|
For the last several years, I have worked, through fanfiction and
Internet-based RPGs (one of which I actually run), on an existing,
copyrighted universe, currently owned by a major corporate
conglomerate. However, my changes to the universe and characters have
accumulated to such degree that it would not be entirely unrealistic
to call it something that's quite unique - something that could, with
proper modifications, be split off into its own work.
However, some of the elements and themes, particularly of the basic
universe mechanics, are still necessary to keep relatively unchanged.
My question is, essentially, how close to the original universe can I
get without copyright violations? Although I'm not planning on using
any of the original names or places, and am planning on modifying the
visual depictions of the characters fairly heavily (as well as some
general character traits), and the storyline has been changed quite a
bit, I still have some concerns as to just how much is too much, from
both an ethical and legal point of view. I do not know what I intend
to do with this work, if anything, or in what medium I will express
it, other than the fact that it will NOT be expressed in its original
medium.
Thank you for any help you can give me.
|
| |
| |
J! wrote:
For the last several years, I have worked, through fanfiction and
Internet-based RPGs (one of which I actually run), on an existing,
copyrighted universe, currently owned by a major corporate
conglomerate. However, my changes to the universe and characters have
accumulated to such degree that it would not be entirely unrealistic
to call it something that's quite unique - something that could, with
proper modifications, be split off into its own work.
However, some of the elements and themes, particularly of the basic
universe mechanics, are still necessary to keep relatively unchanged.
My question is, essentially, how close to the original universe can I
get without copyright violations? Although I'm not planning on using
any of the original names or places, and am planning on modifying the
visual depictions of the characters fairly heavily (as well as some
general character traits), and the storyline has been changed quite a
bit, I still have some concerns as to just how much is too much, from
both an ethical and legal point of view. I do not know what I intend
to do with this work, if anything, or in what medium I will express
it, other than the fact that it will NOT be expressed in its original
medium.
Thank you for any help you can give me.
It's fiction. Make up your own universe.
It's practically a time honored tradition that scifi writers dream up their
own private worlds.
Star Trek, and now stargate sg1 have done the same thing.
|
| |
| |
For the last several years, I have worked, through fanfiction and
Internet-based RPGs (one of which I actually run), on an existing,
copyrighted universe, currently owned by a major corporate
conglomerate. ...how close to the original universe can I
get without copyright violations?
The problem is with trademarks, not copyright. That's a much broader
area, one which allows McDonald's hamburgers to sue a little old lady
in Scotland, named McCaughey (pron. McCoffee), so she cannot use her
own name on her little coffee shop.
My son has made some spare change by selling his work to a game
company. Some has been published, some put in cold storage. Of course,
once the company is alerted to your work, they might choose to keep an
eye on anything you might publish.
I believe there are sites that deal with the legal aspects of
fanfiction. You should check them out.
Bill Penrose
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:52:10 -0500, nx0404a@hotmail.com (J Bimford)
wrote:
For the last several years, I have worked, through fanfiction and
Internet-based RPGs (one of which I actually run), on an existing,
copyrighted universe, currently owned by a major corporate
conglomerate. However, my changes to the universe and characters have
accumulated to such degree that it would not be entirely unrealistic
to call it something that's quite unique - something that could, with
proper modifications, be split off into its own work.
However, some of the elements and themes, particularly of the basic
universe mechanics, are still necessary to keep relatively unchanged.
My question is, essentially, how close to the original universe can I
get without copyright violations? Although I'm not planning on using
any of the original names or places, and am planning on modifying the
visual depictions of the characters fairly heavily (as well as some
general character traits), and the storyline has been changed quite a
bit, I still have some concerns as to just how much is too much, from
both an ethical and legal point of view. I do not know what I intend
to do with this work, if anything, or in what medium I will express
it, other than the fact that it will NOT be expressed in its original
medium.
This is way too vague to tell anything. "Basic universe mechanics"
can't be copyrighted. But if (for example) you've got Klingons in it,
watch out. At the very least, change all names, and don't include any
characters which are obviously copied from Star Trek/Star Wars/etc.
You would need to give specific examples to get more useful advice.
|
| |
| |
William Penrose wrote:
The problem is with trademarks, not copyright. That's a much broader
area, one which allows McDonald's hamburgers to sue a little old lady
in Scotland, named McCaughey (pron. McCoffee), so she cannot use her
own name on her little coffee shop.
