Simple ete Charmer

ambitiousbard:

senile-snake:

ambitiousbard:

SORRY FOR PARTY WOKING

Nick, stop it with your Wonton use of bad puns!

Okay, I’ll ladle off the puns for tonight

These terrible puns are gonna bowl me over.

Really, you’re trying too hard. You’re just taking potshots.

Seriously, these puns are straining my ears.

What’s that? What I’m saying is beginning to grate?

Well if you can’t take the heat, get outta the kitchen.

ambitiousbard:

sixtem replied to your post: sixtem replied to your audio post: A little…

I CAN’T TELL IF YOU’RE BEING FACETIOUS IF I AM COOL THEN COOL IS A DEVALUED COMMODITY

NO TRUST ME YOU MAKE COOL LOOK COOLER THAN COOL

FUCKING ICE COLD

I’M BEING 100% SERIOUS

HONEST

softowl:

godzilla8tokyo:

…

You’re also correct in that the option to exercise intellectual property rights depends on the artist.  However—as Lexxy discusses here (and overall this post is incredibly informative and I think it would be really helpful for you to read to understand the situation a little better)—if an artist does not exercise enough effort to protect their intellectual property, a court may rule that it is no longer theirs.

…

Many authors explicitly discourage fanfiction of their works because it can create unpleasant legal situations for them.

…

To lay it out really simply:

IF Andrew didn’t exercise his rights,

THEN he could lose them,

THEN he could effectively lose his job.

This is actually incorrect. I’m not going to weigh in on the moral/ethical clustercuss involved with this discussion; I’m just going to comment on the legal aspect.

Firstly:

The assumption that your copyright is lost if you do not act on stopping copyright infringement is completely false. People are probably confusing the rules with trademarks, which can be lost if not defended. Trademark and copyright are distinct things, though. It is effectively impossible to lose your copyright unless you either:

A) Sign it/sell it to someone else.

B) Create something while under a work for hire agreement.

C) Die and 70 years passes. Not really important unless you want your descendants to milk your IP for generations, or if you’re a vampire/construct/ghost/zombie/ascended spirit being.

So yes, Hussie is completely within his legal rights to put the kibosh on any fan work - anything, even non-profit is technically copyright violation - but he doesn’t need to in order to keep his copyright. And while his works are protected just by making them, he can’t actually sue unless it’s officially registered. 

(As a side note for any artist: Registering is a good idea because in case you ever do need to sue, it helps you receive legal damages and establishes a public record - though Homestuck’s e-nature is already good for that)

Secondly:

The infamous MZB controversy that was linked is another issue entirely, but not one that should pose a problem unless Hussie suddenly decides to get involved in the fanfiction people write. The problem with that situation was that MZB’s interaction with a fan author and that author’s fanfiction and her unpublished book based around the same character, time, and ideas could call into question plagiarism. Especially because MZB approached the fan author for permission to use the ideas and was denied.

However, I haven’t really seen anything else happen like this. Hussie would have to be proven to have read the fanfiction in question in addition to the ideas being similar enough for a plagiarism case. I would like other examples if people have them, though.

Lastly:

So really, the biggest reason to be careful about copyright in this regard is if people are making works that deprive you of a profit. In this case, it would be a good idea to sue for damages because of lost profits. However, I can only see this problem rising if people were selling Homestuck products identical to what Hussie is providing. So practically, unless a fan was making something that Hussie was also trying to sell and was cutting into the market that should, rightfully, be Hussie’s, then I can’t see a fiscal reason to stop it if there’s no profit conflict.

I have no idea if anybody is going to read this, but here it is nonetheless. If I’m completely wrong, I’d be happy if someone came along and corrected me with some sources (so I could remove any misinformation from a public forum), because what I researched seems to mark this copyright-loss notion as a myth.

Sources:

Plagiarism Today - Copright Myths - Specifically the fourth myth.

Brad Templeton - 10 Big Myths about copyright explained - Specifically number 5.

Copyright.gov - Copyright Basics - Especially the bits about registering. (p7)

(Source: halftruth)