2 of 2
2
Gallery told to drop ‘gay’ Batman
Posted: 23 August 2005 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3687
Joined  2005-02-09
Maegan - 23 August 2005 02:44 PM

This is so gross.  I’m really seriously freaked out.

Naked drawings of cape crusaders freak you out????

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2005 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  91
Joined  2005-08-03

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.

 Signature 

I’m not an idiot. I just play one in a roleplaying game.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2005 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  629
Joined  2005-01-18
Terry Austin - 23 August 2005 05:19 PM

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!

 Signature 

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle.
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2005 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  91
Joined  2005-08-03
Citizen Premier - 23 August 2005 07:53 PM
Terry Austin - 23 August 2005 05:19 PM

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?

 Signature 

I’m not an idiot. I just play one in a roleplaying game.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2005 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3174
Joined  2005-05-19
Terry Austin - 23 August 2005 08:29 PM
Citizen Premier - 23 August 2005 07:53 PM
Terry Austin - 23 August 2005 05:19 PM

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?


Yeah, but they look sooooo funny!!!

Loved that site too.

 Signature 

“Never before in my time at the bar or on the bench have I ever had to deal with somebody who voluntarily allowed himself to be buggered by a dog on the public highway.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2005 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3174
Joined  2005-05-19

Ooh, that didn’t quite work as planned.

 Signature 

“Never before in my time at the bar or on the bench have I ever had to deal with somebody who voluntarily allowed himself to be buggered by a dog on the public highway.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2005 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6453
Joined  2004-11-08
Sir Stephen - 23 August 2005 03:31 PM
Maegan - 23 August 2005 02:44 PM

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.

 Signature 

I’m loving the puppies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2005 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3174
Joined  2005-05-19

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!!!

 Signature 

“Never before in my time at the bar or on the bench have I ever had to deal with somebody who voluntarily allowed himself to be buggered by a dog on the public highway.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2005 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  629
Joined  2005-01-18
Terry Austin - 23 August 2005 08:29 PM
Citizen Premier - 23 August 2005 07:53 PM
Terry Austin - 23 August 2005 05:19 PM

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.

 Signature 

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle.
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2