Talk:Chris and copyright

Some hints

Great topic to cover, and undoubtedly interesting. (Especially for me, since I'm interested of intellectual property issues...)

Anyway, I wrote a random rambling analysis of Chris's copyright and ToU pages while I was high on caffeine, sugar and Halo 3. I don't know how useful it is, but should serve as inspiration to whoever wants to expand the article. I'll tackle this article too once I get a few more doses of the three aforementioned products. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (CEST)

Parody

Parody and this seem to cover pretty much the same thing (How Sonichu is impossible, wouldn't hold up in court, etc). So should we shrink down the info parody and move it here? (why do I have such a boner for merging articles?) --Jump 23:29, 30 September 2009 (CEST)

Merge sounds good. Chris's lack of clue about intellectual property runs much deeper than just "parody", but the talk about his "parody" confusions wouldn't really warrant a separate article. So let's just put it all in this article, shall we? --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (CEST)

I guess so. While I do think the page is fine as it is, a merge does sound good. --EdtheHedgehog1894

• I think the Parody page kinda became a "Chris and copyright" article, so might as well have one with a proper general focus on copyright. --Champthom 02:15, 1 October 2009 (CEST)

Perhaps. --EdtheHedgehog1894

• Chris seems to use the terms parody and copyright in two different manners. It's a parody when someone accuses him of stealing and it's copyrighted OC when someone parodies his creations. Therefore I think that two seperate pages cover the subject better. --Hayate666 10:58, 8 October 2009 (CEST)
• Parody covers why Sonichu can't be a parody, while Copyright covers how little Chris understands copyright law. They need tidying, but they can exist separately. The 'Chris' Views' section too closely resembles Parody, I think. --OFSheep 20:51, 17 October 2009 (CEST)

House vids

My memory is a bit hazy, but I remember someone mentioning somewhere that Chris (or his parents) had filed DMCA complaints on the house videos to take them down. Real or malarkey? --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 13:30, 2 October 2009 (CEST)

• It happened but I'm guessing it's the work of some troll and not actually Chris. If Chris actually knew how DMCA worked, he'd do the same with TheCWCvilleLibrary and have the entire archive shut down by filing copyright claims. --Champthom 18:26, 2 October 2009 (CEST)

Wait wait wait...

I just swung by the ED page, and they have a fund thing for buying a copyright for the term Sonichu. I'm not saying they're actually using that money for that (it wouldn't at all be out of the realm of possibility for said donations (if there even are any) to be going into someone's pocket), or that Chris didn't look at the article and scramble to buy before they did. I'm just asking if we're certain that it was bought by Chris; and if it was what prompted him to finally get off his lazy ass and put up the money. --LizardPie 22:11, 6 November 2009 (CET)

I'm taking a flying leap and assuming US Copyright Office will send some sort of copies of the documentation on the registration to the person who applies for copyright registration, so someone should ask Chris if he registered the thing and if he got any word back from the Copyright Office. Anyway, the application appears to be for "electronic files", so, unless I read this horrenduously wrongly, Chris has essentially blown money on getting protection for some specific image files and their derivatives. Images created in 2000, according to the application. Let me guess, if the office was actually checking the veracity of the claims, something in this picture wouldn't stand closer scrutiny. Now, it's Chris's job to get crushed like a bug in court when he submitted erroneous claims. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (CET)

What "copyright" means in this case

I basically made an account entirely to post this, and it'll probably be my only contribution: this "copyright" means roughly fuck all. You can't copyright a word. Check page 3 of this document. A copyright protects individual pieces of creative work - a book or TV episode or story or single piece of art. If he copyrighted his Sonichu logo then all that does is prevents other people from using the Sonichu logo. What he's actually wanting to do here is trademark the word "Sonichu," which would then prevent any other creator from bringing out products under the "Sonichu" name in the areas where the trademark is filed (for instance, artwork or video games or children's clothing or adult entertainment devices). I suppose this qualifies as another form of fail, doesn't it? Dr x 15:52, 15 November 2009 (CET)