Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros. Sued By Meme Creators Over Copyright Infringement
Krazy Kanuck sends this quote from the BBC: "Warner Bros is being sued for the alleged unauthorized use of two cats that have achieved internet fame. ... The complaint alleged that the cats were used without permission in Scribblenauts, a series of games on the Nintendo DS and other platforms. Court documents alleged that Warner Bros and 5th Cell 'knowingly and intentionally infringed' both claimant's ownership rights. 'Compounding their infringements,' court papers (PDF) said, 'defendants have used "Nyan Cat" (designed by Christopher Torres) and "Keyboard Cat" (created in 1984 by Charles Schmidt), even identifying them by name, to promote and market their games, all without plaintiffs' permission and without any compensation to plaintiffs.' "
That escalated quickly.
nyan cat is watching you litigate!
... How do you like them poptarts?
Well -- we all knew they were up to something -- now we now it really was world domination, just not the way we all expected.
Can we all just agree that idea of "copyrighting" characters is ridiculous? Trademark is one thing, but characters created without trademark should be considered travelers within the realm of culture, IMO. Actual direct digital copying of DRAWINGS of said characters, of course, falls under copyright.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
are the submarine patents of culture.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
These media conglomerates salivate in their sleep while dreaming of litigating the crap out of anyone they can get away with so that they can maintain a stranglehold on culture.
I am totally in favor of culture biting them in the ass, using the very laws they weas^H^H^H^Hchampioned.
Doesn't Nyan cat use the image of a Pop Tart as the body of the cat?
"I was under the impression that once something becomes a meme, it is essentially public domain since it's extensive public use would forfeit any intellectual rights the creators may have had.
"
You don't seem to understand copyright at all then, sadly. Everything you just said is wrong. .
Clearly the creators are confused. When big media takes something and uses it, that is just fine and everyone should look the other way. But if they (the big media maffia) even accuse anyone of taking something of theirs (or even that they would like to be theirs but really isn't) then that person is guilty and owes them irrational amounts of compensation.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
How is Hello Kitty different than Mickey Mouse?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
No, in fact, they're not public domain. Declaring them public domain based on their pervasiveness would mean that Mickey Mouse is also public domain-- and we all know that isn't true.
Pretty sure Fatso the keyboard cat was simply posted on YouTube and the meme snowballed.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
a character with a cat's face and a body
resembling a horizontal breakfast bar
with pink frosting sprinkled with light red dots,
flies across the screen, leaving a stream
of exhaust in the form of a bright rainbow
in its wake, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.
I think you should consider a key difference here: not only is Warner Bros. using the work to make profit on the game but they are also using these images to promote the game. There is a huge difference between some kid posting Nyan cat on 4chan for the billionth time and Warner Bros. using Nyan cat for marketing. That random kid on 4chan isn't making a profit from it. It's not part of his business model.
It's perfectly reasonable for the creator of Nyan cat to say "I don't mind it when random people (even if it is a lot of random people) post Nyan cat on imageboards just to have a laugh but I don't want a global corporation to use my image to make money without my permission".
That's how copyright works and to a certain degree that's perfectly reasonable. You shouldn't be expected to litigate against every single person who ever uses your image withot your permission. That is going to be way too onerous for something like Nyan cat. The Nyan cat creator would go bankrupt trying to sue the internet. It does make sense, however, to target a huge corporation who really should know better.
they were actually making money off of someone else work without compensation.
Which is irrelevant in determining fair use.
How so? The first factor in a fair use determination under U.S. law (17 USC 107) involves whether or not the "purpose and character" was commercial.