chaostic2k1 In reply to Vassilius [2011-05-04 21:59:22 +0000 UTC]

No problem. Your metal work is amazing, especially the articulated ring.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vassilius In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-05-06 12:27:55 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-14 21:48:15 +0000 UTC]

So why not share the information? Or which companies are paying which original company for what parody? Sure they can be sued, but it won't be a successful lawsuit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-14 22:11:00 +0000 UTC]

I WAS sharing the info. And then, I got blocked by the dA user because they didn't like what I had to say.

And, for one example, 'The Devil Wears Nada', a VERY popular movie sex parody, paid a percentage of all of their proceeds to the companies involved with 'The Devil Wears Prada'. Why? Because otherwise, they would have gotten sued.

And you'd be surprised what tiny companies big business will sue. It isn't about the money to them. It's about sending a message to other companies, so they don't do the same thing.

It's the principle. dA has it in their TOS, for goodness sakes. Examples:

1. Don't steal someone else's idea and say it's your own.
They don't give proper credit to the animes that their models are taking . their characters from.

2. Don't design steal, unless you have proof it was your idea first.
Again, they don't give enough credit on individual pictures.

3. Don't post copyrighted material for prints or for gaining money.
Given, I don't THINK they have any of their images up for print purchase,
they are using dA to sell images that they have no REAL ownership of, save
for the fact that they took the photo; which is why dA hasn't gotten
involved--it's out of their jurisdiction.

Like I said, I actually looked it up, so I wouldn't be talking out my butt. These are all facts, that can be easily found with a little bit of effort. Cosplay Deviants didn't put forth such effort because they don't care if they're wrong, and honestly, don't think they are. They'd rather remain ignorant to their illegal activities, and hope that said companies will never care enough to pursue them.

What they don't realize is; if this business ever gets big enough to make them some REAL money, said companies WILL pursue them, because all of the sudden, there's decent money to be made. And they'll have to pull up all of their old documents to prove how much money their site has made since the addition of the anime based characters were added. Then, they'll have to BACK PAY all of those months/years percentage in a lump sum, which might bankrupt them horribly.

What's worse is, if they DON'T have documentation detailing how much money they made, and when it started, then they'll have to suffer an audit, which means, now they'll owe even MORE money: this time to the feds. And if they don't pay it, they go to federal prison for tax evasion.

I own a small business, which is how I knew some of this before even looking it up. They're playing a pretty dangerous game, but they won't care, until it makes itself a present problem.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-14 23:43:20 +0000 UTC]

One, its not infringing unless a court decides it is. Two, you seem to have the impression that its only infringing if they make money off of it.

Frankly, no main stream company is going to sue over a porn parody because of the press and court bias. It's also very hard to show that a reasonable person would think the original provider made the porn, which is one of the key tests for infringement.
If Paramount, HBO, Marvel, DC, Fox, etc won't sue, companies with tons of inhouse lawyers, funding, large controlling interest in their property, what makes you think anyone else would.

As for A Devil wears Nada, I can find no info stating that royalties were paid. But beyond that, considering that it was made for Cinemax, which has existing contractual obligations with movie studios, it's very likely that those contracts spelled out any sort of compensation for that type of softcore porn. Even without it, they would pay just to not anger the studio in other negotiations.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-14 23:58:26 +0000 UTC]

One: you need to look up the laws; because yes, it is infringing under other statues, not just making money, but if you make money, it's considered a larger infringement.

Frankly, main stream companies have, and will again, sue over sexual parodies. Again, please look this information up. I can't have a serious conversation with someone who's running off of opinions, and not facts that are WELL documented. And the companies you've mentioned, again, have and will sue over these things, and when they DO them, they have, and will again, give proper credit to the creators of the original media and either give them proceeds, OR they'll at least give full credit, which keeps them from getting sued as fast.

Also, beyond anything else, these people at Cosplay Deviants are very...VERY unprofessional; not the least of which is the tattoos these women have that they don't bother to cover.

Also, I'll point this out. I'll use this image as an example:
[link]

Firstly, they don't title their images as the name of the character. It's a good way to try and stay under the radar.

Secondly, Tifa, as it says it's supposed to be, is only mentioned once, vaugly, in
the entire authors notes. It also doesn't give any credit to what game 'Tifa' was
originally showcased in.

