quote:

---

Either I've forgotten (possibly) or I'm just not so sharp (even more likely) .. what do they say?

---

quote:

---

COPYRIGHT FIGHT!
*throws Mickey Mouse at Gabe*

---

This might help ...
[URL=http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=trademark]TRADEMARK[/URL]
noun[list=1][*]A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.
[*]A distinctive characteristic by which a person or thing comes to be known: the shuffle and snicker that became the comedian's trademark.[/list=1]
[URL=http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=copyright]COPYRIGHT[/URL]
noun[list][*]The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.[/list]adj.[list=1][*]Of or relating to a copyright: copyright law; a copyright agreement.[*]Protected by copyright: permission to publish copyright material.[/list=1]

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

However, if you think about it, the holders of said copyrights are putting their copyright/trademark images and text onto the web. They should know the way the web, and browsers work. For anyone to claim someone has stolen their work by browsing their page is idiotic.
On the other hand, if someone copies an image off a site and uses it on his/her own site, that is infringment.

And trademarks are protected under copyright law, so throwing Mickey Mouse at Gabe is still an instigation of a copyright fight.

Shut up, cockrammer.

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

I guess this means my project "Harry Potter and the Magical Hole of Glory" is a no-go.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

However, if you think about it, the holders of said copyrights are putting their copyright/trademark images and text onto the web. They should know the way the web, and browsers work. For anyone to claim someone has stolen their work by browsing their page is idiotic.

---

Now, boys and girls, with the magic of imagination I'd like to take you to a place where copyright laws do not exist. Anything is possible in the world of magic! In this magical situation, all artwork created rests in the public domain for anyone to use as they see fit. Are you ready to go to this magical place? Put on your imagination cap.....here we go!

"Golly, Mister Faggoty-Ass Magic Man! This is fun!"

I know what you mean, little Pricky! Here, let's draw usselves a real nice comicy-type strip using Bill Watterson's seriously kick-ass character "Hobbes", and the late, great Walt Kelly's classic character "Porky Pine". I'll just copy this great drawing of Hobbes from "Weirdos From Another Planet", and this drawing of Porky Pine from "Ten Ever-Lovin' Blue Eyed Years With Pogo". There. Now I'll paste them both here on my comic strip, and there we go. Say, isn't that purty? Look. I made Hobbes say "Get your spiny dick out of my mouth!"

"Tee-hee! That's really funny, Mister Cum-Guzzle Bitchfuck! Your gay powers are really magical. I like this place of no-copyright. And look how much fun we're having! I sure am glad I can make my very own comicy-type strips using my favorite characters of all time, Hobbes and Porky Pine."

MEANWHILE, over at Bill Watterson's house, where he is still publishing Calvin and Hobbes on a daily basis (anything is possible in the world of magic!)........

"Fuck! Look at this comic strip, honey. They stole my artwork and made Hobbes say, 'Get your spiny dick out of my mouth!' What kind of bullshit is this? Hobbes would never say that! I can't fucking believe this. They're ruining my character!"

"I know, sweetie. But you have to admit that it is pretty funny."

"Well, yeah. I guess so. But the casual reader might get the impression that this is my work, since it contains my actual drawings. So what's the point in trying to develop my characters the way I want if anyone can just take my work and do whatever they want with it?"

"If you feel that strongly, why don't you just use someone else's character? It's perfectly legal, you know."

"Good point, honey! Fuck Calvin and Hobbes! I'm going to make a comic strip with Snuffy Smith and Andy Capp in a gay love affair!"

AND NOW, BACK TO our original House of Cocksuckery, with our heroes Doug Henning and Little Pricky.........

So you see, Little Pricky, the principal purpose of copyright law is not to protect artists, writers, and other creative persons, or even to protect their publishers, but rather to promote the arts and other creative activities. If you look at the United States Constitution, you'll see that Congress has the right to enact patent and copyright laws in order to:

Artists, writers, and their publishers own copyrights, but it is society that ultimately benefits from protection for individuals. After all, if creative persons and their publishers were not given exclusive rights to publish their works, artists and expecially writers would be discouraged from producing works because anyone else could copy and profit from them. Also, publishers would not invest money in publishing works that could be immediately pirated by rivals. The theory is that giving exclusive publication rights to creative persons will encourage them and their publishers to produce more works.

