Marvel Clamps Down On Game Skins

Trademarks by Darthnice · 2003-06-18 07:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Are user-created game skins of their characters good publicity for companies like Marvel, or an unacceptable copyright violation?

Unfortunately, due to the way Trademarks work, if you don't protect your Trademark, it will enter the public domain. It sucks because though the guys writing comics would probably love to see spidey and green goblin skins in player's games, it delutes the brand, and if unprotected would allow others to actually make Spiderman comics without any payment to Marvel. Marvel would lose the Spiderman brand.

Re:Trademarks by Saganaga · 2003-06-18 07:30 · Score: 1

I believe you're right about protecting your trademark. But couldn't a compromise of some kind be worked out? The skin site could put all kinds of disclaimers on the site about how the copyright belongs to the gamemaker, and Marvel wins because their fans stay happy and will be more likely to buy the expansion pack, or whatever.
Re:Trademarks by uncoveror · 2003-06-18 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

This could backfire on Marvel. It is like prosecuting fans who write fanfic for copyright violation. While they are creating derivative works without authorization, and copyright law bans this, they are usually doing no harm, and smacking them down will create a lot of enemies for the copyright holder. Enemies aren't customers.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:Trademarks by Saganaga · 2003-06-18 07:35 · Score: 1

Actually, I think my comment above isn't quite on target. I didn't realize that Marvel wasn't actually the game maker, but rather was a third party whose characters were being used by skinners to create cool characters for various games made by other companies. So Marvel doesn't really have a financial upside to this practice (at least in a short-sighted view).

Still too bad.
Re:Trademarks by notque · 2003-06-18 07:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, I think my comment above isn't quite on target. I didn't realize that Marvel wasn't actually the game maker, but rather was a third party whose characters were being used by skinners to create cool characters for various games made by other companies. So Marvel doesn't really have a financial upside to this practice (at least in a short-sighted view).

Still too bad.

That's the bad thing about it. Marvel is losing no money from this. No one is going to avoid the Spiderman movie because they have a spiderman skin in The Sims.

It is there right, granted. I an not saying they do not have the right to do this. I just wish they wouldn't.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:Trademarks by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-06-18 07:48 · Score: 2

It is there right, granted. I an not saying they do not have the right to do this. I just wish they wouldn't.

Unfortunately, it's not just their right, it's required of them if they wish to hold the trademarks. I don't believe the other portions they mentioned require them to stop people from doing so, but with trademarks you will lose them if you allow people to continue to use them. Once they lose the trademarks, they stand to lose a great deal of potential earnings, because there'd be no stopping everyone from making SpiderMan, X-Men, The Hulk, etc movies without paying Marvel for the use of those names and characters.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:Trademarks by notque · 2003-06-18 07:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Unfortunately, it's not just their right, it's required of them if they wish to hold the trademarks. I don't believe the other portions they mentioned require them to stop people from doing so, but with trademarks you will lose them if you allow people to continue to use them. Once they lose the trademarks, they stand to lose a great deal of potential earnings, because there'd be no stopping everyone from making SpiderMan, X-Men, The Hulk, etc movies without paying Marvel for the use of those names and characters.

How much effort is needed to hold a trademark? There are skins for every other trademarked television show, comic, movie created. Does that mean that at some point (who judges how long) I can create a Buffy the Vampire slayer movie because they have not told "skinzforus.com" to cease releasing skins.

I'm not trying to be combative. It's just that this has been happening for awhile, and I honestly don't beileve that I could wait 3 years (if this continued), released a Spiderman movie, and used some Sims skins as justification for it.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:Trademarks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 07:56 · Score: 0

It demonstrates how fu**ed the copyright system is which requires you to send cease-and-desist letters to protect your rights.

What if you actually like the idea of fans making fan websites, posting fan fiction, fan art, etc.?

Instead of writing cease-and-desist letters, why not write a letter of permission? You still get to pay your lawyers, and now people can have fun with their fan sites, etc.

Similarly, US law *requiring* the circle-C symbol? I know, how about NOT requiring it? It's just a rule written on a piece of paper. Who cares if the symbol is there or not. (Canadian law doesn't require it, but Canadian companies all use it to avoid confusing Americans.)

It sounds like rules made by lawyers for lawyers.

Copywrite law as it should be:

You wrote it? You have the rights to it for X years. Then it goes into the public domain.

Done. No lawyers required.
(now start arguing about the "X")

Just my 2.14 cents.
Re:Trademarks by Dachannien · 2003-06-18 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately, due to the way Trademarks work, if you don't protect your Trademark, it will enter the public domain.

They could always license the trademark to the skins site for a token fee (say, $1) under certain restrictions (such as licensing downloaders only to use the skins for personal use, for the site not to sell access to the skins, etc.).
Re:Trademarks by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-06-18 08:51 · Score: 1

How much effort is needed to hold a trademark?

It really depends on the judge, but overall it's on you to show that the trademark has become public domain through use of that trademark by others. Usually it helps if the trademark holder was actually aware of that use, as well, but that's pretty hard to show.

Believe me, I know this has been happening for a while, I downloaded many skins for Quake and Q2 that used other characters as their basis that more than likely were not developed by the original creators (or IP holders) of those characters. Now, releasing a Spider-Man movie and using the other skinning sites that host Marvel characters as a basis for abandonment of trademark could be legally ok, but probably still wouldn't hold up in court unless you had better lawyers than Marvel. That's just an unfortunate part of reality.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:Trademarks by gmhowell · 2003-06-18 09:14 · Score: 1

The amount of effort required is up to the whims of some future judge. IANAL, but I don't think there's any well codified ruling or statute that constitutes what is 'enough'. This is just a case that Marvel's attorney's are being a bit more cautious against the nebulous unknown than DC, Image, etc.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Trademarks by ichimunki · 2003-06-18 09:22 · Score: 2

Seems to me it would be pretty hard to lose SpiderMan as a trademark. In fact, I'm not sure what trade or service it is the mark of. Usually trademarks are the name of a company or a brand. How is a character's name a brand? That seems like an end-run around the theoretical expiration of copyright to me. It's already copyright infringement to make derivative works, so how this is even a trademark issue, I just don't get.

And that's why I don't buy this defense of their act on the grounds that they had to in order to protect Spidey et al. I do buy it on the grounds that Marvel may feel it cuts into their market for officially licensed games. But in general I think going after your fans is a bad move.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Trademarks by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-18 12:32 · Score: 1

It demonstrates how fu**ed the copyright system is which requires you to send cease-and-desist letters to protect your rights.

Hm? Well, you don't HAVE to send a C & D letter with regards to copyrights. But of course, if you don't ever take action to protect your rights, why should anyone care? In fact, if you don't protect some rights you can eventually lose them -- think of how squatters can take land from people by using it for a period of years when it otherwise would've been ignored.

Anyway, I think you might want to further study this subject; I don't think you're quite getting it yet, although I do endorse support of noncommercial fans. It's dumb to alienate one's audience, after all.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Trademarks by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-18 12:40 · Score: 1

The purpose of a trademark is that it distinguishes a specific source of some goods.

Thus, if I see a can of soda with the word 'Coca-Cola' printed on it, then that allows me to know that it _is_ Coca-Cola, and that it comes from, and was made by, the Coca-Cola people. It needn't indicate who the manufacturer is, just that it's coming from the same overall source as other things so marked.

If everyone was making Coca-Cola, and using that name, it would not be possible to know that it all came from the same place; in fact it wouldn't be. Thus, the trademark would've become generic, and anyone can use it.

Xerox has been on the verge of this for years. People commonly use the word to refer to any brand of photocopier, as well as the output and the process. They advertise heavily to have something to point to as a counter to that.

Other trademarks have been lost through generic use. E.g. escalator.

Basically the test is done by gathering evidence in the form of carefully conducted surveys. If a lot of people are confused regarding source, it's been genericized. If some are, but it's not as widespread, then that indicates infringement that can be stopped, since it isn't too late. Use of a trademark in a non-infringing way (as I've been doing here) doesn't confuse people at all, and so is perfectly allowable.

I doubt that here people think that anyone can do anything with the Spider-Man trademark; it doesn't seem to have gotten to the extreme of genericide yet.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Trademarks by Captain+Splendid · 2003-06-18 16:27 · Score: 2, Informative

You wrote it? You have the rights to it for X years. Then it goes into the public domain.
It's more like:
You wrote it? You have the rights to it for X years. Then you use that money to pay off the politicians to change the value of X to a much bigger number.

--
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Re:Trademarks by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-06-19 00:44 · Score: 1

They could always license the trademark to the skins site for a token fee (say, $1) under certain restrictions (such as licensing downloaders only to use the skins for personal use, for the site not to sell access to the skins, etc.).

While this is certainly true, I think it's just slightly possible that this would undercut the price they're charging a game company to use the names and likenesses in a game that's currently being produced. This is most likely why they're just now going after people for skinning in the first place.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:Trademarks by siliconminded · 2003-06-19 02:24 · Score: 1

if unprotected would allow others to actually make Spiderman comics without any payment This is simply not true, not enforcing a trademark or copyright in no way lessens the rights possessed by the holder. If that were true, then a copyright holder would bear the personal responsibility to find all violations in existence and an infringment that is not high-profile (as opposed to skins for the current best-selling game of all time, for example) could go unnoticed by the holder indefinitly. Does that sound anything like the copyright law, we all know from discussions here? Think, people.
Re:Trademarks by danila · 2003-06-19 02:24 · Score: 1

I wonder if there any actual examples of companies loosing their trademarks because they have entered public domain (but not the examples when the word entered the language as a generic term - that's different).