Thirdly, the model, again, doesn't look much like Tifa. Her hair style is completely different. Her arm tie is the wrong shade of pink. And Tifa has never been known to wear any sort of thigh highs, as she's not a very feminine character. They mask slip-shod cosplaying with sex appeal.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-15 00:04:43 +0000 UTC]

If its so well documented, please link me to an article where a mainstream company has sued over a porn parody of their ip.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-15 00:20:49 +0000 UTC]

[link]

Here's one that explains a VERY SMALL BIT of ONE of what I'm talking about.

And I'll point out, everyone in the world knows how lawsuit happy Disney can be. And guess who owns Naruto now? (Of which, a large part of Cosplay Deviants has Naruto hentai.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-15 00:51:00 +0000 UTC]

From the referenced tidbit from that link.
/An inside source at Disney told Realist editor Paul Krassner that the company chose not to sue to avoid drawing attention to what could ultimately be a losing battle./

And that was in 1967. Before the proliferance of full production video porn. Any more recent examples? 1980's? 90's? 2000?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-15 01:01:55 +0000 UTC]

Since you seem confused by what I put up, I'll explain it.

Here is a highlight from the article I posted:

"The website, Illegal Art, has a bit of info concerning Disney’s decision not to sue, at least not until it was used for commercial reasons."

This is to say that, when and if it is ever used for commercial usage, like, oh let's say, making money of some kind, they WOULD sue. They didn't, because it was a museum, and the exhibition wasn't one you had to pay to enter. (A.K.A. Free)

If you go through the STRING of websites that are connected to this one (as in, click on one website, read the info there, then click on another website that is on that page and read their info, and so on), it actually explains a lot.

What I mean by saying put forth some effort, is YOU put forth some effrot. I really don't want to have to look up the gaggle of websites I did to find all the info I did, just to hand the info to someone else because they didn't feel like it, or they wanted to prove my point rather than look for the info themselves. As if they were trying to either waste my time, or wait for me to slip up and say the wrong thing, so that they could run with the missaid thing and try to make me look wrong, even thoguh I'm right with lots of facts to back me up.

If they ever get sued, someone else will do it, and they're actually getting paid. ATM, our whole convo is set around me trying to help you understand how these laws work, which I had to do in some small part, when I started my small business. These laws are second nature to me, because they deal in the exact thing I do for a living; which is why I know them. I didn't look them up for some trivial argument online. If you want more info, you'll just have to look it up yourself. It takes effort to find this info, but it isn't like it's hard; just time consuming.

Like with any research, you won't find everything you're looking for at one site/book/etc. but in many. My site was meant to be a START for you. I'm not going to give you ammo to try and prove me wrong. Are you kidding me?

Also, I'll point out: it says at the top of the article, the confrontation JUST hwppened, because it was a new exhibit, and the article was placed January 15th, 2011.

You have to pay attention while you're doing research, like I have. I suppose what you're talking about may be RELATED, but not the exact same instance for which I was pointing out.

Sorry.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-15 03:08:54 +0000 UTC]

Really? Cause the link from that article that says "The website, Illegal Art, has a bit of info concerning Disney’s decision not to sue" is
[link]
And it states that it was published in 1967 in a newsletter, with Disney deciding not to sue at that time.

Another article ([link] ) linked from the one you posted as "The Atlantic Free Press has more on similar Disney lawsuits here" has this:
//The Disneyland Memorial Orgy centerspread became so popular that I decided to publish it as a poster in 1967. The Disney corporation considered a lawsuit but learned that The Realist had no real assets, and besides, why bother causing themselves any further public embarrassment? They took no action against me, never telling me to cease and desist. In 2005, I published a copyrighted, digitally colored edition of the original poster (available via my website, paulkrassner.com). //

The museum part is a reproduction of that 1967 published picture, with no information on if Disney has sued over the reproduction.

The article does not make any mention of the museum being part of any confrontation. It's simply a start of point of the article, where the author shows tells you that he started thinking about the history of the picture, now at the museum.

Really, if you even bothered to read the context of the article, you would see that. You have to pay attention while you're doing research after all.

