User talk:Wwwwolf/Copyright and ToU analysis

There's a lot of great stuff here, just needs a more neutral, impersonal tone and it could easily be incorporated into existing articles. --Champthom 01:27, 7 September 2009 (CEST)

Most of this can be boiled down to "Sonichu et al. are derivative works, and they are therefore not copyrightable. Despite Chris's claims, they aren't even protected as 'parodies', since they're presented in total seriousness." Once you've got all of that established, everything else flows from it for completely obvious reasons that need not be explicated. :3 Llort 22:08, 20 September 2009 (CEST)

Good stuff, but there's a slight inaccuracy. "Derivative works are not copyrightable. Their rights, if any, belong to the original copyright holders." Not quite. You do have copyright on derivative works. For example, if I write gay SpockxKirk fanfiction, I am producing a derivative work of Star Trek. The story I wrote, that is, the original arrangement of words, is mine. I have copyright on it. However, since it incorporates Star Trek material, I need permission from whoever owns the copyright on Star Trek to publish it. Copyright is kind of a negative right instead of a positive right. It doesn't grant me the right to publish something. It rather grants me the ability to restrict others publishing of it.

Chris' copyright on Sonichu is valid in this sense. If Sega decided Sonichu was brilliant and wanted to publish it, they would need Chris' permission. The converse is also true. For Chris to publish Sonichu, he needs Nintendo's and Sega's permission. And putting it on the internet for free still counts as publishing.

Anyway, if my thoughts are confusing or anything, sorry, it's 4:30 AM. Canine 08:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Canine is both completely right and completely awesome. --Ronichu 09:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What Being an Agent Entails

You expressed some confusion over this. Acting as an agent of someone under contract law as I understand it means that you have entered into some sort of legally binding contract with the entity in order to represent them to others. This usually takes the form of an employer/employee relationship.

Actions taken by someone doing their duty as an agent are considered in contract law to be the actions of the employer. The employer is liable for the whatever an agent does while preforming their duties as an agent, meaning if an agent does something wrong as a result of the duties expected of them by their employer, their employer can be brought to court for it.

TL;DR: An agent is an employee. --Beat 21:39, 30 September 2009 (CEST)

Yup, I'm not sure what the exact terms of the DMCA are, since I haven't read the thing entirely, but I was definitely under the impression that it definitely had to be a specific, legally binding agreement between the copyright holder and whoever does the DMCA reporting, to the tune of "person A specifically authorizes person B to file DMCA notices against people who violate copyrights on works X, Y and Z, to which person A holds copyright". Not Chris's "person A hereby generally authorizes everyone to file DMCA notices against any works that they suspect may or may not be under the copyright of person A". People have gotten into very very serious hot water over informal and clueless agreements to let someone else handle DMCA claims - just remember what happened to VenomFangX. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (CEST)