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Trademarks by danila · 2003-06-19 02:31 · Score: 1

You see, if I take Coca-Cola and pour it from a can into a glass and sell it this way, it is still "Coca-Cola". If I mix it with vodka, I have the right to call it "Coca-Cola with vodka". Because it is.

In case with Spiderman skins, they do not represent a stolen character, they actually represent Spiderman from Marvel universe (films, comics, games, etc.). So the problem is not that Spiderman becomes generic term, no. The problem (in Marvel's opinion) is that people apparently can get the right to use Spiderman in their products without first asking permission. If someone can make a skin, then someone can make any product using Spiderman (toys, calculators, computer mice, etc.).

Of course, being so stupid as Marvel is is not a requirement. They can easily place a license on their website and say that you can use Spiderman to make skins, as long as you do not sell it and acknowlege that it is Marvel's character. Then they would be licensing the character and would be safe from losing it in the future.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Trademarks by Schnapple · 2003-06-19 02:31 · Score: 1

Marvel is losing no money from this. No one is going to avoid the Spiderman movie because they have a spiderman skin in The Sims.
Maybe not in The Sims, but a game like Freedom Force is another matter - it's a superhero game. Marvel licenses their properties out to other people to make superhero games, like the two Spiderman comic book games, the Spider-Man movie game, the upcoming Spider-Man 2 movie game, and of course the multiplatform beast which is The Hulk.
Plus Marvel may have to work harder since these properties are so old - it might be easier to argue in a court that Spiderman is in the public domain since it's been around so long, something not true of Buffy.

--
Schnapple
Re:Trademarks by notque · 2003-06-19 03:02 · Score: 1

Maybe not in The Sims, but a game like Freedom Force is another matter - it's a superhero game. Marvel licenses their properties out to other people to make superhero games, like the two Spiderman comic book games, the Spider-Man movie game, the upcoming Spider-Man 2 movie game, and of course the multiplatform beast which is The Hulk.

Was unaware of that, I concede my point. (I still find their demands incredible.)

Plus Marvel may have to work harder since these properties are so old - it might be easier to argue in a court that Spiderman is in the public domain since it's been around so long, something not true of Buffy.

Another true case. I was looking very narrowly at the situation. Thank you for sheding light on it.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:Trademarks by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-19 03:58 · Score: 1

they actually represent Spiderman

Yeah, but the purpose of trademarks is not to identify a product so much as it is to indicate that different instances of the same product share a common source.

If Marvel makes Spider-Man comics, and I make Spider-Man comics, then the Spider-Man trademark no longer indicates that all Spider-Man products originate from a particular source.

Even though it's perfectly clear in both instances that it IS Spider-Man.

You've pointed out the nominative use of a mark, that is using a mark to refer to the product, as being okay. But that doesn't excuse using a mark to refer to a product from a different source.

Even when you take Coca-Cola, mix it with vodka (sounds disgusting) and resell that, you're probably not claiming to have manufactured that Coca-Cola, nor is there confusion regarding the source of it.

Here, someone else is claiming to be a source of Spider-Man stuff, and this can lead to confusion regarding source, which is the basis for an infringement action.

With only a few limited exceptions, you should be aware that people CANNOT get the right to use Spider-Man in their own products without permission. Parodies are about the only significant way that it's possible. Nominative uses are really just using a mark to refer to products of the mark holder, by and large. I.e. our conversation would be stupid if we had to dance around the subject by talking about a 'male, spider-oriented costumed superhero' (which could in fact refer to several superheros). But that's not an excuse to make your own Spider-Man stuff.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Trademarks by Mac+Degger · 2003-06-19 04:30 · Score: 1

I think this is a perfect example of where trademark/copyright law abjectly fails.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Trademarks by karmawhoreaide · 2003-06-19 06:53 · Score: 1, Troll

Why is slashdot so amazingly quick to go after the conspiracy thread between gov. and corps? Just asking a rhetorical question within the bowels of slashdot history....
Re:Trademarks by WatertonMan · 2003-06-19 08:56 · Score: 1

It's the idea that corporations are in effect private governments. They don't want wnat liberals want. Liberals want collusion between corporations and government as well - just that they want more public control over the corporations.
Right now corporations are primarily controlled by small groups whose "vote" depends upon investment. Liberals want one vote per person type of democracy that corporations are pretty much antithical to.
That's really the question. One vote per person for *everything* or should something be voted upon by interest or productivity?
Re:Trademarks by Martin+Blank · 2003-06-20 23:17 · Score: 1

Unless you refer to interest on accounts, all votes are interest-based. I've considered buying stock in some media companies from time to time just for the opportunity to vote "no" to the re-election of those board members who support extending copyright law, because I believe it is in my interest for material 75 years old should to be in the public domain. Other people believe it's better for money from royalties and sales to be in their bank account. Everyone has their own interests.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

The difference between then and now is... by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-06-18 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

...there have been a few Marvel Comics brought to the Silver Screen and have made them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mo' Money, mo' Money, Mo' Money!

That and the cruddy Marvel TV shows from the 70's and 80's were REALLY bad. Remember the live action 'Spider-Man' TV series? No way they could have pushed their clout around with those TV series.

Dolemite
____________________________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

Re:The difference between then and now is... by mahdi13 · 2003-06-18 09:10 · Score: 1

Eli still works for Marvel...will wonders never cease?

I'm getting very tired of people throwing around IP as a reason to sue someone...the only people making money in these hard economic times are Realtors and Lawyers!

If they are suing people for making a "likeness" of their characters, I know a few Marvel artists that should be sued for making a butchery of the characters in some of the comics!

--
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Wow.... by notque · 2003-06-18 07:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

I love the end

Very truly yours,

As if truly yours wasn't good enough. Very truly yours, we will sue you.

My question is, it states they HAVE to give the names of all downloaders of Marvel IP.

How exactly is that possible?

--
http://use.perl.org

Re:Wow.... by Tom7 · 2003-06-18 07:49 · Score: 0

Yeah, several of the legal threats I've received in the past have signed off with "Very truly yours." I like to write back with "Extremely truly yours." ;)

They certainly don't have to comply with Marvel's demands, and Marvel probably won't do anything if they do. But they've already almost certainly violated copyright/trademark law, so even if they pull the stuff now Marvel can still sue them. That's the leverage that Marvel is threatening to use unless they get those names.
Re:Wow.... by notque · 2003-06-18 08:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, several of the legal threats I've received in the past have signed off with "Very truly yours." I like to write back with "Extremely truly yours." ;)

They certainly don't have to comply with Marvel's demands, and Marvel probably won't do anything if they do. But they've already almost certainly violated copyright/trademark law, so even if they pull the stuff now Marvel can still sue them. That's the leverage that Marvel is threatening to use unless they get those names.

My question was more, How would they be able to get the names of people who downloaded the skins if they just placed them in an easy to access place. I'm not entirely sure that happened, but I was assuming they just put, "Download this skin". How would you get the names?

Abundantly, and Entirely yours,

-Notque

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:Wow.... by secret_squirrel_99 · 2003-06-18 08:04 · Score: 1

but I was assuming they just put, "Download this skin". How would you get the names?

You couldn't. The site operator could produce his access logs, assuming he keeps any, and they would show IP addresses. You could then try to track them back, but as many of not most of them are dynamic addresses, it would take massive cooperation from dozens of ISP's which is unlikely to happen. The even better solution would be to simply destroy his weblogs and then there is no problem.

--
If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
Re:Wow.... by notque · 2003-06-18 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

but I was assuming they just put, "Download this skin". How would you get the names?

You couldn't. The site operator could produce his access logs, assuming he keeps any, and they would show IP addresses. You could then try to track them back, but as many of not most of them are dynamic addresses, it would take massive cooperation from dozens of ISP's which is unlikely to happen. The even better solution would be to simply destroy his weblogs and then there is no problem.

And that's my point. If you read the cease and desist letter it says one of the conditions for them not to sue, is he gives the names of each individual who downloaded it.

--
http://use.perl.org

Ah skins... by FroMan · 2003-06-18 07:29 · Score: 1

I remember back in college running around as the sheep with a rocket tied on its back. Those were the days. Life was simpler running around as a sheep blowing up folks into gibs.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.

Re:Ah skins... by notque · 2003-06-18 07:31 · Score: 1

Memories.... nothing like sweet... memories....

--
http://use.perl.org

Skins... by Alexius · 2003-06-18 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't matter to Marvel if they advertise, if they don't protect the IP at least in name only, they can't complain if someone sells a 'Marvel Super Heroes Skins CD' along side their latest video game.

Personally, I'd guess a MMPORG based in the Marvelverse.

--
`Lex - Find Me Here: Text Appeal

Re:Skins... by notque · 2003-06-18 07:34 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter to Marvel if they advertise, if they don't protect the IP at least in name only, they can't complain if someone sells a 'Marvel Super Heroes Skins CD' along side their latest video game.

(This is using a huge if) So if SCO has IP that was in Linux for many years, and never once said a word about it, they couldn't sue because they didn't protect their ip, and even went so far as to sell the very products with their ip that was used without their permission.

Oh... Okay.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:Skins... by FroMan · 2003-06-18 07:52 · Score: 1

Actually, apples and oranges here.

One is trademark, the other is copyright/patent.

