Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions here about copyright law.
First, you do *not* have to defend a copyright or you lose it. That is trademarks, and *only* trademarks. Copyrights can *always* be defended, and infringers can *always* be forced to stop infinging. It is possible to damage the commercial value of a copyright by not defending it, and thus reduce damages, but if it is registered before publication, even that is extremely difficult.
Second, commercial intent is not necessary for copyright infringement. Whether it is for sale or not, if it copies, it infringes. Infringement with a commercial intent makes it a criminal infringement, rather than just civil, but infringement is infringement.
Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions here about copyright law.
First, you do *not* have to defend a copyright or you lose it. That is trademarks, and *only* trademarks. Copyrights can *always* be defended, and infringers can *always* be forced to stop infinging. It is possible to damage the commercial value of a copyright by not defending it, and thus reduce damages, but if it is registered before publication, even that is extremely difficult.
Second, commercial intent is not necessary for copyright infringement. Whether it is for sale or not, if it copies, it infringes. Infringement with a commercial intent makes it a criminal infringement, rather than just civil, but infringement is infringement.
But Batman and Robin are cultural figures, and as such, should be allowed in art. In fact, any images should be allowed in art, so long as they don’t defame a private citizen. If that’s not the law, then it damn well should be!
Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions here about copyright law.
First, you do *not* have to defend a copyright or you lose it. That is trademarks, and *only* trademarks. Copyrights can *always* be defended, and infringers can *always* be forced to stop infinging. It is possible to damage the commercial value of a copyright by not defending it, and thus reduce damages, but if it is registered before publication, even that is extremely difficult.
Second, commercial intent is not necessary for copyright infringement. Whether it is for sale or not, if it copies, it infringes. Infringement with a commercial intent makes it a criminal infringement, rather than just civil, but infringement is infringement.
But Batman and Robin are cultural figures, and as such, should be allowed in art. In fact, any images should be allowed in art, so long as they don’t defame a private citizen. If that’s not the law, then it damn well should be!
No, they are copyrighted figures. The Constitution specifically prohibits appropriating private property (like a copyright) for public use without appropriate compensation. That franchise is worth, conservatively, hundreds of millions of dollars.
How much are you willing to cough up?
And once you’re stolen their property, what incentives do talented artists have to pursue their art professionally, knowing that if they succeed, it will be taken away from them?
Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions here about copyright law.
First, you do *not* have to defend a copyright or you lose it. That is trademarks, and *only* trademarks. Copyrights can *always* be defended, and infringers can *always* be forced to stop infinging. It is possible to damage the commercial value of a copyright by not defending it, and thus reduce damages, but if it is registered before publication, even that is extremely difficult.
Second, commercial intent is not necessary for copyright infringement. Whether it is for sale or not, if it copies, it infringes. Infringement with a commercial intent makes it a criminal infringement, rather than just civil, but infringement is infringement.
But Batman and Robin are cultural figures, and as such, should be allowed in art. In fact, any images should be allowed in art, so long as they don’t defame a private citizen. If that’s not the law, then it damn well should be!
Yeah, but they look sooooo funny!!!
Loved that site too.
No, they are copyrighted figures. The Constitution specifically prohibits appropriating private property (like a copyright) for public use without appropriate compensation. That franchise is worth, conservatively, hundreds of millions of dollars.
How much are you willing to cough up?
And once you’re stolen their property, what incentives do talented artists have to pursue their art professionally, knowing that if they succeed, it will be taken away from them?
This is so gross. I’m really seriously freaked out.
Naked drawings of cape crusaders freak you out????
...Well, generally, pictures of naked people don’t freak me out. Caped crusaders don’t freak me out. So you’d think this WOULDN’T freak me out. It’s just so…I don’t know. I feel like my brain was raped.
Yeah right Maeg. That one where the two are kissing has destroyed any faith I had in the fact that although Batman and Robin dress in shear lycra and are VERY close doesn’t mean they have, er, intimate moments!!!
Let’s clear up a couple of misconceptions here about copyright law.
First, you do *not* have to defend a copyright or you lose it. That is trademarks, and *only* trademarks. Copyrights can *always* be defended, and infringers can *always* be forced to stop infinging. It is possible to damage the commercial value of a copyright by not defending it, and thus reduce damages, but if it is registered before publication, even that is extremely difficult.
Second, commercial intent is not necessary for copyright infringement. Whether it is for sale or not, if it copies, it infringes. Infringement with a commercial intent makes it a criminal infringement, rather than just civil, but infringement is infringement.
But Batman and Robin are cultural figures, and as such, should be allowed in art. In fact, any images should be allowed in art, so long as they don’t defame a private citizen. If that’s not the law, then it damn well should be!
No, they are copyrighted figures. The Constitution specifically prohibits appropriating private property (like a copyright) for public use without appropriate compensation. That franchise is worth, conservatively, hundreds of millions of dollars.
How much are you willing to cough up?
And once you’re stolen their property, what incentives do talented artists have to pursue their art professionally, knowing that if they succeed, it will be taken away from them?
I didn’t say that they weren’t copyrighted figures. I agree that it should be illegal for pepsi to suddenly change its label so it says “coca-cola,” but would you tell Andy Warhol that he couldn’t display paintings of Cambell’s Tomato Soup?
And what do you mean by your last sentence? If artists are just in it for the money then they shouldn’t be artists.
