with poor quality or a crappy product or creation.

The issue at hand is the potential for confusion that could occur. If a reader has never seen Bongo and then stumbles across stripcreator.com, that reader might assume that stripcreator.com is the authoritative source or creator of Bongo and/or “Life in Hell”. If a reader does happen to be familiar with Bongo, “Life in Hell”, and Matt Groening, that reader might assume that stripcreator.com and Matt Groening have partnered. More specifically, the reader might assume that Matt Groening endorses stripcreator.com and the subsequent use of his trademarked character.

quote:

---

One last point on this - it could rightly be argued that even if using the bongo character in parody strips is legal, but in other ways is not (something I *strongly* disagree with since there's no intent of making money), that Brad's intent could just be to provide bongo as a source for parody. He's posting the bongo art so that people can parody The Simpson's, and when they do, cool. When they don't, though, he's still not liable, since his intent in posting the bongo art at a free site, was only to provide strippers the ability to parody The Simpsons.

Something to keep in mind.

---

Remember that Brad doesn’t have the authority to offer scans of Matt Groening’s characters. Brad hasn’t asked for permission. The original artwork doesn’t belong to Brad. It belongs to Matt Groening. And even if Brad’s intent was squeaky clean, it could be argued in court that Brad was still being reckless by enabling unauthorized use of a copyrighted cartoon character.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Another example of the broader scope allowed trademark parody in a noncommercial context is Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Corp., 886 F.2d. 490 (2d Cir. 1989), which involved the use by the publisher of Spy Magazine of the cover design elements of Cliffs Notes for tongue-in-cheek parody called "Spy Notes." Reversing the district courts injunction based on a likelihood of confusion, the Court stated that a greater risk of confusion must be allowed for works such as parodies, in which expression, and not commercial exploitation, is the primary intent. Id. at 497.

The value of free speech was also acknowledged by the court in Mutual of Omaha, normally cited for the proposition that a disparaging parody of a company's trademark ("Mutant of Omaha") on a commercial product such as tee-shirts should be enjoined. The same court noted that the parody could be used, for example, on anti-nuclear pamphlets, a traditional means of free-speech. 836 F.2d at 403 n. 8.

---

Just further proof that when expression, and not commercial gain, is the primary intent, the court's nearly unanimously favor free expression over property rights.

---

“Just further proof” you say. How are you able to read that case study and then make the subsequent assumption that the courts have “nearly unanimously” favored free expression over property rights? What kind of mental gymnastics are you doing? Citing an example of successful litigation that favors free expression over property rights doesn’t automagically mean that stripcreator.com will have the same level of success if it were to go through litigation.

You contradict yourself. How can it be “murky water” and also be “in no way” a copyright infringement?

Speaking of contradictions, you complained that I addressed none of your points (which I didn’t until now). Yet you also conveniently failed to address any of mine. You dismissed them with a wave of your hand as a “history lesson”. You then claim to have presented counterarguments that nullified my assertions. Yet your counterarguments do nothing to nullify my assertions. Your counterarguments are nothing more than citations of case studies and pontifications based on an admittedly incomplete and naive understanding of copyright law.

And no, I’m not a lawyer. I’m a cartoonist that’s been burned far too many times on copyright issues. You get fucked in the ass enough times, and you learn real fast not to bend over to pick up the soap.