Trademark you have to protect to retain it and I do not believe it expires.

Copyright/patent are granted and are valid until it expires.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:Skins... by notque · 2003-06-18 07:57 · Score: 1

Actually, apples and oranges here.

One is trademark, the other is copyright/patent.

Trademark you have to protect to retain it and I do not believe it expires.

Copyright/patent are granted and are valid until it expires.

You may be right, now that I think about it, and if so, excuse me.

But Intellectual Property was definately part of SCO's complaint, and Intellectual Property was the basis of this complaint.

I connected the two as the same, but I may be wrong.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:Skins... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 08:18 · Score: 0

Gotta love slashdotters. Always at least willing to admit they may be wrong. So much easier to get it right in the first place.
Re:Skins... by jjhlk · 2003-06-18 12:47 · Score: 1

You have to protect copyright also, because it belongs to you. The government isn't going to sue people on your behalf. Everything you ever make is copyrighted, so it would be impossible for someone else to decide to sue or not. If you make a drawing and I use it to make a wallpaper, nobody cares unless you care. But even if you went out and got the art copyrighted at a [postal office?]... then you still have to try and protect it.

hmm not a very well written paragraph ;)
Re:Skins... by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-18 13:10 · Score: 1

You're basically right, but be aware of some exceptions.

There are statutes of limitations: if you don't sue within a certain period of time, you lose your chance to do so. The courts are not generally going to tolerate people bringing lawsuits decades after the fact. Things like murder don't have statutes of limitations -- copyright infringement is only a few years (possibly with the clock starting after the copyright holder did, or should have discovered it).

There is estoppel: if you lead someone to believe that it's okay to use your works, you cannot turn around and sue them given their reliance on what you did.

But overall, copyrights and patents don't expire early due to lack of enforcement. They may merely not be effective against SPECIFIC people for lack of enforcement. And even that probably doesn't happen all that much when there's significant money at stake.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Skins... by FroMan · 2003-06-18 13:13 · Score: 1

The point is that if you do not actively defend a trademark you can lose it. Once you lose it you are unable to reclaim the trademark.

However, with copyright/patents you are able to ignore the fact until you want to sue. Remember the unisys/gif patent?

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:Skins... by jjhlk · 2003-06-18 13:22 · Score: 1

Oh I see, yeah that's right. Trademarks are volatile.
Re:Skins... by Mac+Degger · 2003-06-19 04:35 · Score: 1

The big difference here is that in one case, no money is made, and in the other, you sell and make money from that cd.

I'd call that a mayor difference.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?

Matt Murdock to the rescue? by AtariAmarok · 2003-06-18 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny

When it comes to the legal department, Marvel is more Rupert Murdoch than Matt Murdock.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

"disgorge ally"? by Jad+LaFields · 2003-06-18 07:34 · Score: 1

WTF does this mean? Vomiting up people you've entered into an alliance with?

Bizarre what lawyers think about people today... backstabbing cannibals?

--
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!

Re:"disgorge ally"? by xTown · 2003-06-18 08:29 · Score: 1

Looks like OCR mistranslation to me; it should probably be "disgorge any". Note that a lot of the periods (e.g. multiple incidences of skindex,net) are rendered as commas.
Re:"disgorge ally"? by Jad+LaFields · 2003-06-18 09:20 · Score: 1

ah, no wonder I had no luck accessing http://www.skindex,net/ ;)

--
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!

Re:Excessive Slashdot videogame content by notque · 2003-06-18 07:36 · Score: 2

I think you are going to games.slashdot.org

In the Games section, every article will be about games.

You need to make sure you are going to www.slashdot.org

This article isn't even on the main page (I don't think.)

If every article you are reading is in purple, you are at games. There is a section table to the left hand side as well.

--
http://use.perl.org

A good thing! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 07:36 · Score: 0

Because we all know Marvel loses money everytime Spiderman walks out of my Sim home on my computer.

Out of bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 07:36 · Score: 0

I guess they can actually hire lawyers again, now that their stock is out of the toilet...

All skins removed ? by Grand · 2003-06-18 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

I clicked throught the different sections of the website, and it looks like ALL the skins are taken off. I could understand Marvel if the entire site was of Marvel skins and nothing else. If he made any money off of advertising, he is soley making it from Marvels stuff.

Re:All skins removed ? by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-06-19 00:47 · Score: 1

They still have a handful of skins on the site. Most of them are DC comics characters. Apparently either DC comics doesn't care, or Marvel didn't bother notifying DC (in other words, DC doesn't know).

While I think it's often fun to play games with super-hero skins, it's somewhat sad that the whole site is made up primarily of derivative works, rather than unique skins.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]

Whining Macintosh user by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 07:37 · Score: 0

You're just whining because you don't have all those kewl games on your Mac. Get a PC and embrace game geekdom.

When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by J_DarkElf · 2003-06-18 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

I thought skins were like fan art, in that they fell under 'fair use', as long as no attempt was made to make profit from them. At least, those made completely by the fans themselves -- screencaps from movies or games, or scans from the comics might be different.

Very depressing to see that current 'copyright' law is only being used to prevent the fans from trying to live their fantasies.

Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by ichimunki · 2003-06-18 07:44 · Score: 1

I think the problem here is that Marvel would like to license its characters and stories to video game developers and sees these unlicensed Marvel-themed games as competition.

Not that I agree with Marvel's actions. I certainly found the tone of their letter disturbing. I certainly won't buy their stuff now (not that I bought a lot of it before, but now I won't even consider it).

--
I do not have a signature
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 08:11 · Score: 1, Informative

I wouldn't call this fair use (of copyrights) at all. [Trademarks are another issue entirely] Section 107 of US Code states:

------------

Â107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

-----------------

Using the images of copyrighted characters for "skins" doesn't fall under any of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".

Skindex is denying Marvel the opportunity to make a buck if they ever decide to make "skins" themselves (item 4). The character itself makes up a significant portion of the skin's value and usefulness (item 3), otherwise skindex could host skins of, say, original art or blank skins. As for point one, while skindex claims to "[never having] made a cent" from the skins, skindex does stand to gain non-monetary recognition from the use of Marvel's characters.

Fan art (without license or permission) is mostly just plain old theft.
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 08:20 · Score: 0

Anything that slows 'fans' from living their 'fantasies' is probably a good thing.
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by Ioldanach · 2003-06-18 08:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

I thought skins were like fan art, in that they fell under 'fair use', as long as no attempt was made to make profit from them. At least, those made completely by the fans themselves -- screencaps from movies or games, or scans from the comics might be different.
Very depressing to see that current 'copyright' law is only being used to prevent the fans from trying to live their fantasies.

Fan art is not fair use, and has been the subject of substantial lawsuits, both due to copyright and trademark infringement.
This is both a copyright issue and trademark issue. Copyright is where you create an image from another image, where the derivative work is recognisably related to the original. This applies mainly when you make a piece of art that looks like another piece of art. Trademark is the larger issue in this case, since trademark involves using something in a trademarked way. I.e., using the likeness of a Marvel character can only be done with the permission of Marvel.
Thus, creating unique fan art of Marvel's characters is a trademark violation and could result in a lawsuit of, $10,000 or more. Minor cases of fans drawing their favorites and posting them on their website isn't something a company like marvel will go after. When the infringement becomes large, however, they have to shut it down whether they want to or not, lest the infringer push the trademark into the public domain. In many cases they really don't want to do this, but the legal environment requires them to. Anecdotally, I recall a story where the J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter stories, was asked by a teacher if their class could put on a H.P. play. The request had somehow circumvented normal channels and thus her lawyers, and she said sure. When the lawyers heard about it, permission was immediately revoked, since it opened up a legal can of worms regarding copyright and trademark dilution.
Again, this isn't new, and is entirely reasonable. This is what prevents someone else from drawing a new Mickey Mouse cartoon where mickey kills Donald for sleeping with Minnie. Disney has continuously used Mickey, Donald, and Minnie in a trademarked environment for many years, so any attempt to use those trademarked characters will result in serious penalties.
I should note that confusion between copyright and trademark law is also what FUD from Disney & other media companies is designed to encourage. Disney & others want the copyright term extended not because they're afraid someone will make their own Mickey cartoon, but because they won't be able to release their 150th anniversary disk of Mickey's first cartoon someday since everyone who wants it will have bought a decent copy of it when the copyright ran out. New cartoons using their characters are already protected by trademark law, and will be so long as Disney continues to enforce the mark. That's a separate rant I give for other topics, though.
A quick google search turned up this interesting primer on the subject.
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by Rip!ey · 2003-06-18 08:23 · Score: 1

Using the images of copyrighted characters for "skins" doesn't fall under any of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".

What if someone modified the skins by adding "Marvel sucks" written across the characters chest or back. Would that constitute critisism?
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by jjhlk · 2003-06-18 12:28 · Score: 1

Errm, not theft, it's copyright infringment. There is a distinction, is there not?
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by jjhlk · 2003-06-18 12:35 · Score: 1

150 years for a copyrighted work is ridiculus. That would be a whole generation of people whom you've ingrained the image of Mickey Mouse into. You don't own him anymore.
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-18 12:47 · Score: 2, Informative

New cartoons using their characters are already protected by trademark law, and will be so long as Disney continues to enforce the mark.

That's patently absurd.

To claim that would be to claim that trademarks are capable of establishing a de facto copyright that might never expire with regards to derivative works based upon earlier, public domain works.