I thought THOSE cases were thrown out, even in the US. In Scotland,
Clan McDonald owns the "trademark" on the name McDonald --
McDonalds (not McDonald's) runs under license from the Clan.
|
| |
| |
William Penrose wrote:
The problem is with trademarks, not copyright. That's a much broader
area, one which allows McDonald's hamburgers to sue a little old lady
in Scotland, named McCaughey (pron. McCoffee), so she cannot use her
own name on her little coffee shop.
That's not accurate. The name of her shop was spelled "McCoffee", she
wasn't using her own name on it.
Brian Rodenborn
|
| |
| |
`On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:02:27 -0500, mjacobslaw@comcast.net (Michael
Jacobs) wrote:
A "derivative work" is entitled to its own separate copyright
protection, so long of course as it was made with the permission of
the copyright owner of the original work on which it was based.
If you're a law guy, wouldn't you say this was a trademark issue,
rather than a copyright one?
Bill Penrose
|
| |
| |
"Ian Montgomerie" <ian@ianmontgomerie.com> wrote:
[re: question on Copyright of universes/settings]
This is way too vague to tell anything. "Basic universe mechanics"
can't be copyrighted. But if (for example) you've got Klingons in it,
watch out. At the very least, change all names, and don't include any
characters which are obviously copied from Star Trek/Star Wars/etc.
You would need to give specific examples to get more useful advice.
Wandering round a toy store yesterday (on behalf of my nephew, honest!),
I saw a set of figures called "Beast <something>"... "Hunter"? I know
it wasn't "Beast Wars", that's something else entirely. Anyhoo...
Among various scenery/equipment, there was a be-sworded and loin-clothed
strongman figure, an almost-but-not-quite-a-tiger stripy beast saddle-up
with armour and an 'enemy dude' who looked severely skeletal in the face
department. Put it this way, it looked very He-Man-clonish. Without
the colour clues (say you're colour-blind or seeing it in monochrome) it
was basically He-Man, well within the differences between the 80s He-Man
and the present day revival sets...
IANAL, but I'm surprised they get away with that. (Not that I have an
opinion either way, I'm just surprised.)
--
Len.
|
| |
| |
That said, I'm aware of at least two internet RPGs based on Disney's
"The Lion King", one based on Anne McCaffrey's "Dragonriders of Pern"
series, and one based on Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Darkover" series. I
suspect the latter two exist with the tacit consent of the authors,
who have a lot of connections into the world of SF fandom that players
are drawn from.
Don't bet on it. Rather than "tacit consent" it's far more likely that the
authors and/or their publishers weren't aware of these particular RPGs.
Marion Zimmer Bradley died in 1999, and I doubt her publisher, or whoever is
handling her literary estate, is quite as protective of her work. MZB
unquestionably did NOT give permission for any fan fiction based on her
work; I'm guessing that she probably felt much the same about RPGs.
See http://www.writersu.net/?link=authpolicy&id=53 for more info.
|
| |
| |
Len Oil wrote:
"Ian Montgomerie" <ian@ianmontgomerie.com> wrote:
[re: question on Copyright of universes/settings]
Wandering round a toy store yesterday (on behalf of my nephew, honest!),
I saw a set of figures called "Beast <something>"... "Hunter"? I know
it wasn't "Beast Wars", that's something else entirely. Anyhoo...
Beastmaster? (Based on an Andre Norton book, movie, and possibly
TV series.) (and I think he DID look like He-Man...)
As for the copyright/trademark question. The producers of
Beastmaster (or their licensees) authorized the toys. If the
current owners of He-Man wish to challenge -- do innocent
purchasers of the Beastmaster products have to pay damages?
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
I thought THOSE cases were thrown out, even in the US. In Scotland,
Clan McDonald owns the "trademark" on the name McDonald --
McDonalds (not McDonald's) runs under license from the Clan.
I don't know what the law is in Scotland, but in the U.S., these cases
are most certainly not thrown out. A McDonald's case is one of the
textbook cases (literally) on rights to a family of trademarks. See
McDonald's Corporation v. Druck and Gerner, DDS., P.C., 814 F.Supp.
1127 (N.D.N.Y. 1993), in which a dental practice using the name
"McDental" was found to infringe.
My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:58:18 -0500, Default User
<first.last@boeing.com.invalid> wrote:
William Penrose wrote:
That's not accurate. The name of her shop was spelled "McCoffee", she
wasn't using her own name on it.
And it was in San Francisco, as it turns out, upon checking. My
information came from an article in the Chicago Reader, published
about the midpoint of the McLibel trial.
Bill Penrose
|
| |
| |
William Penrose <wpenrose@customsensorsolutions.com> wrote in
news:2jc3uvoluvl0iengf01mt9sft50uhg3e51@4ax.com:
`On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:02:27 -0500, mjacobslaw@comcast.net (Michael
Jacobs) wrote:
If you're a law guy, wouldn't you say this was a trademark issue,
rather than a copyright one?
It could well be both. It's clearly a derivative work, which is a copyright
issue, if the original work is at all identifiable. If the original work is
trademarked (as it almost certainly is), it would be a trademark issue as
well, if the marks are used.
--
Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com
www.hyperbooks.com
Roleplaying Stuff
|
| |
| |
For the last several years, I have worked, through fanfiction and
Internet-based RPGs (one of which I actually run), on an existing,
copyrighted universe, currently owned by a major corporate
conglomerate. However, my changes to the universe and characters have
accumulated to such degree that it would not be entirely unrealistic
to call it something that's quite unique - something that could, with
proper modifications, be split off into its own work.
However, some of the elements and themes, particularly of the basic
universe mechanics, are still necessary to keep relatively unchanged.
My question is, essentially, how close to the original universe can I
get without copyright violations?
I'd say, without any legal insight, if the average reader of
[copyrighted property] reads your version and thinks "This is a ripoff
of [copyrighted property], you're in trouble. If the average reader,
not knowing your creative process, makes no connection, you're ok.
It's really a matter of good judgement.
Make sure you change the backround as much as possible though. You
example, the comic book "Supreme," which is a takeoff of "Superman"
changed the origin from "baby sent from another planet" to "a meteor
falls from the sky and exposes a small town child to the mysterious
element Supremium."
|
| |
| |
Jonathan Sachs <nobody@nospam.accepted> wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
I don't know what the law is in Scotland, but in the U.S., these
cases are most certainly not thrown out. A McDonald's case is
one of the textbook cases (literally) on rights to a family of
trademarks. See McDonald's Corporation v. Druck and Gerner,
DDS., P.C., 814 F.Supp. 1127 (N.D.N.Y. 1993), in which a dental
practice using the name "McDental" was found to infringe.
I thought of opening a fast food place that sold different varieties
of stuffed caneloni. I'd call it The Big Macaroni.
Stu
|
| |
| |
Jonathan Sachs wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
I don't know what the law is in Scotland, but in the U.S., these cases
are most certainly not thrown out. A McDonald's case is one of the
textbook cases (literally) on rights to a family of trademarks. See
McDonald's Corporation v. Druck and Gerner, DDS., P.C., 814 F.Supp.
1127 (N.D.N.Y. 1993), in which a dental practice using the name
"McDental" was found to infringe.
The referenced case in this thread was supposedly someone
restricted from using their own name (McCauffee) in the name
of a restaurant because of confusion with McDonalds. McDental
is entirely different -- although -- it doesn't seem to be
that a dental practice is in the same trademark class as
any of McDonalds' classes.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
The referenced case in this thread was supposedly someone
restricted from using their own name (McCauffee) in the name
of a restaurant because of confusion with McDonalds.
If that's so, it certainly is different. As I read it, the person's
name was McCaughey (which is a real name, and McCauffee isn't), and
the business name they used was McCoffee, which would only be
pronounced the same. The defendant changed the spelling precisely to
create the type of association which the law forbids. In that
situation the own-name exception would not apply.
McDental is entirely different -- although -- it doesn't seem to be
that a dental practice is in the same trademark class as
any of McDonalds' classes.
There is no formal concept of a trademark class, as there is in patent
law. You're correct that courts consider the similarity of the product
and service when judging infringement, as it influences the likelihood
of confusion. But in a case like this, where the plaintiff's trademark
is very strong, lack of similarity does not carry a lot of weight. The
defendant is getting a "free ride" on the plaintiff's name recognition
whether people actually confuse the two trademarks or not, and that is
also a basis for finding infringement.
My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
|