"Gosh, Mister Fagmuncher Assblast, I never realized what could happen with no copyright laws. I don't want my favorite artists to stop creating cartoons, because the world would be a pretty boring place without new and interesting creative-type stuff."

"That's right, Little Pricky. Now shut up, bend over, and take it up the ass."

"Tee-hee!"

God damn it! My money said you'd get that one wrong. Well, you got it right.

I really would have put money on your getting it wrong. This is why I never bet money on anything ever.

Well, so, and... we are still confusing copyright and trademark. Maybe in the "world of thealiasmen" and "other internet thinkers" we can "mount legal arguments" without regard for "distinctions." But lawyers and those who have to abide by their bullshit (all of us) spend considerable time sweating insignificant details such as these.

Today, I got bored in a meeting (axiomatic) and drew a picture of Calvin buttfucking Hobbes and saying "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" on my DayRunner Brand Organizer. In so doing I unauthorizedly reproduced several images of characters in whom other parties had exclusive rights. I did so for the amusement of myself and others (who were seated adjacent to me). Was this a violation of IP law? Why or why not?

PS: Decent post!

---
What others say about boorite!

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see this as a violation of Intellectual Property law. In this example you are creating your own drawings in the form of a parody. You are poking fun at Calvin and Hobbes. Hell, Berkeley Breathed did this on numerous occasions in his "Outland" comic strip. He would put his own drawing of Hobbes on the side of a kiddie swimming pool, or anywhere else he could find. This was to take a jab at Bill Watterson, who felt very strongly about licensing or making products using his characters. Was Berkeley Breathed breaking any kind of IP law? No. Are you, if you draw Calvin sucking Hobbes' pee-pee, or whatever? No, if it's your own drawing. You haven't stolen anything. You are creating a parody.

But you facetiously objected to exactly that kind of parodic treatment in your Doug-Henning-worship post, above. Look at your Calvin and Hobbes and Andy Capp and Snuffy Smith examples.

I don't see how this is different from drawing Calvin doing Hobbes up the ass and saying "All Your Base."

Second, is the test of trademark infringement whether or not you drew it yourself? (Hint: No.)

The world is still waiting for answers.

---
What others say about boorite!

If Bill Watterson doesn't like rip-offs of Calvin and Hobbes, why can't he do something about all those stupid fucking stickers that portray Calvin peeing on something?

(Note: while I genuinely dislike those stickers, I don't really think their manufacturer should be legally prevented from making them.)

Seriously, if Watterson had been discouraged from writing C&H because he didn't want anyone to use his characters, that would be a terrible loss. And if he were discouraged from writing a hilarious comic about Snuffy Smith and Andy Capp's Homosexual Adventures in Outer Space because of current law regarding copyright/IP/trademark/what the fuck ever, that's also a terrible loss.

I was going to write a couple of paragraphs about Alias' scenario where everyone just stops producing art because it can be copied, but I realized I was just restating my previous post: I don't think that's realistic; I think most artists (a) are probably not all that terrified of having their work re-used, and (b) would continue to create regardless of the law (and the mechanism of getting the art to the fans will adapt as necessary).

Anyway, I'm not sure I would really advocate doing away with IP law entirely. I think I'd rather it were just relaxed a whole lot. I know the law is supposed to promote the arts. I just don't think it's doing a very good job.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

Interesting what you say about those window stickers that seem to depict Calvin urinating on an object of the driver's derision. Those are most definitely violations of Bill Watterson's work. When I see those stickers, I don't think of Calvin and Hobbs anymore. I think of the fucknut driving the car. In fact, when I see a Calvin and Hobbs comic, I'm now reminded of all those redneck hicks and their hatfield / mccoy-ish arguments about the comparitive advantages of Chevy over Ford. The trademark has, for me, been forever dilluted. Someone getting away with pirating Bill Watterson's work has deprived me forever the joy of recognizing Calvin and seeing him for what he was originally meant to be.

That's sad.

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

Oh, and in case you're wondering, there a little tidbit [URL=http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cstockcars.html]in here[/URL] about why Bill Watterson and Universal Press Syndicate don't sue.

quote:

---

In 1993, Universal Press Syndicate, which distributed Calvin and Hobbes to newspapers, won a $737,000 lawsuit against a California man who made T-shirts with pictures of the duo.

However, NASCAR sticker makers and sellers are too small for the Kansas City, Mo.-based syndicate to prosecute effectively. With many of the stickers made using computers or in home basements, editorial director Lee Salem said, they're too hard to track.

