User:Wwwwolf/Copyright and ToU analysis

Some collected thoughts and observations on Copyrights and Terms of Use.

Currently pretty unorganised - please plunder these and put them in articles.

Copyrights
Almost everywhere in the world, copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. In smaller words that Chris might understand, it is a dispute between two people that needs to be fixed by someone with authority and ability to make impartial judgements, and it's not a matter that the police will investigate on their own volition because it's clearly evil and stuff.

It's up to the copyright holder and copyright holder alone to bring on the infringement lawsuit - usually you can't sue on someone else's behalf. Many websites etc. fear lawsuits brought on by copyright holders, so they may act on infringing content reported by third parties. They're technically not required to do damn, though.

Oh, and in the United States, being a copyright vigilante usually sucks. Why? Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you are allowed to send a takedown notice to the service hosting the stuff, but you have to state under penalty of perjury that you're either the copyright holder of the work in question, or acting as their agent. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea what becoming such an agent entails, but I take it takes more than a video or a web page that is addressed to no one in particular.

Obviously, Chris conveniently ignores here that Sonic the Hedgehog was created by Sega, and Pokemon stuff was created by Nintendo (et al), and they got copyright on their characters first. Since Sonichu is based on those two previously very much copyrighted, thank you very much for asking, characters, it is a derivative work.

Derivative works are not copyrightable. Their rights, if any, belong to the original copyright holders.

US Copyright Office Circular 14 (my emphasis):


 * A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

(See? We can throw law books at ya too!)

And here we see a really major big fundamental issue in Chris's reasoning. The quoted text states, basically, that it's acceptable to put copyright notices on works even when that's strictly not required by law for the work to be copyrighted. Or, to be put in small words, "you can do it if you think it helps". This needed to be clarified because previously the &copy; mark had to be included in all works or the work wasn't considered copyrighted. Nowadays, it is just used for clarity.

But Chris's reasoning is that by putting the copyright notice in all the time, he suddenly has full rights over this work. He is actually claiming that having this copyright sign in his works all the time will strengthen his claim that he has copyright over these works. This is actually the exact opposite of what's going on: as said above, the copyright signs are not required in order to obtain a copyright.

Plainly put, repeating a lie often enough may make people believe it, but it's still a lie.

Copyrights - Terms of use
Chris may be horrified to know that while (legitimate) copyright does put a stop to slander (a crime in itself) and monetary gain, it doesn't protect from mockeries. Under United States law, parody is specifically considered Fair Use. Remember that? "Parody"? Rings a bell? Chris's famous copyright disclaimer from early episodes of the comic, or somesuch? Good.

There's a small problem: Chris backpedals a bit from the "mockery" stance above. Apparently, he's unwilling to sue people if the works are merely "Visually Grotesque, Shocking and Offensive".

Not the frown face! Seriously, though, this passage is more indicative of the severity of mental trauma the whole IBAChandler saga has caused.

Veering slightly off topic from copyrights and terms of use. This is all highly paranoid and clear as mud!

Most people would say "Terms are subject to change at any time" would have sufficed. Now we get moral lectures and vague threats of supernatural retribution.

Terms of Use
This is not the best way to start your terms of use rant that was written as a response to Chris going apeshit over people using his material under (then-presumed) GFDL license.

In other words, here Chris is claiming he has complete control over how his characters are discussed. (Not only that, but I suspect he won't be very successful enforcing the use of the names "Christian" and "Christropher"...) This completely disregards the fundamental human rights issue of freedom of speech and open discourse.

This terms of use section lacks all sorts of information about terms of use. What exactly are the conditions of starting a fan website? What sort of material is appropriate? What sort of material is inappropriate? Chris has no idea that other people have absolutely no clue what he finds "offensive". And, out of curiosity, what kind of turnaround time does Chris guarantee for these requests?

Almost all creative enterprises have the policy of not taking ideas from fans. This is primarily to avoid lawsuits: It's easier to say "we couldn't have possibly stolen the idea from this fan, because we have the policy of not taking ideas from the fans at all. People from fan mail room and game design department just don't talk to each other. We obviously came up with the idea on our own."

And yes, this has been brought to Chris's attention multiple times by Nintendo staff themselves.

And why is he worried about legality of his enterprise here? If he really has the copyright on his character, then he'd be a fool not to go to Nintendo himself with his totally legitimate and original idea.

Thank you! And hire a lawyer to rewrite these pages. I can't say I'm particularly informed by these web pages. These words have affected my psyche and I don't think I can rest too well tonight. I'm going to bed.

He went like one that hath been stunned, And is of sense forlorn: A puzzled and a clueless man, He rose the morrow morn. (after Coleridge)