Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Eh. | |
| Posted By: Ma1agate | Date: 5/16/05 10:27 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Eh. (kapowaz) : The issues are that what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong
I agree. I was just stating my opinion on how I believe things should be handled, and yes, I also agree that the laws aren't being used in the true spirit they were created in, they're being used as tools to scrabble to the top of the heap, which doesn't do anyone much good except the large companies, and even then the advantage gained is up for debate. The laws are being invoked less with a mind towards a natural progression of the property and more with a foot-in-the-door-of-the-future approach in mind. Calling dibs on anything somebody might think of later, as it were. But corporate lawyers, and I hazard to say the corporate mentality in general is, in my estimation, predisposed that way by default. Which sucks. Let me be just a tad more clear on my GW example also. They (GW) believe that a tattoo artist making money by tattooing something from their Warhammer IP is infringement. According to them, its not so much the fact that someone is using something from their IP, its more that someone else is *gasp* making money off of it. Now in the case of someone creating any kind of entertainment media from the WH IP and passing it off as their own, I could see grounds for legal action. But being so anal as to forbid a tattoo artist, who most certainly isn't going to make any kind of life-changing money, to tattoo something on a customer who is a fan? That's just a little extreme. I don't think GW needs to worry about missing out on untold piles of money to be gleaned from the tattoo (market?/industry?) by using their WH IP. I also doubt that a tattoo artist would try to pass anything commercial like that off as their own. That would be like claiming Woody Woodpecker was their brainchild. As I said in my previous post, I believe the creator should have a say in what can and can't be used. In addition, I think that laws only need be invoked if the offending material is a clear case of copyright infringement, and then really only if a profit is being turned. A few isolated cases of tattoos isn't going to hurt anybody, but if somebody passes off a total conversion as their own and tries to sell it, obviously something would need to be done. But still, if an outfit like GW wants to hardline it like that, I think they have a right to. It doesn't mean they're not dicks for being that way; but if they feel that's the only way to protect their property, I say just let them. Its probably to their own detriment to hang on to what they have with such a deathgrip, I think it implies lack of creativity or confidence in unrelated future projects, which may or may not be well founded. In the case of GW, it may well be. In Bungie's case, I don't think we need worry about that, although I (and the community as well, I'm sure) would like to see them hang on to the Halo franchise so as to prevent another Myth 3. : I'm still with Flashman on the subject; "intellectual property" is
It sounds like we might have different definitions for IP, either that or I simply don't understand how you think it stifles creativity. I don't really understand this part of what you're saying. : The emphasis remains upon those people using
But yeah, I do agree with this part. : Also, credit where credit is due should be given. There is a growing trend
Not familiar with this myself, but I agree that putting the fate of your work in the corportation's hands doesn't usually spell a deserving fate for the work and the spirit it was originally conceived in. I'll have to check that out. ~Ma1
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |