shadycrzy’s Techdirt Profile

shadycrzy

About shadycrzy




shadycrzy’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 30th, 2014 @ 11:08am

    (untitled comment)

    Fuel is too expensive. I don't think we'll see an opening up of space until we've developed our first space elevator. It's a massive one time investment that replaces the need for chemical combustion based rockets but it all but eliminates the fuel costs and it vastly improves the safety.
  • Aug 21st, 2014 @ 8:13pm

    Re: rehash on failed material

    You make a good point about initial investment costs. I think the author's arguments center around changes that occurred after 2002 or 2003 but that wasn't clear in the preceding or following text.

    Still, I would argue that the cable companies have something to answer for after taking money from cities w/ promises of faster infrastructure and not delivering on the promise.

    But from what I've read, most internet services can be made faster at the ISP level for very little cost by making some simple changes to either hardware or software. (not an expert, so I'm not sure on this)
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 7:01pm

    Re:

    Nintendo has no standing here, it was Pokemon Co. International that brought the C&D.

    Characters can be copyrighted. Check out Walt Disney Productions vs. Air Pirates 1978: http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rwarner/classes/legalaspects_ukraine/copyright/cases/walt_disney_prod uctions_v_air_pirates.htm

    Pokemon Co. International also has lots of officially licensed 3D products on the market in just the same pose as the planter so just making it 3D isn't enough to make it derivative or transformative.

    Trademark doesn't apply here because the bulbasaur image does not represent Pokemon Co. International or the "trade" they do in their various markets. Pikachu maybe, but the "Pokemon" logo is what's protected by trademark.

    I agree that Pokemon Co. International is being overaggressive in this case but their actions are w/in the scope of the law. A solution needs to be found where users like this can make these awesome things and companies like Pokemon Co. International can still retain control of their property.

    I like how John and Hank Green operate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHp3c9ziIq0

    Also, read this: http://www.wwlegal.com/posts/property-in-fictional-characters/
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 6:38pm

    Re: Re: duh

    I thought someone had to profit from it, kind of like how anime studios look the other way at fansubs until the show is licensed. But I'm okay w/ being wrong.
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Re: some infringement? no such thing

    That and Pokemon Co. International already sells 3d bulbasaur trinkets like key rings. She doesn't own the copyright on the character Bulbasaur. Pokemon Co. International does. What she made, no matter how many people say it's a "fat cat," is a bulbasaur. Bulbasaur does not exist as a concept, as an independent idea. The idea of "bulbasaur" is not of the same type as the idea of "love" or "peace" which can't be copyrighted

    There is no trademark issue here. The only trademark in question is "Pokemon" and that awesome blue and yellow logo. That is the "mark" under which Pokemon Co. International conducts "trade." Their trade happens to be fictional characters and they hold the right of copy over those characters by virtue of their having conceived of them. It would become a trademark issue if someone tried to compete in the same markets as Pokemon Co. International using the same name or "mark."
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 6:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares

    If I wrote a song, and someone copied it and sold it for profit they would be literally stealing my ideas and then selling them to profit themselves while I did the all of the intellectual leg work.

    If I painted a picture and someone copied it and claimed it was their own, then sold it for profit, I would argue that's theft.

    Taking the labor of another person and then selling it for your own profit is wrong.

    Consider the artist's perspective. What if someone came into your job, claimed to have done all the work you did, then your boss paid them and not you? They're the one profiting, and you are quite clearly at a financial detriment.
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 5:21pm

    Re: Re: quiet thread got crowded...

    I merely pointed out that Pokemon Co. International (I was wrong in saying it was Nintendo, Nintendo was not directly involved in this) has a right to protect their intellectual property. I also pointed out that I don't like their capricious enforcement of their legal rights.

    But I don't think it's constructive of me to point fingers and assume a mantle of righteousness or judgement. I'm more interested in finding solutions to this silliness. Maybe Pokemon Co. International and other businesses like them need to explicitly spell out which derivations are acceptable.

    But that sounds like making a customer sign a EULA every time they buy a product... I think it's unreasonable to subject someone to that level of contractual insanity. But I also think it's unreasonable for a company to let anyone use the images and properties they developed for anything they want.

