So, briefly, what do you think about the Kindle now?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rflashman

Hey Harry...

Hate to break it to you, but your profile carries an Avatar that is copyrighted by someone other than yourself. I am pretty sure you haven't paid the BBC (or the parent company behind Dr. Who) for the rights to use their copyrighted image. So while you are busy throwing some stones, might want to check out your glass house.

You are partially correct. I don't hold the copyright to the image, but I am using it with the permission of the copyright holder; a professional model maker who makes Daleks and other such similar things.

[Penforhire]

Not to be pugnacious or anything but your model maker's permission has no bearing on the use of a likeness for a character whose copyright he does not own. He made models on contract to others who gave him permission. Your photo requires permission of the original copyright holder. Or maybe it doesn't require ANY permission as a fair use example here.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware of the fantasy world in which you live. The the reality is that copyright infringement is not stealing.

You write this and yet you claim that your argument is based on respect? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by rlauzon

I take it that the schools in the UK don't teach what Ghandi did, then.

Ghandi was well aware that he was breaking the law. He was willing to accept the punishment for it in order to demonstrate the law's injustice. That's the nature of civil disobedience and passive resistance. His actions stemmed from a deep and abiding respect for the concepts of civilized law. Your comparison does the man a grave disservice.

Again; I do not think respect means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by rlauzon

You need them to make laws that protect you - the author - not a faceless entity that creates nothing yet holds copyrights.

Oh, no you don't. The discussion was about the validity of copyright and the legality of its violation, not about whether or not the creator can transfer that right. Raising the "faceless entity" corporate straw man at this point invalidates everything you've written to this point. Copyright laws do protect the author. The fact that said author chooses to transfer those rights is immaterial.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Not to be pugnacious or anything but your model maker's permission has no bearing on the use of a likeness for a character whose copyright he does not own. He made models on contract to others who gave him permission. Your photo requires permission of the original copyright holder. Or maybe it doesn't require ANY permission as a fair use example here.

I respectfully disagree with you, Penforhire.

If you go to your local toy store and buy a toy Dalek, you are free to take a photograph of that toy and post that photograph here, or anywhere else for that matter. The toy was made with the permission of the trademark holder, as was this particular model Dalek made with the permission of the BBC. It would be a different matter taking a BBC photograph of a Dalek, and posting that. That would indeed be a copyright violation. This, however, is not.

[nekokami]

HarryT, I think it's the edge of the "slippery slope." Suppose you take a photograph of a book cover illustration? Are there limits to where you can post that? Certainly if you buy an original painting, you may not be purchasing reproduction rights, and it could well be illegal to photograph it and post images anywhere (but one would expect an exception if you were selling the painting online.)

In this case, you're probably right that your use of your own photo of a model, especially given that you have the modeler's permission, is legal-- or at least, it would be in the US. But I'm not at all sure that this is clear.

Let's say, for example, that I want to make an illustrated story and post it online. I buy some action figures at a toy store, set them up in the poses I want, and use photographs of them as my illustrations. It's probably legal if I post the images and my original story online... unless the story is about the personalities represented by the action figures. But even if the story has nothing to do with the trademarked characters, I probably can't use my photographs as illustrations in a fiction book for sale. Whereas I could use my photographs as illustrations in a book about collecting action figures... I think. I might actually have to get permission from the trademark owners to do that, if the trademarks are still active. I don't know enough about IP law in the US, let alone the UK, to know the answer to that one-- but I know I'd get the advice of an attorney before attempting to publish any such book.

[HarryT]

Hmmm. You raise some very valid points, neko. I'm pretty sure, though, that I'm "in the clear" to use my Dalek picture in the way that I am. It would, as you very rightly say, be a different matter if I were to use it as an illustration in an SF story, even if I didn't use the name Dalek.

It reminds me of when Virgin books lost the rights to publish "Dr Who" books, but continued to publish the adventures of a character called "Bernice Summerfield", who was a former (book) "companion" of the Doctor. They could no longer use enemies like Daleks, but they found ways around it by doing things like having illustrations showing
people being killed by "death rays" with a "sinister sink plunger" just coming into view on the very edge of the picture .

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They could no longer use enemies like Daleks, but they found ways around it by doing things like having illustrations showing
people being killed by "death rays" with a "sinister sink plunger" just coming into view on the very edge of the picture .

