As annoying as it may be, yes, telling and offensive joke is a right. The right to freedom of speech is limited yes, but not by such limiting factors as taste.
I know that sounds silly, but to limit freedom of speech based on what may offend, is to eliminate freedom of speech entirely.
Okay. I have not run across any case law in my (admittedly out-of-date) studies that referred to any form of copyright for characters. Can you produce a reference on this?
I don't see how you could copyright a character - what do you copyright? The name? That's covered by trademark, not copyright. The description? What, I can't write about a captain of a spaceship that works in space, but was born in Iowa?
You can't copyright characters, because you can't copyright ideas only the implementation of those ideas. Copyright law is very specifically limited in that regard, much as studios (and authors) would like to believe otherwise.
Ah - I have no right to anything they create, in your opinion?
What if the writers a friend of mine, and the characters based on me? I've had the good fortune to have that happen, and the gentleman was kind enough to ask for my consent.
What if he hadn't? Do I own the copyright/trademark to myself? I should hope so! How much right do I have? to my name? to my personality? to my description?
I submit to you, that so long as he accuses me of no crime, and does not imply (In Real life) something that would be libelous/slanderous if he simply came out and said it, that he does not need my permission to use his observations of me as a basis for a character.
If I don't have that control over myself, why should Anne Rice or George Lucas get more control over the observations the fans write of people that do not exist. Can I libel them? Can I slander them? Will I ruin their reputations? Break up Han and Leia's marriage perhaps?
No. The most I can do is dilute the trademark of the name 'Lestat'(TM). The protections of that Trademark are limited and explicit, and I see no reason they should be expanded to include all possible annoyances that might offend an author.
After all, they don't worry about what might offend me.
The problem is simply this. Anne Rice is wrong. I don't mean ethically, but simply legally.
Her characters are not copyrighted they are trademarked, and for good reason.
Fanfic is no more a violation of her rights than her works are violations of the right of the Stoker Estate, or Bram Stokers 'Dracula' is a violation of the 'rights' of the public domain vampire mythos. The works are related - yes. The universes are related. And quite fairly. her right to the works she has written are recognized and protected by Copyright law and the Berne convention.
Her 'rights' to her characters are protected by trademark law, and I think her attempting to expand upon those more limited rights as though they were protected by more than that is A-selfish, B-Hypocritical, and C-Just plain not legally correct.
However, way back when the world was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, I ran a Catalog site that linked to numerous story site, including fanfic, and looked up quite a bit of the law on fanfic and copyright protection.
It's interesting, and mostly precedent rather than law, which is one reason why studio are cautious about going to court on fanfic - there are precedents either way. However, most precedents that I found when researching actually err in favor of the public.
Just a few highpoints - Plots cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. Even if Shakespeares works were still under copyright today, the play West Side Story, while an obvious updating mof Tomeo and Juliet, is an original work, not a derivitive work.
Characters and names are trickier. You can't copyright a name, or even a title (The words 'Star Trek' are not covered by copyright for instance), however you can trademark them. However Trademark law is much looser than copyright law in what you can do with a trademark, so long as your not devalueing or dissipating the trademark. I can use a trademark in a story if it's either A- obvious that I'm not talking about the trademarked product (N/A to fanfic), say I'm talking about the 'Star Wars' Satellite Defense System from the 1980's - I don't even need a discaimer . . . or B- I'm using the trademark in an obviously non-competitive manner that doesn't devalue the trademark. This is why fanfic is normally found to be okay - it can't be considered to dilute or devalue the trademarks.
Unfortunately, as is SOP in this stuff, a studio can afford to harass people with threats, even when they have no real likelihood of winning, and there are precedents on both side, so even then, it's always iffy. I also have no idea how the DMCA affects things, but I doubt it's a good effect. I'm also putting stuff out from when *I* got interested, several years ago. IANAL, I could be misremembering, or even just plain wrong.
"no book has ever made that transition without losing something"
Well it should translate well then - BE really has nothing to lose.