    Of course even defining a middle ground draws a line somewhere in the gray void of copyright law that must be enforced. And no matter how minmalist or maximalist the copyright law is, there will always be those who seek to exploit every legal loophole there is to enrich themselves. Likewise, in the absence of any copyright law there will be those who abuse that trust to enrich themselves at the expense of the creator.

    And so there's the problem as I see it. If you try to find a middle ground, you have to have a legal framework to define it. If you have any legal framework, there will be those who will abuse it. But if you have no legal framework, people will still abuse the system.

    I'm stymied. What ideas do others have?
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 7:38am

    last thing

    Here's a link to the model for free:
    http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:383659/#files
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 7:35am

    doujin

    I think we should look to the way Japan has traditionally handled the doujin market to handle this kind of stuff. Pokemon is so embedded into US pop culture there needs to be a provision for it. Sort of like if a brand name becomes too well associated w/ its product (e.g. Xerox, Kleenex, Band-Aid) then it loses its trademark. Or maybe it's more like a cover song... Micro-licensing?

    Any other ideas out there that protect intellectual property rights while respecting the rights of the public at large to create derived or inspired works?
  • Aug 20th, 2014 @ 7:28am

    Pokemon International

    Just checked one of TD's sources and it turns out Pokemon Co. International sent the C&D
  • Aug 19th, 2014 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares

    And I just realized you weren't talking to me... this is awkward... sorry about that Art Guerrilla
  • Aug 19th, 2014 @ 6:30pm

    Re: Re: re: duh

    but I would think you would still have to be attempting to profit from the sale of the statuette for it to be infringing.
  • Aug 19th, 2014 @ 6:29pm

    Re: re: duh

    Are you sure about that statuette thing? As I understood it if they labeled the statue "James Bond" and sold it they would be infringing on the trademark, but if they copied the likeness (e.g. the suit, the Walther, the pose) then that would be copyright.

    Now in your case if it was just a "generic" model in a tux w/ a gun, it might not be a copyright issue in itself, but once you label it "James Bond" you infringe on the trademark and you clearly imply that you're copying the image of the character as well which would likely lead to a copyright issue.

    But I may be wrong!!! Is there a lawyer in the house?!?
  • Aug 19th, 2014 @ 6:18pm

    Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares

    I mostly agree with you. But your argument seems to imply that you think there should be no copyright (kooparight?) law. While I do think our copyright laws are very insane and restrictive, they are still laws and I wasn't arguing whether the law was good or stupid (it's stupid). We need copyright for certain things. If you write a song, no one else should be able to take your words or your music and profit off of them to your detriment. Even though you think I should get "FUCK"ed I still think you deserve that right.
  • Aug 19th, 2014 @ 6:13pm

    Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares

    kooparations, it's spelled kooparations
  • Aug 19th, 2014 @ 6:12pm

    quiet thread got crowded...

    I respect everyone's opinion but I don't see what's transformative about designing a bulbasaur model. I do agree it's cool but that bad ass looking planter cannot be misconstrued for anything other than a bulbasaur. This righteous planter is no more transformative than making your own James Bond story.

    Making said James Bond or bulbasaur statue isn't really the problem. The article mentioned that "sales went well," and I think that is where Nintendo gets their legal clout from. I don't think Nintendo should be doing this (though I realize I came across that way earlier) but as long as anyone is profiting from the likeness of a Nintendo property, their sole right of copy gives them the all the justification they need to request a takedown.

    That Nintendo aggressively protected their property isn't the problem. It's like many of you and I said earlier: Nintendo isn't consistent in pursuing this stuff. What about all the stuff at cons? What about every homemade trinket, magnet, bauble, or pendant? Nintendo's enforcement is very arbitrary.

    But where should they draw the line? What if Nintendo wants to sell a stuffed pikachu for $20 but someone online makes it and sells it for $15? Is that copyright infringement? Does it cease to be copyright infringement if Nintendo isn't selling pikachu dolls? Does it cease to be infringement if Nintendo never sold pikachu dolls? To what degree does a character or likeness have to be transformed before it ceases to be infringement?

    I think there are a lot of gray lines here and a lot of legal territory we haven't explored before. I suspect Nintendo may be just as confused about what it can and can't do as we can be. I hope they don't raid cons but I'm pretty sure they have the right to. I hope they don't aggressively police Etsy and Ebay but as things stand now, I still suspect they have the right to.
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it