LOL! "Sinister sink plungers!" (So do you watch the new episodes? If so, what did you think of the Dalek eps?)

[Just4Fun]

Hmmm, well, err:
So, briefly, what do you think about the Kindle now?

[rflashman]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you go to your local toy store and buy a toy Dalek, you are free to take a photograph of that toy and post that photograph here, or anywhere else for that matter. The toy was made with the permission of the trademark holder, as was this particular model Dalek made with the permission of the BBC. It would be a different matter taking a BBC photograph of a Dalek, and posting that. That would indeed be a copyright violation. This, however, is not.

Sadly you are mistaken. As Disney proved in their famous child-care lawsuit, ownership of a copyrighted toy/item/illustration does not give you the rights to reproduce a facsimile of that item. Disney sued a child-care center who had drawn a mural of Disney characters. As their defense the child-care center claimed they owned the book they copied the image from. (For legal purposes a good drawing and a photo are basically the same thing.) The child-care center lost big time.

Owning a toy of a copyrighted character does not give you the right to reproduce it except for 'fair use' such as a news article, or such. Your use is as an 'avatar', using it to represent your online persona. If I had never seen Dr. Who I might incorrectly assume it was your image.

I did a little research and found that the Dalek "brand" is copyrighted and controlled by the estate of Tim Nation. It's agent Tim Hancock handles all licensing of the Dalek brand, and was recently in a very bitter copyright dispute over the BBC to allow their inclusion in the new Dr. Who series (they finally settled).

So unless the estate of Tim Nation has granted you written permission, you basically find yourself practicing the same thing you so aggressively proclaimed against.

A very slippery slope indeed...

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by rflashman

So unless the estate of Tim Nation has granted you written permission, you basically find yourself practicing the same thing you so aggressively proclaimed against.

I would tend to think that a hardcore copyright enthusiast would be more concerned about appearances and the spirit of the law than technicalities, and on that basis alone would not do anything that anyone could possibly construe as infringing. (Of course, I'm also one who wishes that copyright fetishism and various other signature pet peeves wouldn't keep repetitively polluting otherwise interesting threads...)

[HarryT]

"Tim Nation"? The Daleks were invented by TERRY Nation.

I'm sorry, but I continue to disagree with you. Reproducing the illustrations in a book is simple copyright violation and is a completely different situation from reproducing a photograph of an item created with the full permission of the trademark holder.

Your claim is analogous to saying that the Ford Motor Company could sue you for publishing a photograph of a Ford car that you'd taken yourself. I am not "using the Dalek brand" any more than you'd be "using the Ford brand" by taking a photo of your Ford car and using that photo to help you sell it.

It would be a breach of Ford's copyright if you were to reproduce one of their photographs to help you sell your car. It's fine to take your OWN photograph of a Ford and reproduce that. That's exactly what I'm doing.

You seem to be getting copyright and trademark issues horribly mixed up here.

If a representative of "Tim Nation's" estate asks me to stop using the photograph then I will happily do so. Unless or until that happens, I shall continue to use it because I believe that my use is perfectly legitimate.

[nekokami]

In the Disney vs. daycare case, part of the argument was likely that the use of the Disney characters was commercial, i.e. to make the daycare more attractive to customers (parents and kids).

That being said, it's quite possible that Disney would go after someone who used an image of one of their characters-- including a photographed licensed model OR a hand-drawn original sketch-- as an avatar in a forum. The Mouse is a bit rabid that way. And in the US, they'd probably win in court.

[HarryT]

As I say, neko, if a representative of "Tim Nation" asks me to remove it, I will happily do so. I think that this is rather unlikely to happen.

[nekokami]

I think it's unlikely too (and I don't have a personal problem with your use of the Dalek image as an avatar-- even if it had come from a BBC video clip). But if we're discussing legal status, I don't think whether Mr. Nation's estate notices an infringement changes the existence of the infringement, does it? By that reasoning, the offenders on eBay who were selling your software didn't need to stop doing so until you complained, which is a position that I certainly don't hold and I'm pretty sure you don't, either.

[HarryT]

As I've said, neko, I don't believe that it is an infringement, any more than taking a photograph of a Ford car and posting that would infringe Ford's rights.