I read Battlefield earth when I was a kid, and loved it. Went back a couple years later, and couldn't understand why I had this bad taste in my mouth.
It took me a while to realize, it had nothing to say. I read books every couple of years, to see what new nuances I catch, agree or disagree with, etcetera. It keeps my mind sharp, *particularly* when I disagree with a well nade argument (Starship Troopers, Dune . . . etcetera).
Battlefield Earth had no good points to make. No Depth. No . . . Anything. Just a vague 'Good Guys vs Evil Guys' scenario where the only reason for doing evil was . . . well . . . 'We felt like it'.
Just a genuinely bad book, and I haven't seen that any of his other writing is any better. Believe me, nostalgia is a powerful motivator. I tried to find good books by LRH.
And won't that be a problem - Imagine, being stuck with windows and unable to reboot!!! You have a machine like this, you *better* be running Linux - snicker
Of course that last message, libeling me as an idiot, (When obviously *I* would have read the article correctly) was posted by one of my many enemies. I must publically ask Slashdot to remove it or face a lawsuit.
I will however drop the suit for a mere $30,000 and a chance to date Nitrozac . ..
What I haven't seen anyone comment on is that Dr. Godfrey Couldn't sue the poster.
Dr Godfrey posted the message
With this as a precedent, not only are libelous comments being held against the ISP rather than the user, they're being held against the ISP *by* the user.
further, he claims that he would have been satisfied if they had given him information on how to post a cancel message? This information is publically and easily available - search DejaNews or the rfc'.
Dr. Godfrey sprayed graffiti on a public wall, realized he got seen, was embarrassed, and (successfully) filed suit against the owners of the wall because they said people could spray graffiti there and refused to clean up his mess.
Well, I installed W2K for a time, and it grabbed an extra Gig of drivespace above and beyond what I had allotted for it,and then chose to crash, so off it came.
I don't know why anyone would use it though - it is to all appearances yet another hungry overblown MS Mess.
Sounds like most everyone is in agreement - A trademark is a trademark, a trademark has to be protected or lost under US law, and the themes (including aqua) were in violation of trademark. Even themes.org agreed with that.
So what's the problem? If there were any evidence that Apple had been vicious or overbearing about (Remove these themes This Instant or we'll break you and your site) I would understand people being upset. But from what little evidence is available this sounds as if it was a polite reminder that Apple has to protect those trademarks or lose them, and those themes are in violation. If someone knows otherwise, say so.
Pug
Whether they're called Faith, Axioms, or Assumptions,
Slashdot Mirror
I know that sounds silly, but to limit freedom of speech based on what may offend, is to eliminate freedom of speech entirely.
I don't see how you could copyright a character - what do you copyright? The name? That's covered by trademark, not copyright. The description? What, I can't write about a captain of a spaceship that works in space, but was born in Iowa?
You can't copyright characters, because you can't copyright ideas only the implementation of those ideas. Copyright law is very specifically limited in that regard, much as studios (and authors) would like to believe otherwise.
What if the writers a friend of mine, and the characters based on me? I've had the good fortune to have that happen, and the gentleman was kind enough to ask for my consent.
What if he hadn't? Do I own the copyright/trademark to myself? I should hope so! How much right do I have? to my name? to my personality? to my description?
I submit to you, that so long as he accuses me of no crime, and does not imply (In Real life) something that would be libelous/slanderous if he simply came out and said it, that he does not need my permission to use his observations of me as a basis for a character.
If I don't have that control over myself, why should Anne Rice or George Lucas get more control over the observations the fans write of people that do not exist. Can I libel them? Can I slander them? Will I ruin their reputations? Break up Han and Leia's marriage perhaps?
No. The most I can do is dilute the trademark of the name 'Lestat'(TM). The protections of that Trademark are limited and explicit, and I see no reason they should be expanded to include all possible annoyances that might offend an author.
After all, they don't worry about what might offend me.
Her characters are not copyrighted they are trademarked, and for good reason.