Seriously, porn is the pink elephant companies their lawyers refuse to acknowledge, because the bad press to them, and added attention to what they want to get rid of. You foolishly refuse to understand that the realities of regular infringement do not apply in litigating against pornographic material.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-15 03:33:55 +0000 UTC]

The instance I'm referring to in the site I gave, was from a NEW museum exhibition that was showing a PICTURE that was from 1967. I'm not trying to be offensive, but try to keep up with the convo...

Also, as I said, which your statement AGREES with as follows:

"...The Disney corporation considered a lawsuit but learned that The Realist had no real assets..."

And as one of my earlier messages that I sent to you said:

"...if this business ever gets big enough to make them some REAL money, said companies WILL pursue them, because all of the sudden, there's decent money to be made."

Saying porn isn't worth it to big companies is like saying 'Porn companies can do anything they want, because even if it's against the law, those companies won't care', which we already know isn't true, ESPECIALLY for Disney, because they have sued over some of the STUPIDEST things in the world; not the least of which is a fairly recent threat to sue YouTube over having material from Tokyo TV, showcasing Naruto images. I know this because, again, IT'S MY JOB.

The main thing you're refusing to realize is I literally have my hand in all of this, IRL, because these are things I deal in with my JOB.

I'm pretty much having an amateur argue with me over things they know very little info on, when I do this for a living. Gotta say, this convo is mildly amusing, at best. But it IS interesting how America's youth has a habit of pushing their opinion around as fact, and not willing to do true research and searching to find answers (as you've STILL only gone to the website I showed you, and SEEMINGLY one after that linked to it. Hardly real research, but hey, at least it's a start, I guess.) I had another such conversation with a young man on dA less than two weeks ago, who was trying to argue with me what 'art' was, and told me his opinion of art was what art was--and no one elses. Kinda made me laugh as I blocked him; as art is in the eye of the beholder, and no one can tell someone else what art is. But I digress.

...Hmm. I've sufficiently debunked everything you said...again. But I'm starting to loose interest in a conversation where someone tells me breaking the law is okay, because no one important cares.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-15 04:34:22 +0000 UTC]

And even more so, are you saying that companies like Vivid and Hustler don't have enough assets to make it worthwhile to sue for porn parodies they make?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-15 07:14:34 +0000 UTC]

No, moreso I'm saying that if the copyrighted material is HINTED AT (I.E. A black haired princess in a yellow dress with a red bow in her hair and pale skin) isn't copyrighted. It's a joke. A parody. But if they showed a girl that had short, black hair in tight curls, a yellow skirt, and a blue bodice with white and blue frilled sleeves and a red bow in her hair, pale skin and they CALLED HER SNOW WHITE, then yes; they would get sued if they DIDN'T at some point in the magazine (even if hiden in the very back or front amungst a bunch of bullcrap and hoop la) give credit to Disney, then yes, they could sue for partial payment of the proceeds.

Now, Hustler etc. are smarter than that. Because Hustler slips these things, WHEN they DIRECTLY referance their characters, as fairly small comics mixed in with the fray, Disney doesn't care as long as their given some kind of credit. And more often than not, it's a referance, not a direct image or likeness. Random golden blonde in a pink dress sleeping on a bed they don't care about. Golden blonde with long hair in a pink dress that switches to blue every other scene who is named Aurora and has three fae cdircling her named Flora, Fawna and Maryweather they might get huffy about. Because they're using a copyrighted likeness.

Now, in the example I game, where it was a random Asian calling herself Tifa--no, that's not infringment. It's a parody likeness. A bad one, but still none the less.

Now, their Hinata. THAT'S a totally differant story. That's catigorized as copyright infringment.

Now...it's getting late, and I barely care about this convo anymore. I'm liable not to bother talking on it much more.

In the long run, this convo is completely pointless. It won't do anything concerning Cosplay Deviants. They'll never see any of this, and if they did, they'd just laugh or make fun or some shit. And rather than actually looking the laws up on the government sites that you could google to find, you just keep harping about the one site I showed you. My opinions are based off of the research I did in books and official websites. I just looked up a random site to try and find something more easily understandable that text writen in 'party of the first part' and 'what not. Because, though I hate to assume, the fact that you've all but refused to look these sites up and would rather run with a site that I had to hand you tells me you don't know how to find said government sites about copyright laws, or that you don't know how to read them, or...SOMETHING...

