Quote from: RichardWayne on Tue 06/06/2006 02:39:13
I draw a really good picture of Batman, and I stick it on the internet to show people how good I can draw. Then DC Comics comes along and slaps me with a law suit cause I drew a picture?
They would be within their rights to do so. Now for a single picture they're not likely to bother, in part because it would be a public relations nightmare. But if you were to do a full comic, or a short movie, or a computer game, and they found out about it, they would probably hit you with a C'n'D faster than you can spell 'infringement'. That, to them, is competition and potential loss of revenue. Never mind practicalilty, it's a matter of principle, and lawyers aren't particularly nice people.
Quote
Copyright and permission to use someone elses characters/world/ideas are really two different things.
True. For the moral right to create a derivative work, you need permission from the author, which generally is a friendly and respectable artist. For the legal right to create a derivative work, you need permission from the copyright owner, which generally is a big corporation with lots of lawyers. Good luck on the latter.
QuoteAbsolutely and entirely wrong. First, they can prove their idea is theirs because they released it first. Second, changing names around won't save you from any kind of copyright lawsuit as long as you're using the "distinctive likenesses" of the characters. And third, yes, parody is protected but you could still be dragged to court while you have to explain why exactly it is parody (for instance, QfG:4.5 is obviously parody and was C'n'D'ed nonetheless)
I think when it is a parody or the creator uses different names they can claim the story "is based" on the original and they have less problems, but I'm not sure about it.
Nobody can really prove their idea is totally original, unless there was a time journey involved somewhere...
YANAL.