It would be grossly unconstitutional.

When copyrights expire so does the exclusive right of the author to create works derivative of earlier works. If "Steamboat Willy" ever does hit the public domain, I CAN make my own Mickey Mouse cartoons. Or books. Or art. And print it on t-shirts.

Most likely the trademark would be partially genercized, that is, partially lost, once the copyright expired. Disney could still attach their name to distinguish their OWN cartoons. I couldn't claim that my own Mickey Mouse works were their works, just as if I made a Cinderella cartoon I couldn't stick the Disney name on it, though both our films would share the 'Cinderella' title, story, characters, etc.

But trademarks on characters are comparatively new as these things go. The best case regarding this that I've seen so far has been, IIRC, New Line Cinemas v. Comedy III Productions, where copyright expiration trumped persisting trademarks.

But I'd be happy to continue discussing the issue with you. Personally, I hope to have the opportunity to test this out in the future with other fictional characters that are trademarked, yet who's original appearances are in the public domain.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by Ioldanach · 2003-06-19 01:30 · Score: 1

To claim that would be to claim that trademarks are capable of establishing a de facto copyright that might never expire with regards to derivative works based upon earlier, public domain works.
You're misinterpreting my statement, though I'll consent that in one area my statement overreached. It would be legal to display "Steamboat Willie" in any context, and to use the artwork in another form. It would not, however, be legal to create a new work with the character Mickey Mouse from the cartoon, since Mickey Mouse is a trademark continuously in use and thus protected.

When copyrights expire so does the exclusive right of the author to create works derivative of earlier works. If "Steamboat Willy" ever does hit the public domain, I CAN make my own Mickey Mouse cartoons. Or books. Or art. And print it on t-shirts.

Most likely the trademark would be partially genercized, that is, partially lost, once the copyright expired. Disney could still attach their name to distinguish their OWN cartoons. I couldn't claim that my own Mickey Mouse works were their works, just as if I made a Cinderella cartoon I couldn't stick the Disney name on it, though both our films would share the 'Cinderella' title, story, characters, etc.

No, you could create a derivative work of other characters on a steamboat like that one, since the steamboat isn't a trademark. But if you include Mickey in the work, you'd be in court in no time. You could make videos and sell the cartoon, you could print images from the cartoon on t-shirts or in books or put them in big frames and sell that. You could absolutely not create an entirely new work, claim you're deriving it from "Steamboat Willie", and use Mickey, a currently enforced trademark.

But trademarks on characters are comparatively new as these things go. The best case regarding this that I've seen so far has been, IIRC, New Line Cinemas v. Comedy III Productions, where copyright expiration trumped persisting trademarks.
Here enters a level of "reasonable" use. The three stooges film had indeed entered the public domain. The owners of the film tried to sue because the film violated their trademark on the three stooges. I quote from the case decision:

II.1 ... In order to prevail on a Lanham Act claim, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a trademark and the sub- sequent use of that mark by another in a manner likely to create consumer confusion.
and

II.2 To prevail on its trademark claim -- and those claims substantially dependent on a viable trademark claim 2 -- Com- edy III must show that the clip at issue is actually a cogniza- ble trademark. That is, Comedy III must demonstrate that "the public recognizes [its] symbol as identifying[its] goods or services and distinguishing them from those of others." Id. Comedy III must make this argument by claiming either that (a) its "symbol" is inherently distinctive, or (b) that even if not inherently distinctive, the symbol has become distinctive through the acquisition of "secondary meaning. " Id. It is upon this claim that Comedy III failed before the district court and fails before us.
That is to say, New Line Cinemas did not violate the trademark because they were using a short clip of film that was in the public domain. The case you cite has no bearing on whether they'd be entitled to create a new Three Stooges film based around public domain archives. In fact, were they to do so, I believe they'd be found guilty of infringing on Comedy III's trademark, even if they were re-enacting a scene from a public domain work.
Finally, the case decision includes in II.4.p2 a nice collection of citations that I assert agree with my analysis and disagree with yours. they were found largely irrelevant
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-19 04:20 · Score: 1

You're misinterpreting my statement, though I'll consent that in one area my statement overreached. It would be legal to display "Steamboat Willie" in any context, and to use the artwork in another form. It would not, however, be legal to create a new work with the character Mickey Mouse from the cartoon, since Mickey Mouse is a trademark continuously in use and thus protected.

No, that's exactly how I interpreted your statement. I just think you're absolutely wrong.

Such a trademark would in effect create a copyright. This is blatantly unconstitutional. The commerce power (from which trademarks originate) CANNOT be used to create copyrights. Copyrights MUST be of limited duration. Much like how the Copyright clause cannot be used to create trademarks. (which was tried in the 19th century and held unconstitutional)

No, you could create a derivative work of other characters on a steamboat like that one, since the steamboat isn't a trademark. But if you include Mickey in the work, you'd be in court in no time. You could make videos and sell the cartoon, you could print images from the cartoon on t-shirts or in books or put them in big frames and sell that. You could absolutely not create an entirely new work, claim you're deriving it from "Steamboat Willie", and use Mickey, a currently enforced trademark.

Then in that case you're telling me that I cannot make any POSSIBLE derivative work of Steamboat Willy.

This means, in effect, that Disney by virtue of a mere trademark, is retaining a de facto copyright, that is, a power just like a copyright, with respects to SOME of the possible derivatives that could be based upon Steamboat Willy.

A derivative work can be amazingly derivative, so much so that it isn't a copyright infringement (such as recycling a basic plot, like two lovers from feuding families), or it can be just barely this side of an exact copy (the colorized version of Casablanca).

As long as the new work is based upon the original work, and is not an exact copy (or perhaps also not an adaptation, such as vidcapping the film version of Casablanca into a computer-readable format), it is derivative.

As for the Comedy III case, you left out the best part: If material covered by copyright law has passed into the public domain, it cannot then be protected by the Lanham Act without rendering the Copyright Act a nullity. See, e.g., Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir. 1968).

Just so you know, courts HATE having laws turn out to have no effect. Worse still, the Copyright Act contains an expiration date because the Constitution requires it to. If that date didn't mean anything for ALL of the rights granted in a copyright, including the right to make any and ALL derivative works, it would mean that the Lanham Act was contradicting the Constitution. You can't really get a bigger no-no than that.

The real problem is that this has not been squarely addressed by the courts due to the extreme (extremely stupid, I should say) length of copyright terms, and the relatively recent practice of trademarking characters. The Amos 'n Andy case got close, but managed to dodge the issue as well. I've been looking, but have not managed to find anything better than Comedy III. Let me know if you see something that's on point.

Anyway, while I doubt I'll ever see Steamboat Willy hit the p.d., there are other trademarked fictional characters in the p.d. out there. My plan is actually to create a comic book (since trademarks are for specific channels of commerce), then file for a declaratory judgment, instead of waiting around to get sued. By filing prior to sale, but where entry into commerce is imminent, I avoid the possibility of having to pay damages if I lose, God forbid. After all, the work is p.d. so mere creation is irrelevant as grounds for damages.

Should be interesting, but it'll have to wait for a few years so I can take care of prior commitments and gather the necessary resources.

Assuming all goes well, I'll send you a copy. ;)

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by Mac+Degger · 2003-06-19 04:48 · Score: 1

Wow...this shows how far Disney has perverted the law; Cinderella is already public domain! It's an old fairy tale! Just like 'Beauty and the Beast' is...you can draw, paint and sell anything you like about those characters :)

Anyway, I think the whole fan art thing goes to show how broken trademark/copyright law is. Something really ought to be done about it.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:When was 'fair use' removed from the law again? by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-19 07:33 · Score: 1

Well, the Cinderella FAIRY TALE is in the public domain. I can make my own version of Cinderella. So can Disney. And they did.

Those versions we each make are then copyrighted, but only with respects to the portions of the story that are original to those versions. For example, the artwork, and the script and music in Disney's version is protected. The plot is generally not, nor the characters, situations, etc.

I was using it as an example to show that Disney likes to make movies based on public domain works, that they then trademark what they can with regards to those works, but it doesn't stop other people from directly competing with them, and even using very similar trademarks.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Make your own skins, then... by Craig+Maloney · 2003-06-18 07:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Instead of giving these companies free advertising and publicity, make your own fiction, and make your own characters. Who knows? Someday you might be able to tell companies where they can stick it.

I'm tired of people getting punished for showing loyalty to a particular brand or franchise, so until they wake up and realize they're hurting themselves, I'm not going to spend any energy promoting hostile companies' brand or franchise. Let them do the work.

A new lingo verb: His site was FLAYED by AtariAmarok · 2003-06-18 07:40 · Score: 1

Dictionary definition of flay:

"To strip off the skin or outer covering of."

This site's been skinned for sure.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:Excessive Slashdot videogame content by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-06-18 07:42 · Score: 1

I've nothing against them, but they hardly reflect half of a geek's life.

Some of us wouldn't quite be (as much of?) geeks if it weren't for games. I know I certainly wouldn't have bought my first computer (or at least spent as much on it) if it weren't for games. I also wouldn't have become a software developer if it weren't for games.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]

Too Late by phathead296 · 2003-06-18 07:42 · Score: 1

IMNAL, but I have taken classes on IP, and this is a clear cut case of Marvel not taking the opportunity to protect their IP ten years ago when skinning started. Even if they have just started as little as 5 years ago, they would have had an argument, but with the prevelance of skinning now, I doubt they would win a case against anybody for skinning.

They are just trying to use FUD to get essentially broke website operators to stop "infringing" on their property.

Phathead

Re:Too Late by J_DarkElf · 2003-06-18 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with the current law is that you cannot win from a company like Marvel -- they can afford the legal costs, but a normal human being cannot. So it does not matter that everyone knows they do not have an argument: you can't win anyway.

Cases like this are a win-win situation for the companies: in almost all cases they scare the poor person they are scre^H^H^H^Hsueing off and the case never has to go to court, and in those few cases where the defendant thinks he stands a chance in court, they still win because the defendant cannot pay the legal costs to keep up with the company, which can keep the case going almost indefinately. No way will the defendant get a pro deo lawyer against Money.

It's as if you're in the debating team, and your opponent pulls a gun -- even if you have the upper hand, he'll still win by default :/

Re:Excessive Slashdot videogame content by Tom7 · 2003-06-18 07:44 · Score: 2

If you have 'collapse sections' turned on, then you're going to see all of games.slashdot.org interspersed with the main articles, along with ask slashdot, etc. You can tell because they say Games: in front of them.

Fair Use by gumbysworld · 2003-06-18 07:47 · Score: 0

Fair Use can get you out of allot but the problem comes when you go up and beyond your goal and run the site as profit driven. You will find that user site that do not have add banner everywhere and do not take more than nessary, will not be hassled orworth going after.

Stop trying to make a buck off of "fan based" stuff.

You may also find that gamspy and the other downlod networks are behind this. YOu noticed how they try and amke it so you can only get mods and maps from them. And subject to their adds and monthly payments.

Its all greed driven.

http://www.benedict.com/info/fairUse/fairUse.asp

Re:Excessive Slashdot videogame content by gamgee5273 · 2003-06-18 07:52 · Score: 1

You must be in the games subsection, because this is not on the front page (at least not at 3:50pm ET). Thus, in the games subsection, the postings are going to be about...games.

Shocking, but true.

Re:Excessive Slashdot videogame content by FroMan · 2003-06-18 07:54 · Score: 1

Agreed. I don't filter any stories on the main page and it seem like 90% of the articles are games.slashdot. I wish they'd slow down on the games content.

Especially when the games articles usually only get 10-20 replies, instead of 100+.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.

Pushing to the outler limits by mugnyte · 2003-06-18 07:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Marvel is within their rights to make this demand. By organizing skins and redistributing them, the site is hedging into trademark violations by skipping permissions.

That said, these skins will now become yet more fodder for other channels. So, in essence, they are pushing for more popularity of things like P2P. Information continues to want to be free. Personal trading of things like this might be similar to any other fair-use occurence, though. Think of if you draw a cool Spidey, make stickers for your buddies and slap them on your schoolbags. Isn't that fair-use? Replace sticker/skin, schoolbag/avatar. Whats the difference?

Anyone know what fair-use says about anonymous trading?

mug

Well, IANAL... by J_DarkElf · 2003-06-18 08:17 · Score: 1

But this isn't surprising. The law and common sense seldom agree anyway.

Hmmm… by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 08:28 · Score: 0

â¦game skins with sour cream and bacon

hear hear by DrSkwid · 2003-06-18 08:31 · Score: 3, Funny

You want to have a personalised skin so you pick a Marvel Comic Character, that's so lame!

I think Josh said it best [about making fps mods] :
-----------------
Step Two: Pick a Hot Property

You have to base your mod on something, and nothing works better than somebody else's copyrighted property. Heck, George Lucas isn't going to mind if you steal his beloved characters for personal use. Neither is old Tolkien, who is probably burning in hell for writing such blasphemous nonsense. Here are a couple suggestions for possible mod material:

Star Wars
X-Men
Harry Potter
The Matrix
Lord of the Rings
Dragonball Z
Denver the Last Dinosaur
-----------------

My money is also proximal to my mouth

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Re:Excessive Slashdot videogame content by simoniker · 2003-06-18 08:32 · Score: 2, Informative

It _is_ a little confusing right now, but here's what you can do to either receive the Slashdot Games section-only stories, which is most of them, on your front page, or remove them entirely.

If you want to see Slashdot Games (and other subpage posts) on your main page, go to the Homepage part of your Preferences - here, and tick the Collapse Sections tickbox.

If you're fed up with Slashdot Games appearing on your main page all the time, you must already have Collapse Sections ticked. In that case, tick the Exclude Stories From The Homepage - Sections - Games tickbox in the same menu screen.

Marvel MMORPG definitely in the works by samdu · 2003-06-18 08:45 · Score: 1

Universal Vivendi has snapped up the rights to produce a game based on the Marvel universe.

Universal signs 10 year deal with Marvel

dc not following suit? by darthgoat · 2003-06-18 09:08 · Score: 1

good for them! it gives them much more publicity seeing as marvel is the current universe to beat what with all these movies and all.

as to why marvel did this, i think they are trying to shut out anything in competition with their own marvel games, which are less than stellar.

Re:Excessive Slashdot videogame content by SophtwareSlump · 2003-06-18 09:11 · Score: 1

Is there a way to just show one subsection on the main page with the regular front page news?

Is it possible to see regular front page news + games? I've played around with my settings before, but I either have to show all the subsections on the front page, or block all the sections except games, which filters all the front page news except the games subsection.

Anyone?

hey kids by Strange+Ranger · 2003-06-18 09:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Marvel was in or near bankruptcy all through the 90's, until they restructured their entire business model around their intellectual property, rather than around selling paper comic books. The stock has gone from a few dollars to over 20 bucks in a very short time, in a bear market no less, due to their success. It would be very silly of them indeed not to protect their ONLY valuable asset.

The movies are great fun, the games are fun, and they're slated to do a lot more of both. They have to aggressively protect their IP, copyrights, and trademarks. The lawyers make them. They are not the RIAA or even Disney, they're just doing what it takes to stay in business, and their business is licensing fees. So give them a break and be glad they're no longer bankrupt, and that they have achieved the clout necessary to get movies made that are worlds better than say.. Superman III.

--

Operator, give me the number for 911!

Wow, that was a flashback by M.C.+Hampster · 2003-06-18 09:19 · Score: 1

Denver the Last Dinosaur

Wow, I hadn't thought of that show in many, many years. I read that and immediately the theme music began playing in my head. I couldn't tell you at all what the main character even looked at, but I can sing "Denver, the Last Dinosaur... he's your friend and a whole lot more!" At least, that's how I remember it.

--
Forget the whales - save the babies.

A compromise by Geccoman · 2003-06-18 09:25 · Score: 1

Perhaps all Marvel related skins could have "belongs to marvel" tatooed on their asses?

--
I'm on a chair.

Freedom Force by TheGreenLantern · 2003-06-18 09:26 · Score: 1

If people were skinning Freedom Force with Marvel characters, you've probably got your answer to "Why" right there: Marvel is planning on releasing it's own Freedom Force-type video game.

--

It hurts when I pee.

OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-06-18 09:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Marvel's lawyers don't have a leg to stand on!!!

I took a look at the full context of the letter from Marvel's lawyers to the admin of the Skin site. Just for kicks, I looked up the full context of the '1976 Copyright Law' and the Federal 'Lanham Act'.

What I found was that Marvel's lawyers are totally bluffing and don't have a case.

There are specific sections of both of these laws that totally protect 'The Skindex' and prevent Marvel's lawyers from ever filing a lawsuit.

Here's the info that I found:

1976 Copyright Act

Most of the Act focuses specificaly on or implies works of Music, Movies, Plays, Computer Programs, or even Boat plans. Nowhere in this Act is there any sort of law governing the Skins.

Or so I though.

Buried in Section 109 Sub-Section (b)(1)(B)(i and ii) of this code (Page 22 of the PDF near the bottom) are two exceptions that place Limitations on the 'Exclusive Rights' Marvel is alleging Mr. Benson is infringing on:

(B) This subsection does not apply toâ"

(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or

(ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

Other than that there is not a single word in this Act that Marvel can use against this Skin site.

Lanham Act

This is a REALLY easy one. Since 'The Skindex' is a 'not for profit' site they are protected from a lawsuit under 15 U.S.C. Â1125 of The Lanham Act. Section (C)(4)(A-C) States (Specifically C-4-B):

(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:

(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.

(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

These guys need to hire a lawyer, fast and tell Marvel where to go!

Dolemite
___________________________________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by bovilexics · 2003-06-18 09:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Someone should mod the parent comment up. This seems extremely insightful to me. IANAL and also didn't read the linked documents in their entirety but the comments seem to make sense.

Unfortunately this is extremely common in the litigious society we now live in. Get a high-powered lawyer and have that lawyer threaten a bunch of action based on a bunch of "lawyerspeak" that may or MAY NOT apply to the current situation, but sounds really scary to the average person - enough so that even if the threats are empty, it's enough to bring about the desired action.

Marvel got what they wanted, all material was removed so it will most likely end there. They sucessfully strong-armed the guy into throwing his hands up in the air and dumping everything just to avoid future problems because he didn't have the desire/means to fight it. And why should he? It was something he put money and effort into, not profited from. Why would he want to suffer more for something his was just doing for the common good.

This kind of stuff really makes me sick. Marvel does have the right to protect their property, but at some point there were people within the company supporting him - or so he says. And now this. They definitely beat him into submission as he states -

I have decided to retire from the world of skinning. Not surprisingly, it has lost any sense of enjoyment and wonder for me.

In fact it appears as though he has pulled all content from the site, and not just the questionable Marvel content - guess we have those bastards to thank for that as well.

Oh, and good luck getting this guy to supply this bit of info -

Given the apparent willful nature of your actions, Marvel demands that skindex.net disclose all of its activities with respect to its use of Marvel's properties, including but not limited to all sales or distribution of any products bearing any Marvel intellectual property, the names and contact information for all companies that have purchased or downloaded those items, as well as the addresses of any other websites where the infringing properties have been posted.

So it goes, on and on... this is not the first and will surely not be the last story like this posted on /.

--
Are you bovilexic? Moo!

Fair use and fair money. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 10:29 · Score: 0

I really really wish someone (IANAL) would start up a group to promote fair use in circumstances like this. The they could bill the companies who press against fair use the cost of fair use in promoting their character/product/item. I know I know.. it wasn't contracted advertising... but it should count for something so unquantifiable like Good Will!!!

I.E. Let's estimate a user base of 50,000 people with a 50% skin use and of that 10% use the Spiderman skin on a regular basis for the game. So 2500 hundred times 3 hours a night once a week for a year (avg 50 weeks) - that's 375,000 hours of advertising.... hmm.. may be worth good bucks! Let's change this to impressions like in a web page.. 375,000 x 180 minutes x 5 impressions a minute = 337,500,000 impressions a year! What's the going rate these days for an impression?? Now you have $x in Good Will.. sell that for a profit eh!

Why is this such a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 10:38 · Score: 0

Why do people copy other's work in the first place? What about creating new content in the first place? Copytivity != Creativity. I don't feel the need to come to the defense of an "artist" who isn't creating original work, in any setting or media. Is Marvel right? Probably not. Of course if these people were that talented and worthy of defense they would be coming up with content that they wouldn't have to worry in the slightest about any kind of IP or copyright issues.

Think TRULY different. Not just different enough.

Re:Why is this such a big deal? by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-18 13:20 · Score: 1

Yeah -- I can't imagine why we allow Disney to have copyrights on films like Aladdin, or Cinderella, when they're just rehashing stories that have been around for fucking ages.

Or perhaps we allow it because someone's reinterpretation of an existing story -- the way they tell it, the changes they do make that serve as a counterpoint to what we're already familiar with -- these things are important, and are new.

Are you aware of the concept of people 'standing on the shoulders of giants?' Or of the possibility that there is a finite amount of creativity? (At least in a world where people vigorously try to expand their rights at the expense of people who come later)

Go read Spider Robinson's "Melancholy Elephants" or something.

Talented people OFTEN create derivative works. Good ones. Shakespeare couldn't come up with an original plot to save his life. But he still was amazingly talented. And how many thousands of talented artists have built on what he did? You didn't like "West Side Story" or "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" or "The Lion King?"

What's wrong with you, guy? I've seen no end of derivative works better than the original source material. In part BECAUSE they could put their own spin on the original material. Sometimes they're even by the same person!

There are movies that were better than the book. And there are sequels better than the original. (e.g. Empire was much better than Star Wars, and is in fact derivative of it!)

I'm amazed you can't figure this out. It's not always true, granted, but there's no end of crappy original works either.

Originality isn't necessarily what makes something good. It might, it might not. There's other factors at play too.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-19 05:37 · Score: 0

I refuse to accept there is a finite amount of creativity. Perhaps we will differ on that. A true artist wouldn't see it that way.

I think I just figured it out. Its a question of standards. I have high ones, but not everyone does.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-19 07:29 · Score: 1

Well, I am a true artist. Or at least, I managed to support myself as an artist for several years before I decided to change professions into something vaguely art-related. (guess what my new job will be -- you may be surprised) So I'd like to think I have some sort of idea of what I'm talking about.

The issue isn't so much creativity as it is the audience, actually. If I wrote a novel in gibberish, it's going to be virtually devoid of impact. It has to be sufficiently closely related to existing art -- both in form and tropes -- in order to be understood.

For example, a lot of westerners now probably don't have the level of knowledge needed to understand the messages being conveyed by biblical art of several hundred to a thousand years ago. Not fully anyway; certainly I bet it would be difficult for people to tell one saint or apostle from another just by looking at them. But it was clear at the time. When you study the art of a different culture, the problem can be even greater, because there's a lack of common ground needed for communication.

Art as a sort of solo endeavor is nice, but I think it's not entirely unreasonable to expect art deserving of copyrights (i.e. art that is desirable to the public) to have something in common with the public.

Besides which, there is a seperate issue. If you're a wealthy, powerful, established artist, you will be prone to wanting to prevent people from horning in on your act. Therefore if someone creates something original but that threatens you and is not entirely dissimilar, you might claim infrigement to not just protect your own works, but expand the breadth of your control.

Anyway, I do suggest reading "Melancholy Elephants." It's by Spider Robinson, it addresses this issue very nicely, and it's online somewhere or other.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by jaredbenson · 2003-06-19 10:51 · Score: 1

I have actually created a number of original works on that web site as well. Some were included in a PC Gamer CD even. I do Marvel skins because I LIKE the characters and wanted to use them in my game. I simply put them online to share with those people who were not artisticly inclined enough to make their own.
It has nothing to do with creativity. I don't work in an industry related to gaming or comics or publishing (I sell cell phones). My interest in this artform is soley as a hobby. I digitally doodle my favorite charcters AND make up new ones.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-19 14:00 · Score: 1

And I'm behind you. I enjoy a number of different instances of fan art or fan fiction. Sure a great deal of it is crap, but a great deal of everything else is too. The good stuff shines through in the end. And of course, there's plenty of fan-art-esque versions of classical mythology, or Shakespeare, or whatever. Some of that is good too.

I don't think that original works should be elevated above derivative works.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

I actually mailed the Skin site's admin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-18 10:42 · Score: 0

I told him that he was being taken for a ride and that he should hire legal council.

Move to FREENET, people! by Myself · 2003-06-18 10:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until intellectual "property" law gets reformed, all this activity needs to take place on Freenet.

good for you by DrSkwid · 2003-06-18 11:48 · Score: 1

because I have absolutely no idea who Denver the Dinosaur is but I'm glad it gave you a nostalgic buzz.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Re:good for you by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-06-19 00:51 · Score: 1

believe me, I'm with him in having that song pop in my head but having no clue what Denver looked like or even what the show was about. Unfortunately, there's nothing good about that damned song going off, especially since it's most likely just that one line going through over and over again.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:good for you by ZzzzSleep · 2003-06-19 23:20 · Score: 1

Only after reading the first response, did the theme music kick in for me....
To stop myself singing that first line over and over again, I decided to find the lyrics and post them for anyone else suffering so....
So according to hem.passagen.se the lyrics are....

Denver, the last dinosaur
He's my friend and a whole lot more
Denver, the last dinosaur
Shows me a world I never saw before

Everywhere we go
We don't really care
If people stop and stare
At our pal dino
Creating history thru the rock n' roll spotlight
We've got a friend who helps us, we can do alright

That's Denver, the last dinosaur
He's my friend and a whole lot more
Denver, the last dinosaur
Shows me a world I never saw before.

Whether they are the actual lyrics or not, I have no idea.....

--
Emerald Astrology

If skins are villified... by waytoomuchcoffee · 2003-06-18 12:45 · Score: 1

...only Supervillains will have skins.

Ignoring legalities, here are some Qs for Marvel by Kris_J · 2003-06-18 12:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Someone who really enjoys your work draws one of your characters on a scrap of paper, as bit of fun. Do you stop them?

Someone who really enjoys your work draws one of your characters on a computer, in learning how to use a graphics program. Do you stop them?

Someone who really enjoys your work models one of your characters on a computer, for a school project. Do you stop them?

Someone who really enjoys your work creates a model of one of your characters on a computer so they can play as that character in their favourite game. Do you stop them?

The person above finds that their friends can't see them as the character they love so much unless everyone has a local copy on their PC. Do you stop them?

Their friends love the character and want to keep their local copies. Do you stop them?

The fan that first created the model of their favourite character, bouyed by their friends' responses wishes to share the model with the world. You have no official product like this. Do you stop them?

A web site offers a place for people to share their labours of love. Do you stop them?

The web site above is so popular that their ISP starts billing them for traffic. They have no option but to start charging or running advertising. Do you stop them?

Where exactly, Marvel, do you start alienating your best fans?

Unfair competition? by Scrameustache · 2003-06-18 13:03 · Score: 1

agreed to cease and desist from any and all other acts of unfair competition with Marvel

Er, yeah, right.
I forgot that Marvel is a Sims skin company, not a gorram comic book company.

All those years, forced to publish comic books, waiting for the Sims to finally start to exist for their primary buisness objective to be completed. Must have been rough.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-18 13:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Skins are a form of art, to the degree that they're graphics (see 17 USC 102(a)(5)) and are literary works, to the degree that they're software or computer data that's copyrightable (see 17 USC 102(a)(1) and the legislative history. And anyway, 17 USC 102 is pretty open-ended in offering protection to any "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

As for your inane reference to 17 USC 109, you clearly didn't read it or understand it.