Fanfic is no more a violation of her rights than her works are violations of the right of the Stoker Estate, or Bram Stokers 'Dracula' is a violation of the 'rights' of the public domain vampire mythos. The works are related - yes. The universes are related. And quite fairly. her right to the works she has written are recognized and protected by Copyright law and the Berne convention.
Her 'rights' to her characters are protected by trademark law, and I think her attempting to expand upon those more limited rights as though they were protected by more than that is A-selfish, B-Hypocritical, and C-Just plain not legally correct.
However, way back when the world was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, I ran a Catalog site that linked to numerous story site, including fanfic, and looked up quite a bit of the law on fanfic and copyright protection.
It's interesting, and mostly precedent rather than law, which is one reason why studio are cautious about going to court on fanfic - there are precedents either way. However, most precedents that I found when researching actually err in favor of the public.
Just a few highpoints - Plots cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. Even if Shakespeares works were still under copyright today, the play West Side Story, while an obvious updating mof Tomeo and Juliet, is an original work, not a derivitive work.
Characters and names are trickier. You can't copyright a name, or even a title (The words 'Star Trek' are not covered by copyright for instance), however you can trademark them. However Trademark law is much looser than copyright law in what you can do with a trademark, so long as your not devalueing or dissipating the trademark. I can use a trademark in a story if it's either A- obvious that I'm not talking about the trademarked product (N/A to fanfic), say I'm talking about the 'Star Wars' Satellite Defense System from the 1980's - I don't even need a discaimer . . . or B- I'm using the trademark in an obviously non-competitive manner that doesn't devalue the trademark. This is why fanfic is normally found to be okay - it can't be considered to dilute or devalue the trademarks.
Unfortunately, as is SOP in this stuff, a studio can afford to harass people with threats, even when they have no real likelihood of winning, and there are precedents on both side, so even then, it's always iffy. I also have no idea how the DMCA affects things, but I doubt it's a good effect. I'm also putting stuff out from when *I* got interested, several years ago. IANAL, I could be misremembering, or even just plain wrong.
trademark law: an overview
World Intellectual Property Organization
Well it should translate well then - BE really has nothing to lose.
I read Battlefield earth when I was a kid, and loved it. Went back a couple years later, and couldn't understand why I had this bad taste in my mouth.
It took me a while to realize, it had nothing to say. I read books every couple of years, to see what new nuances I catch, agree or disagree with, etcetera. It keeps my mind sharp, *particularly* when I disagree with a well nade argument (Starship Troopers, Dune . . . etcetera).
Battlefield Earth had no good points to make. No Depth. No . . . Anything. Just a vague 'Good Guys vs Evil Guys' scenario where the only reason for doing evil was . . . well . . . 'We felt like it'.
Just a genuinely bad book, and I haven't seen that any of his other writing is any better. Believe me, nostalgia is a powerful motivator. I tried to find good books by LRH.
Sigh
Pug
I will however drop the suit for a mere $30,000 and a chance to date Nitrozac . . .
Dr Godfrey posted the message
With this as a precedent, not only are libelous comments being held against the ISP rather than the user, they're being held against the ISP *by* the user.
further, he claims that he would have been satisfied if they had given him information on how to post a cancel message? This information is publically and easily available - search DejaNews or the rfc'.
Dr. Godfrey sprayed graffiti on a public wall, realized he got seen, was embarrassed, and (successfully) filed suit against the owners of the wall because they said people could spray graffiti there and refused to clean up his mess.
This defines the term chilling effect
I don't know why anyone would use it though - it is to all appearances yet another hungry overblown MS Mess.
So what's the problem? If there were any evidence that Apple had been vicious or overbearing about (Remove these themes This Instant or we'll break you and your site) I would understand people being upset. But from what little evidence is available this sounds as if it was a polite reminder that Apple has to protect those trademarks or lose them, and those themes are in violation. If someone knows otherwise, say so.
Pug
Whether they're called Faith, Axioms, or Assumptions,