Talk:Guidelines for fan art

From ErfWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(more to come?: long winded explanation by non-lawyer as to why there is no conflict)
Line 8: Line 8:
:Just because you don't understand what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution trademark dilution] is, doesn't mean that that what they are saying is conflicting with a CC licence. ([[User:Justyn|Justyn]] 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
:Just because you don't understand what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution trademark dilution] is, doesn't mean that that what they are saying is conflicting with a CC licence. ([[User:Justyn|Justyn]] 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
 +
 +
:Disclaimer:  [[User:MisterB777|MisterB777]] is not a lawyer, nor does he play one on TV, but he's used CC licenses for years and has a good amount of experience with them.  The Erfworld comics are licensed under the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License], which says that you can't make money off of fan art, you have to license your work inthe same way as the original, and you have to say who the original artists/writers were.  Furthermore, CC licenses have nothing to do with Trademarks.  They are covered under separate laws in the United States and Canada (which, if I am not mistaken, are the two most pertinent juristictions).  Section 3 of the License ''does not'' cover trademearks, and the creators are well within their rights to protect themselves from people who use their Trademark (i.e., the word "Erfworld" and potentially character names) in a way that is degrading to the value of those marks. 
 +
 +
:They can't stop you from reworking the images of the actual comic, or the text, but they can keep you from trying to publish an e-book of "Sizemore Rockwell and the Love Golems" Erf-rotica novella if it (a) violates the CC license, which it would if you charged for the e-book, or (b) makes it seem like "Erfworld" and "Sizemore Rockwell" are your idea and not theirs, violating their trademark.  You can, however, theoretically, write and distribute your opus of golem/caster love for free as long as you make it absolutely clear that it is a fanfic and not canonical text. 
 +
 +
:The point is, there is not really a conflict here.  There are plenty of companies that release stuff under open source and CC licenses that also vigorously enforce their trademarks because, lets be honest, the branding and naming rights on this stuff is how they can still make money when they give things away for free.  --[[User:MisterB777|MisterB777]] 17:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:55, 3 November 2009

Jamie and I reserve the right to do anything with any fan content that we want to, including telling you "That's inappropriate; take it down and knock it off."

Isn't this contradictory to the CC license under which the comic is released? Specifically, how can you reserve the right to have fan material taken down if Erfworld has already been perpetually licensed to them due to the nature of CC licensesc.f. by-nc-sa legal code, section 3? Similarly, wouldn't you have to get explicit permission from the fan in question to use the material commercially, since normally (due to the NC-SA license) they would only be permitted to license their fanart back to you for noncommercial use?

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the reasoning behind these guidelines. I'm just worried as to how they interact with the rights and regulations you've already proscribed. Menlo Marseilles 21:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

more to come?

This page is 7 months old and still more or less just an "under construction" sign. You lay out some conflicting goals and principles and say "don't worry, I'll make this make sense later," but the page is still rather short on details and specific guidelines and rather long on vague and precatory statements. Perhaps the community could contribute to an explanation of the creative commons license here, but as Menlo Marseilles points out above, your statement that you'll go after "trademark dilution" doesn't seem particularly consistent with offering people your work under a CC license that doesn't forbid derivative works—which you seem to be encouraging. $.02 71.141.106.41 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't understand what trademark dilution is, doesn't mean that that what they are saying is conflicting with a CC licence. (Justyn 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
Disclaimer: MisterB777 is not a lawyer, nor does he play one on TV, but he's used CC licenses for years and has a good amount of experience with them. The Erfworld comics are licensed under the Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License, which says that you can't make money off of fan art, you have to license your work inthe same way as the original, and you have to say who the original artists/writers were. Furthermore, CC licenses have nothing to do with Trademarks. They are covered under separate laws in the United States and Canada (which, if I am not mistaken, are the two most pertinent juristictions). Section 3 of the License does not cover trademearks, and the creators are well within their rights to protect themselves from people who use their Trademark (i.e., the word "Erfworld" and potentially character names) in a way that is degrading to the value of those marks.
They can't stop you from reworking the images of the actual comic, or the text, but they can keep you from trying to publish an e-book of "Sizemore Rockwell and the Love Golems" Erf-rotica novella if it (a) violates the CC license, which it would if you charged for the e-book, or (b) makes it seem like "Erfworld" and "Sizemore Rockwell" are your idea and not theirs, violating their trademark. You can, however, theoretically, write and distribute your opus of golem/caster love for free as long as you make it absolutely clear that it is a fanfic and not canonical text.
The point is, there is not really a conflict here. There are plenty of companies that release stuff under open source and CC licenses that also vigorously enforce their trademarks because, lets be honest, the branding and naming rights on this stuff is how they can still make money when they give things away for free. --MisterB777 17:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Go To:
Personal tools