The way that the law here is organized is, there is a title that embodies the entire subject of the law. Here, it's title 17 of the US Code, which is all of the copyright law. It's divided up into chapters (which no one really bothers with much), and those are divided into sections. Thus, here we discuss Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 109. (Again, no one hardly ever cares about chapters -- Bankruptcy is the most notable exception I can think of. When people talk about chapter 11 bankruptcy, etc. they mean the type of bankruptcy set out in chapter 11 of the bankruptcy title of the USC, which is Title 11, IIRC)

Anyway, the section you quoted from was 17 USC 109. It says, basically, that it is not an infringement of the exclusive right of the copyright holder to distribute the work (which was set out in 17 USC 106(3)) for other people to REdistribute a copy of a work that has already been sold off in the first instance by the copyright holder. Redistribution includes selling, renting, leasing, lending, etc.

That is, if you buy a book, you can legally sell that book used. Doesn't mean you can copy it, or sell copies you yourself made. Just that you can sell the copy you bought, that the artist somewhere upstream, sold.

There is an exception to that, in 17 USC 109(b) that computer software and sound recordings cannot be rented, leased, or lent, for commercial purposes, basically.

There is an exception to that exception however, in 17 USC 109(b)(1)(B) in that the above subsection 109(b) doesn't apply to computer software embodied in hardware, or programs for videogame consoles.

Notice the word SUBSECTION. The exception in 17 USC 109(b)(1)(B), which YOU QUOTED, only, ONLY, applies to 17 USC 109(b). It does NOT apply to even a single word anywhere else in any part of Title 17.

Plus it's amazingly irrelevant to this case, as the exclusive right of the copyright holder being asserted is NOT the right to distribute, but the right to create derivative works!

Regarding the issue on the Lanham Act, I'd just ask you this question: what do you think constitutes commercial use? Could it possibly be construed by the courts to include uses that have some commercial advantage (such as drawing users who will see advertising for which they get a kickback) even if it isn't blatantly commercial, with money trading hands?

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-06-18 13:42 · Score: 1

Skins may be a form of art in some restpects but the way Art is defined on with this Act does not imply skins. Skins are a 'grey area' that is not explicitly defined, Art Infringement is worded like you're going to make and sell knock off's of a Rembrant. Because of the lack of solid wording for this case the law won't hold water.

Did you notice how the sections were created for certain interests? The RIAA, MPAA, Cable TV Companies, Software Companies, etc.

In additon, the laws were specifically created and molded for the 'interests' noted above.

Commercial use is that which is regulated by Congress/Law. Skin trading is anything but that it's just plain and simple Hobby. Last time I checked, Hobbies aren't regulated.

Dolemite
________________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-18 14:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Skins may be a form of art in some restpects but the way Art is defined on with this Act does not imply skins. Skins are a 'grey area' that is not explicitly defined, Art Infringement is worded like you're going to make and sell knock off's of a Rembrant.

Oh? Well, let's see. In the actual LAW, 17 USC 102, the only thing really discussed is this:

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: ... (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works ....

Didn't seem to say anything about 'fine art' there did it?

Congress made the following comment discussing this law in the legislative history:

This standard does not include requirements of novelty, ingenuity, or esthetic merit, and there is no intention to enlarge the standard of copyright protection to require them.

So now it sounds as though you can be Rembrandt, or you can be a three year old child playing with fingerpaints. As long as you didn't copy your work, and it's sufficiently creative, which is an amazingly low standard that's meant only to exclude preexisting facts, it's copyrightable.

Certainly I cannot imagine why a picture of Lethargic Lad would not be copyrightable as opposed to a Rembrandt. Certainly it would seem to leave Roy Lichtenstein in a perilous situation.

If that picture is copied directly, or if a new picture is based on the original (as surely happened here), then it is infringing. It doesn't matter if the particular form of the derivative is a comic book, a novel, a movie, or a skin for a video game. It is clearly based upon a copyrighted work. It is derivative of that work. It's infringing.

If you think skins are a grey area, it's because you can't see clearly. In fact, it's absolutely clear.

Commercial use is that which is regulated by Congress/Law. Skin trading is anything but that it's just plain and simple Hobby. Last time I checked, Hobbies aren't regulated.

Ok. You say you checked. That is, you say you actually LOOKED AT THE LAW. Then you will have no problem whatsoever in showing me where noncommercial copyright infringement -- perhaps in the form of a hobby -- is made allowable?

Fair use MIGHT cut it -- but it just as easily might not. And if you claim Fair Use, you'll have to actually run through the entire analysis just like a court would, since a mere allegation of fairness is worthless. But you've just indicated that you can back up your statements. Now I'm calling on you to do it.

But I'll bet you $20 that this is infringement; that it's cut and dried.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by Kenrod · 2003-06-18 14:53 · Score: 1

I don't know the legal definition of commercial in regard to the Lanham Act, but skins are a commercial product. If Marvel decided to sell their own skins, the skins given away on Skindex would hurt Marvel economically (who would buy Marvel's skins when they can get good ones for free? on Skindex?).

If publishing company XYZ wanted to make their own Wolverine comic book, they couldn't legally do so, even if they gave the comic away.

--
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-06-18 20:35 · Score: 1

You have to read the Act documentation as a whole.

Only then will you notice that it's nothing but a scotch taped mess that focuses on and implies the different 'interests' I mention above.

Most of this Act focuses on laws, penalties, and processes for duplicating an exact copy of an original work. Music File sharing with Kaaza is an example of such a focus.

Furthermore, notice that each of the Appended laws (at the end of the main contents) into the act focus on Major issues of a given time and the laws created from the given issues.

An example of this is the appendix focusing on mom and pop Internet Radio Stations and the RIAA not getting their cut of the licensing/royalties.

This Copyright Act seems to be the result of reactive procedures the 'interests' take to keep the money rolling in to them and only them.

Let me ask you this.

Should D.C. Comics get a cut or a royalty off a kid who puts on a Red Cape with an 'S' on the back and flys around the yard pretending he's Superman?

To me whole issue with Marvel and the Skin site is just a modernized version of running around the yard with a Red Cape as a kid as Players like to fantasize about playing Superheros.

This site provided a resource for On-Line Gamers to put the proverbial cape on for free. How, in the weak wording of both the Acts/Laws, is the Skin site Violating Copy

If the admin of this site charged a fee for the services on his site, I'd be right there with you in agreement on this discussion.

However, these skins were just for fun and the admin provided a resource for people to fantasize about being a Superhero for a time.

For the Life of me, I can't see how this legal action By Marvel is even considered Copyright infringement.

I stand by my orignal post in saying that the Marvel Legal team is bluffing.

P.S. I'm Just playing Devil's Advocate in this discussion as I'm intrigued by the lack of specific coverage by both laws in this matter.

Dolemite
_______________________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-06-18 20:38 · Score: 1

Sorry it's late. Didn't proof read this too well:

This site provided a resource for On-Line Gamers to put the proverbial cape on for free. How, in the weak wording of both the Acts/Laws, is the Skin site Violating Copyright or Trademark infringement laws?

Dolemite
_________________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

This is just stupid by MImeKillEr · 2003-06-18 23:56 · Score: 1

Hello? Marvel? Everyone else? People are skinning your characters because they're fans.

From the letter:

"..Given the blatant bad faith evidenced by skindex.net, Marvel hereby demands your written confirmation that skindex.net has (1) removed all Marvel intellectual property and references to Marvel intellectual property from its website or any other site (or other location); (2) abandoned all unauthorized copying and distribution of the the Marvel intellectual property and (3) agreed to cease and desist from any and all other acts of unfair competition with Marvel.

Given the apparent willful nature of your actions, Marvel demands that skindex.net disclose all of its activities with respect to its use of Marvel's properties, including but not limited to all sales or distribution of any products bearing any Marvel intellectual property, the names and contact information for all companies that have purchased or downloaded those items, as well as the addresses of any other websites where the infringing properties have been posted. In addition, skindex.net must disgorge ally and all profits illegally made from its use of Marvel's property and enter into a permanent injunction in which it agrees never to infringe Marvel's property again.

If skindex,net fails to provide this written confirmation by June 20, 2003, Marvel is prepared immediately to take all appropriate action to protect its valuable intellectual property rights, which may include seeking an injunction against further infringement, monetary damages, the cost of corrective advertising, and Marvel's costs and attorneys' fees. "

I realize this is standard C&D letter, but it comes across a bit harsh. I seriously doubt Skindex was hosting Marvel character skins in "blatant bad faith". What next? They go after the fans who took their time to create the skins?

F you Marvel.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-19 01:59 · Score: 1

You have to read the Act documentation as a whole.

No, not really. But I do. I love the general concept of copyright law, and I read through it for fun. With luck I should be practicing IP law in the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D..

Most of this Act focuses on laws, penalties, and processes for duplicating an exact copy of an original work.

No.

The law treats all of the 17 USC 106 rights more or less equally. There are exceptions to everything, but overall it is just as bad to illegally make a movie based on a book as it would be to xerox that book to begin with.

Certainly there's a lot of effort put into things like statutory licensing of music with regards to derivative works and public performances.

This Copyright Act seems to be the result of reactive procedures the 'interests' take to keep the money rolling in to them and only them.

Yeah, a lot of laws are like that. Squeeky wheels get the grease and so forth.

Should D.C. Comics get a cut or a royalty off a kid who puts on a Red Cape with an 'S' on the back and flys around the yard pretending he's Superman?

Should they? No. Do they now? No. Is that germane to this issue? No, not really.

To me whole issue with Marvel and the Skin site is just a modernized version of running around the yard with a Red Cape as a kid as Players like to fantasize about playing Superheros.

Which is great, but the copyright aspect of this case is pretty unconcerned with fantasy. It's concerned with people making and distributing those capes, as it were.