So, I'm gonna drop this for the night. I've got other, more interesting things to do, rather than argue about something pointless with someone who has no real idea what they're talking about...

By your logic, I might as well make my OWN porn hentai site... At least it would have a better calling of quality... I'd pic better models, and cover up blemishes/tattoos etc. that made NO sense for the character and probably make a hell of a lot more money at it... Not to mention,l again by your logic, 'no big company will ever come after me because I'm not making enough money. So even though using copyrighted material for comercial usage without permission or given credit is completely illegal, I'll be able to get away with it'. damn... Just because maybe no one will pursue them doesn't make it any less illegal! WTF is WRONG with kids in America now a days!?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-15 08:09:52 +0000 UTC]

You know that Hustler does full production porn videos, right? Not just a magazine.

And I am full and well aware of how to research laws, including copyright laws and lawsuits. Yet even on lexis, I failed to see any copyright infringement lawsuit filed against a porn producer. Closest thing to it is infringement lawsuits by producers (batman xxx) against bittorrenters.

And wtf is wrong with you that you fail to see that parody is protect fair use of copyrights making it legal. Copyright infringement is not a crime like theft. It is a freedom of speech restriction, that is decided case by case. It's not a black and white thing.

And its your logic that companies base the decision to sue an infringer based on whether it would be profitable. My logic, and based on the complete absence of lawsuits filed, is that they don't sue due to PR concerns and realistic chances of winning, as well as cost value of prolonged court battles that lead into first amendment and fair use grounds.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-15 23:34:24 +0000 UTC]

Now your conversation is jumping back and forth... And again, as these things were my job to learn, your inability to understand the law as it is writen means jack to me. I know the laws, because...as I say for literally the seventh or eighth time, I had to learn it for my JOB. I'll also point out, not that it's your business or matters,my business got threatened once, by DISNEY, that they'd sue, for this same shit. So try and explain your OPINION and inability to find these things again as if it's complete fact. I know the truth, as experienced by me, and you know an opinion and the fact that you can't find the info; not that it doesn't exist.

Now, I'm bored of you and your joy to remain ignorant. Anything important to say? Because as I said before, as this conversation won't change anything, I'm pretty much done with it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-16 03:39:40 +0000 UTC]

Nothing to say to someone so crass and ignorant to repeatedly ignore their own evidence, and who feels the constant need to insult others in a conversation. Fuck off retard. Good night.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ToAtoneArt In reply to chaostic2k1 [2011-04-16 05:24:32 +0000 UTC]

At least I didn't actually call you a name. Sbhows how mature you are; as was this whole conversation.

I was dfone with it two messages ago. I don't know why I bother.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chaostic2k1 In reply to ToAtoneArt [2011-04-15 04:31:16 +0000 UTC]

The Realist was the magazine the picture was published in 1967. The entire thing about Disney deciding not to sue was in 1967. Nothing in the article relates any potential litigation to the museum, which on top of the parody protection, would also be protected as fair use for criticism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chaostic2k1 In reply to TheBizarreBirdcage [2010-08-25 00:49:09 +0000 UTC]

Done and Done. Not that I needed a bribe to do it. I like your art

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheBizarreBirdcage In reply to chaostic2k1 [2010-08-26 14:20:02 +0000 UTC]

here you are 30 points
and if you like my art that much, take a look at my newest one

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chaostic2k1 In reply to Liseth [2010-07-23 09:54:07 +0000 UTC]

I'm not sure how I didn't fav it the first time I saw it, but I sure didnt want to make that mistake again

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Liseth In reply to chaostic2k1 [2010-08-07 12:11:40 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!!!!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RoseOnyxis In reply to RoseOnyxis [2010-06-13 00:52:01 +0000 UTC]

Uh, I mean (not devwatch lol)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chaostic2k1 In reply to RoseOnyxis [2010-06-22 03:57:29 +0000 UTC]

Ha. I was wondering what you meant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chaostic2k1 In reply to MissHellspawn [2010-04-03 21:51:41 +0000 UTC]

Its true. I am Team Edward James Olmos.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chaostic2k1 In reply to MissHellspawn [2009-11-17 22:49:34 +0000 UTC]

Hey duckspawn ^--^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0