DRM = BAD

[NatCh]

I think the notion that Jesus had children (with Mary Magdalene, or various others, for that matter) is rather an old one, if Mr Baigent and Mr Leigh claim to have come up with it themselves, they're either much older than scientific understanding would suggest is possible, or they're as delusional as Mr. Brown (who seems to believe that he wrote History rather than Fiction).

The idea that such a bloodline might have continued isn't much more recent, I don't expect. Shucks, the Roman Catholic Church is founded on the notion that Peter's bloodline continues, it's not much of a stretch from that.

As far as that goes, the idea of a secret heir to whatever dynasty suddenly popping up and claiming his legacy (to the ill health of the present claimants) is bread and butter of human civilization since shortly after the idea of inheritance was conceived. I wonder if Seth's son Enos worried that Cain's boy might show up and claim his Birthright?

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I believe that was based on the accusation that "Da Vinci" was a "derivative work" from HBHG. The accusation was judged to be unfounded. That's the same idea that prevents you from writing your own "Harry Potter" book, for example - things like characters created by an author are "owned" by them and can't be used without permission. "Real life" characters and events aren't covered by that.

Actually Fan Fiction seems to get away with it all the time, so long as they don't profit from the stuff they write it all seems legal. Copyright law is complicated when you start talking about fair use.

Dale

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Actually Fan Fiction seems to get away with it all the time, so long as they don't profit from the stuff they write it all seems legal. Copyright law is complicated when you start talking about fair use.

Dale

We've discussed this before in considerable depth. Fan fiction is unquestionable NOT legal (unless the copyright holder gives their permission for their characters to be used - as LucasFilms do for "Star Wars" fan fiction). Fan fiction is tolerated - probably on the grounds that the last thing any author wants to to is piss off their fans, and they probably see the fact that people "care" about their characters so much that they want to read other stories about them as a complement. However, "tolerated" doesn't equate to "legal" and copyright holders do from time to time have "purges" on fan fiction and other unlicenced material - I remember Paramount having one for unauthorised "Star Trek" material on the web about 5 years ago.

It's because fan fiction is not legal that we don't permit it to be posted to this site.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We've discussed this before in considerable depth. Fan fiction is unquestionable NOT legal

I have not seen the pevious discussion but does that not depend on the country and the content? For example

http://chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi

is pretty clear about that it is wrong to say it is unquestionable not legal. It seems that the answer always is "it depends" and that sexually explicit fan fiction is legal in US.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have not seen the pevious discussion but does that not depend on the country and the content? For example

http://chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi

is pretty clear about that it is wrong to say it is unquestionable not legal. It seems that the answer always is "it depends" and that sexually explicit fan fiction is legal in US.

If you mean that it is legal as opposed to any other form of fanfic then no, you are wrong.

The main reason that fanfic continues to exist is that the creator is in a catch-22. If it is allowed, then should the creator ever have to sue for copyright infringement it will come up and potentially weaken the case. At least, that's what the lawyers will say. If the creator tries to stop the fanfic, one consequence will be serious damage to the creator's reputation, and thus a loss in sales.

P.S. This topic has come up in the interviews of a number of different content creators. They all said basically the same thing.

[Penforhire]

Of course content creators would say it is not legal. But parody is explicitly legal. So there are conditions, some noted in that link, where fan fiction is not only tolerated but would also stand up in a court of law.

[igorsk]

In Japan copyright infringement helps culture.

From http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/m...urrentPage=all

Which ought to make what's happening here at Comic Ichi — a manga market the size of several airplane hangars that will attract some 25,000 buyers — so heartening. The place is pulsing with possibility, full of inspired creators, ravenous fans, and wads of yen changing hands. It represents a dynamic force that could reverse the industry's decline.

There's just one hitch, one teensy roadblock on the manga industry's highway to rejuvenation: Nearly everybody here is breaking the law.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's because fan fiction is not legal that we don't permit it to be posted to this site.

Which prompts the question (not intended to be flippant) about the status of your Dalek avatar.

Presumably it's a public domain image; but how can you verify if it is or not?

If there are online resources to find such free images, they'd be very helpful locating possible covers for the ebooks we make for distribution here.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Which prompts the question (not intended to be flippant) about the status of your Dalek avatar.

Presumably it's a public domain image; but how can you verify if it is or not?

According to Wikipedia, Terry Nation only died in 1997. He created the Daleks in 1963. I presumed he extended his copyright to the maximum.

That would tell me that Terry's copyrights are probably still in effect. So the original photographer may have violated copyright in taking the picture.

On top of that, unless HarryT was the photographer, there may be a violation of the photographer's copyright.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but based on what I know about copyright law, it would seem that HarryT is in violation.

Which demonstrates just how far copyright law deviates from reality.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Which prompts the question (not intended to be flippant) about the status of your Dalek avatar.

Presumably it's a public domain image; but how can you verify if it is or not?

If there are online resources to find such free images, they'd be very helpful locating possible covers for the ebooks we make for distribution here.

No, it's not a public domain image. It's a promo shot from a professional model maker who makes Daleks (and other such things) and is used with his permission.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it's not a public domain image. It's a promo shot from a professional model maker who makes Daleks (and other such things) and is used with his permission.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. It prompted me to do a bit of Googling, and Wikipedia has a set of links at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...mage_resources

which might be useful for those in search of public domain images

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it's not a public domain image. It's a promo shot from a professional model maker who makes Daleks (and other such things) and is used with his permission.

I think it is still copyright infringement. The name, image, and concept "Dalek" is copyrighted, and the copyright is held by the BBC (or someone). The guy who built it for you might not own the copyright of those images.

[Penforhire]

Nate is correct but as I noted in another thread, its use here may be considered fair use. Harry is making no money from this, promoting nothing, and not tinkering with the Dr Who universe at all. At worst he should receive a request to cease using it from the true copyright holder prior to any legal action.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think it is still copyright infringement. The name, image, and concept "Dalek" is copyrighted, and the copyright is held by the BBC (or someone). The guy who built it for you might not own the copyright of those images.

No, you are mixing up trademarks with copyright.

You could go and take a photograph of a Ford car, and do whatever you wish with that photograph - it is your photograph. Taking a photograph of a Ford car does not require the permission of the Ford Motor Company; it is not like trying to build your own car and sell it under the name "Ford".

My avator is a photograph of a specific Dalek. I am not claiming that I own any rights to the name "Dalek"; neither am I trying to sell Daleks. It is a photograph of a model Dalek, which was built with the full permission of the trademark holder for Daleks (Mr Nation's estate and the BBC), and the photograph is reproduced with the full permission of the photographer.

I trust that that clarifies the matter!

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by schmidt349

Did you know that the concept of copyright didn't exist until the time of Queen Anne in England and literature seems to have got along just fine without it?

Did you know that, because of that situation, the only people who could write and publish were either wealthy people or were kept by wealthy people? The advent of copyright actually helped to democratize the arts.