Universal Press Syndicate sends cease-and-desist letters to sellers before taking any legal action. So far, there have been plenty of letters but no lawsuits over the stickers.

"There's very little we can do except appeal to the public not to buy them," Salem said.

---

The key difference I'm making is mainly technical.

In the magical story above, Doug "the cumslurper" Henning and his trusy sidekick Pricky are using the actual artwork---the actual drawings of Porky Pine and Hobbes. They horked the drawings through the use of photocopiers, scanners, or whatever. You get the idea. It's the actual artwork. Henning and Pricky are stealing someone else's intellectual property and then pawning it off as their own, in other words. This is a blatant disregard for copyright law.

In your example, you are doing the drawings yourself. You are drawing your impression of what it would look like if Calvin Buttfucked Hobbes. (Ha! I really get a chuckle out of visualizing that. "Who's your daddy, you filthy bitch tiger! Ooh, your stuffing is so soft...") Errrr, anyway, this is YOUR intellectual property, however disturbing it may be. Plus, it's a parody. We see this kind of stuff in Mad Magazine all the time. Also, as I mentioned, Berkeley Breathed drew Calvin and/or Hobbes in his Outland comic strip on numerous occasions.

Am I the only one that thinks Doug Henning and Yanni are the same person?

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

Except that Doug Henning is dead and Yanni should be, yeah. I also think that there's acutally only one Jackson child, and that he / she just changes clothes and makeup depending on what role he / she is to play that day.

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

Well, I did focus on what you'd written, you just have to read between the tardling and nip whistle lines.

Well, yes and no. Most of us fucktards will come on here and be exactly as you described. But then there's the occasional newby who will come on and look to be running power plays at the expense of debate. I'm sorry if I mistook you for the latter, I just saw more of the power plays than content in your replies, so made the logical assumption. I'll re-read your "history lesson" and see if I can gleen more from it than I originally did, now with a cooler head.

FUCK THAT, BIZNITCH! With friends like you, who needs enemas?

Aight, we're friends. Proceed to jab away and I'll take it in the manner intended and throw it back with some cinnamon and we can frolick in the morning sun like ass-naked monkey men!

Too gay?

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

Here's a really good page describing what constitutes a trademark parody....

http://www.patentfla.com/articles/trademark_parody.htm

According to that page (Hey ObiJo! Ah read mah-self a page on the gul-durned interweb! Guh-hyuck!), your parody of Calvin buttfucking Hobbes might be a bad idea. Well, if you publish it somewhere, anyway.

Maybe someone should draw a parody of Yanni buttfucking Doug Henning's corpse (skeleton).

Look, you cunt-breathed, nickel-for-six, wannabe shyster: If Matt Groening calls, I'll address this seriously. In the meantime, shouldn't you be studying for those LSAT's instead of trying to blow Matt Groening's legal department?

The question here is, in twenty-five word or less, if you can: What the fuck are you selling?

Does it look like anybody here wants any of it?

Sort it out.

We're busy.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Bunner, you're right.

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

quote:

---

bunnerabb
Happy Comic Moose

Total posts: 1392
Total comics: 329

---

You're browsing the internet?

That's copyright infringement, ass weazle!

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

quote:

---

bunnerabb
Happy Comic Moose

Total posts: 1392
Total comics: 329

---

The key difference I'm making is mainly technical.

In the magical story above, Doug "the cumslurper" Henning and his trusy sidekick Pricky are using the actual artwork---the actual drawings of Porky Pine and Hobbes. They horked the drawings through the use of photocopiers, scanners, or whatever. You get the idea. It's the actual artwork. Henning and Pricky are stealing someone else's intellectual property and then pawning it off as their own, in other words. This is a blatant disregard for copyright law.

In your example, you are doing the drawings yourself. You are drawing your impression of what it would look like if Calvin Buttfucked Hobbes.... Errrr, anyway, this is YOUR intellectual property, however disturbing it may be.

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. It doesn't even rise to the level of wrongness. The test isn't whether or not you electronically or mechanically copied an actual drawing. BZZZT.

True. Now... does that mean I can release my graphic novel, The Homoerotic Adventures of Calvin and Hobbes, without violating anyone's rights, just because I say it's a parody?

---
What others say about boorite!

And Doug Henning isn't a "cumslurper." He's a brilliant entertainer. And a cum dumpster.

---
What others say about boorite!