This site provided a resource for On-Line Gamers to put the proverbial cape on for free. How, in the weak wording of both the Acts/Laws, is the Skin site Violating Copyright or Trademark infringement laws?

There are several different sources of law. Statutes, as you've figured out, are passed by Congress. Caselaw, and common law, OTOH, are created by the courts -- either as the definitive interpretations of ambigious statutes, or as filler where there has been no legislative activity.

Thus, although it's not really mentioned much (though it is recognized) in the stautes, there are doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, whereby one person's direct infringement will cause other people to also become liable.

Napster, for example, did nothing more than provide a resource for music fans to distribute and copy music for free. But those music fans were distributing and copying illegally. And Napster helped in such a way that they were responsible too. (if they'd acted differently, they might have gotten away with it; but they didn't try to work within the law and still do what they were trying to do)

These guys are little different. They're, if not direct infringers, are helping other people to directly infringe.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

the value of Marvel characters by www.wilsego.com · 2003-06-19 02:47 · Score: 1

Another likely reason for this? The success of the movies has opened Marvel characters for use in video games. The Xmen gamnes, the new hulk game, the Spiderman game. And also, late last year, Marvel licsensed all it's characters for a MMORPG. See link: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_674405.html?m enu=

You can't say anything by Kris1066 · 2003-06-19 03:53 · Score: 1

It seems to strike me that all of you are coming from one background. PEOPLE WHO FINANCIAL LIVES DON'T DEPEND ON PROFESSIONALLY PUBLISHING COMICS. When your car payment, house payment, food, and business expenses depend on intellectual rights being used by fans, then you can tell Marvel what they are doing is right or wrong. Remember, Marvel is a business producing a product, not some person a computer making fan-fiction. Their lives literally depend on the money from their intellectual rights. Once you realize this, you can come back and comment.

--
"My enemies hate me. My allies hate me. I hate myself."

Thanks to everyone! by jaredbenson · 2003-06-19 04:55 · Score: 1

Thank you to everyone who has responded here and in emails to me. You have ALL been extremely supportive in this situation. Keep spreading word! Keep discussing this topic. Itâ(TM)s not about legal rights to property. Itâ(TM)s about respect to fans. Respect to the people who spend their money on the product Marvel DOES sell. Iâ(TM)ve been expecting a C&D letter from them since day one. You always hear stories about big companies taking action against fans like this. I expected an email or even a mailed letter ASKING for my cooperation. But, my first and only correspondence from Marvel Enterprises, Inc. was an extremely mean spirited and harsh letter, one I would expect to receive the day before being issued a writ of appearance for court or something. That really and genuinely surprised me. That disrespect offended me terribly. Hell, Iâ(TM)ve been a customer of theirs for 25 years. Iâ(TM)ve probably spent more than $25,000 on comics alone - lifetime. That kind of brand loyalty deserves some respect. Thatâ(TM)s what my only complaint is about. Are we loyal and valued customers to them or just walking sacks of money? Folks keep speaking out! Itâ(TM)s past time to let them know that we are more important to them than anything else. Weâ(TM)re the ones paying their bills and paychecks. We DESERVE that respect. Keep this thread going! And join in any of the threads you find going on around the Internet as well! Mail letters to them and make yourselves heard. Check in at these links for addresses and even sample letters to use! All you need is a printer and a stamp! Freedom Reborn: http://www.freedomreborn.net/phpBB2...pic.php?t=10 359 Comic Skin Network http://pub24.ezboard.com/fskindexfr...icID=2417.to pic Jared Benson The Skindex www.skindex.net skindex@shaw.ca

They're scared of... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-19 09:23 · Score: 0

the "Hulk with no pants" skins.

Re:They're scared of... by www.wilsego.com · 2003-06-19 12:19 · Score: 1

Hell, _I'M_ scared of the Hulk With No Pants skin :)

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-06-19 11:29 · Score: 1

There are several different sources of law. Statutes, as you've figured out, are passed by Congress. Caselaw, and common law, OTOH, are created by the courts -- either as the definitive interpretations of ambigious statutes, or as filler where there has been no legislative activity.

Thus, although it's not really mentioned much (though it is recognized) in the stautes, there are doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, whereby one person's direct infringement will cause other people to also become liable.

Napster, for example, did nothing more than provide a resource for music fans to distribute and copy music for free. But those music fans were distributing and copying illegally. And Napster helped in such a way that they were responsible too. (if they'd acted differently, they might have gotten away with it; but they didn't try to work within the law and still do what they were trying to do)

These guys are little different. They're, if not direct infringers, are helping other people to directly infringe.

Napster/Kaaza/Morpheous situations and Skin creators are two completely different issues here.

As I stated previously, the Napster example is making a copy of a master piece of work. Making skins are not. Theses examples are NOWHERE near being equal. The two Copyright acts focus specifically on examples such as Napster and when people make copies of a piece of work and distribute it. Marvel doesn't make skins, they're created from freehand art so how can this site be considered copyright infringers. The Acts do not cover this at all.

There's no evidence or SOLID proof of infringement, in this case, based on the wording of both the acts.

The copyright aspect focues on making, selling, and disrtibuting for a profit. This is a non-profit site and neither of these Acts cover this fact at all.

Dolemite
___________________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

Re:OMFG! The Lawyers are totally bluffing them! by cpt+kangarooski · 2003-06-19 14:21 · Score: 1

Napster/Kaaza/Morpheous situations and Skin creators are two completely different issues here.

Not particularly. There's a difference in that the skin creators are direct infringers, and the P2P services may be (or may not be, if they were careful about how they did things) contributory or vicarious infringers. But their problems were founded on their users being direct infringers. And the skin site is, if not a direct infringer, at least a contributory or vicarious infringer, I'm pretty sure.

They may have escaped this by complying with the DMCA safe harbor, but despite the ease of almost totally covering one's ass in this manner, it doesn't seem to be all that common among non-corporate sites. Pity. It's the one halfway tolerable part of the DMCA. (kind of like how there's a good part of the CDA, which was otherwise an awful law, and we're glad to be rid of it)

As I stated previously, the Napster example is making a copy of a master piece of work.

Actually there were two types of underlying direct infringements in the Napster case. Making infringing copies was the offense of the downloaders. Distributing copies in an infringing manner was the offense of the people that allowed people to download from them.

Making skins are not.

You're right. Making a skin is not the same as making a copy. But there are other ways to infringe a copyright than to make a copy. See 17 USC 106, and note well that only ONE part of that involves making a copy; distribution, derivatives, and public performances and displays are equal offenses!

The two Copyright acts focus specifically on examples such as Napster and when people make copies of a piece of work and distribute it.

I'm not quite sure what "two Copyright acts" you refer to. The 1976 Act is the most recent, and it replaced the 1909 Act. The post-1976 amendments have not been omnibus revisions of the law that would really care about such broad topics. Please clear up this minor confusion by being more specific, ok?

Anyway, yes, making a copy can be an infringement. Distributing that illegal copy can be an infringement.

But there are other infringements. Such as making a new work from scratch if it is sufficiently closely based upon an existing work, despite there not being any direct copying.

Example: creating a movie based on a book. The movie is derivative of the book. But the words in the book might not appear on screen. The characters and situations might be somewhat different. As long as one is based on the other, to a greater extent than merely borrowing general ideas and concepts, it's derivative. And it's illegal under 17 USC 106, barring some exception or authorization. Look it up!

when people make copies of a piece of work and distribute it. Marvel doesn't make skins, they're created from freehand art so how can this site be considered copyright infringers. The Acts do not cover this at all.

Well, they do cover this, as noted, in 17 USC 106, regarding derivative works. Hell man, you do understand what the word 'derivative' means, right?

There's no evidence or SOLID proof of infringement

I've got to disagree. There are skins. The visual appearance of the skins resemble the visual appearance of superheros from the comic books. The one picture sure looks like it is based upon the other, even if it was created from scratch. Is there some question as to whether the skin creators, with no knowledge of the Marvel characters just happened to create Spider-Man, or the Hulk? That would be okay. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that they deliberately set out to copy the design of the costumes as portrayed in works of visual art in the comics, and recreate them in works of visual art in the computer. It's a derivative work. It's an infringing work.

I am a big proponent of IP reform, I hate what's being done with the law and to people by the RIAA, MPAA, etc. But if I were on the jury, I'd vote i

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Because by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-20 01:24 · Score: 0

Because Marvel is switching from becoming a comic book and Toy (Toybiz) company to being a outsourcer of well known and love characters. Their entire buisness model since their bankruptcy and change in managment moved from an emphasis on Comic Books, to selling the rights of their major characters (X-Men, Hulk, Spiderman, Captain America, Iron Man, etc.) to movie studios, T-shirt companies, game companies, etc... and get heafty royalties for it. For X-Men 2 and Spiderman, Marvel walked away with $30 million paydays a piece. The new strategy is clearly working, Marvel stock has skyrocketed... and their funny books are as well written as they've ever been, but comics is no longer their core buisness.

So this clampdown on skins is entirely consistent with what Marvel is becoming. It may suck, but thats the ugly truth.

So let me get this straight. by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-06-23 10:00 · Score: 1

The creators of this act in 1976 worded this act to cover Skins? Hardly. This case, if argued on your grounds, will be shot down before it goes to trial or on appeal.

End of line.

Dolemite
______________

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

Slashdot Mirror

Marvel Clamps Down On Game Skins

125 comments