HOME | DD
JitterbugJive — Fearmonger 'Evolving' Adopts
#adoptable #fearmonger #adopt #adoptables #demon #evolving
Published: 2016-02-02 23:05:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 2826; Favourites: 63; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
UPDATES:-Added character sheet examples
-Added the new option for buyers to have the chance to buy a fearmonger of their choice from the private future adoptables list
-There is now a possibility of more common fears being available for auction instead of set price
-Updated the image to match more current art and options
This species exists within the world of my paranormal adventure webcomic, My Magic Grandpa, which can be found here: www.mymagicgrandpa.com or for better phone viewing www.mymagicgrandpa.net
SPECIES SUMMARY: [People who adopt a fearmonger will get a full species bio sheet and a place in the fearmonger 'family album' which lists all existing fearmongers]
Born from those who suffered a traumatic, fearful death. They feed on the specific fear that was related to that death. Their bodies are shells, their 'shade' is where their true essence is and it can take form of various accessories and objects, though these accessories are attached and sensitive to touch. All Fearmongers are male, save for the Mother Fearmonger.
Fearmongers are based loosely on a demon called an 'Alp'. They refer to themselves as Fearmongers, but other cultures may have different names for them. 'Incubus', 'Alp', and 'Night Terrors' are examples of names they've been called.
-------
Quick Summary of what you get:
-Whisper Form (Revealed from the start)
-True Form (Unlocked after you buy the whisper)
-Night Terror Form (Unlocked after True Form)
-A character sheet of all forms together once they are complete (Using the same images, comes with basic bio info)
-Simple character bio with abilities and suggested occupations
-Species Bio Sheet
-List of future adoptable fears
-For $20 (half off) you may also buy any fear of your choice from the list
-The possibility of your Fearmonger making a cameo in my comic project, 'My Magic Grandpa'
-Inclusion in the official Fearmonger family album: tinyurl.com/y8uwzzj6
This is a SEMI-CLOSED SPECIES. Only people who buy fearmonger adoptables made by me will be given their full species biography, and in buying it agree not to redistribute it publicly and to only obtain new fearmongers from me. I generally won't reject you if you want to make a fan character based on what you know so far about fearmongers. People are allowed to make their own fan fearmongers but that is all they will be considered, fan-made. Fearmongers will become a fully open species once my comic 'My Magic Grandpa' has given enough public information about them. However, only adopted Fearmongers will be considered 'official' to the series and will be included in the Family Album, and they may even make cameos or be mentioned in the comic.
They all start as 'whispers', which are like egg adoptables. You won't know what the whisper will become until after you adopt it, but you'll get to influence how it grows by filling out a sheet to adopt one. Some are predetermined but on the ones that aren't, you get to choose what kind of death the fearmonger had, either a caused death or suicide. Euthborns (Those that die by suicide) tend to resemble how they killed themselves, while Deathborns resemble more what killed or scared them.
You can also choose how old the fearmonger is to determine what time period they are from. (they can be as old as the dawn of man, though keep in mind most come from after the year 1,000AD due to their history) Finally you can choose their animal form, which can range in size depending on how old the fearmonger is. Older ones can take forms like deer and bears, while younger ones can only get as big as a cat.
When you adopt, the whisper will manifest its 'true form', known as a 'Shade'.
After that, they'll take a 'Night Terror Form'. You can choose this form to be feral, pony, or a humanoid form (or all 3!)
Bonus: For an additional $20, I can also design their mortal guise. This is what they disguise themselves to look normal and fit in with mortals in society.
*The Fearmonger in the above image belongs to me and was the first Fearmonger ever made, the fear of Blackmail
If you want to adopt one, please keep an eye out for Whispers!
[Commission form for reference, DO NOT ORDER ADOPTABLES HERE]
Prices: Premade=$40 Surprise Me=$30 [NA] (A random fear will be selected from a list)
The Works: $155 [All Available Forms]
Common Fears: Auction only, starting at 40.
Which Monger?
Feral, Humanoid, Pony, or multiple? [1 +$15 for each additional form]
[Feral Only] What animal*? (You can choose any animal for the fearmonger to resemble or ask for the artist to choose)
Optional: [Will be chosen by me if you're not sure on these]
Name: (Can be changed if you come up with one later)
Deathborn or Euthborn? (euthborn means they died from suicide and will take more of a resemblance to how they killed themselves)
Age: [they maintain this age at all times, this is how old the person was when they died]
Time Period: [What era is your Fearmonger from?]
Death Influence: [How you think your Fearmonger's person died, you can be simple or more detailed. This will influence how your Monger will look]
Extra Forms:
Animal Form: [younger fearmongers take smaller animal forms] [+$5 for animal form]
Mortal Form: [Pony and/or Human] [+$20 per form]
Previous Life: [Pony and/or human] [+$20 each] [This is if you want to have a design for the person the Fearmonger was born from]
Related content
Comments: 36
I'm guessing this one died from a Jeff attack.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Man, I really want a Fearmonger now. They seem so damn cool! I guess it's time to start pinching my pennies then eh? 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have to take issue with one of the above statements, specifically "only people who buy fearmonger adopts from me can use them". Let's assume, for a moment, that everyone is willing to abide by the assumption that you have trademark-style IP ownership over Fearmongers. You're well within your rights to keep a list and demand that no one profits from the sale or use of the images you convey other than the registered owner. You may also demand that others not profit from the association of their own works with the Fearmongers brand. Any restriction beyond that, such as attempting to gag noncommercial portrayals of these characters or take issue with the sale or use of similarly themed 'evolving adoptables', is legally indefensible (though perhaps not practically impossible, given the general level of IP knowledge deviantArt displays).
It's a well-thought out and creative idea, but unfortunately not one you can deny everyone else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, to be fair, I believe the statement is more referring to the issue of after a purchase has been made, it is to discourage the free sharing of the bio sheet for others to use for their own characters. To be honest, there really isn't much of an argument here so much as a stating of the obvious. Yes, there are going to be people that attempt to create such characters without paying for the bio sheet. The fact that he has stated that they "cannot" is irrelevant. You're just arguing semantics at this point. If he decides to pursue a trademark, which he is, then he will have the ability to license their use, free-use and parody law notwithstanding. I don't believe that there is any implication of anything here towards an imaginary law.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The statement, as well as the idea of a closed species, seems to imply a belief in a degree of intellectual property protection greater than the law does or should give, but I suppose I can see how it might be interpreted more innocuously (i.e. the rights to the characters are nontransferable, where use is defined as closed use). However, anyone who chooses to create or portray such characters outside this framework is perfectly within their rights to do so, which is why I'm making this ruckus.
P.S. Given that a trademark has to be registered with the USPTO, I'm not sure one is being pursued. It would kind of wipe out the capital for this sort of venture. Also, the Fair Use Doctrine is not a law unto itself, but a recognition of the inapplicability of copyright law in certain respects, due to conflicts with the spirit of the first amendment, etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude it's literally impossible for anyone to make any fearmongers officially accepted as registered fearmongers. Anything else simply wouldn't be one.
Someone has already attempted to use them without permission (even taking a preexisting one) and what do you think happened? You think I freaked out and took legal action? No. I simply contacted the person and expressed that it was rude of them to take an idea that wasn't theirs, and informed people that they were not given permission to use the character.
Anyone who buys a fearmonger gets in the family register for fearmongers. I am the ONLY person who can edit that list. People who adopt them have viewing access to this list so they can see all existing and potential future fearmongers that have been officially adopted.
So sure, if you want to be a thieving uncreative jerk and if you want to deal with 10,000+ people being informed you're very obviously stealing something, absolutely you can by all technicalities 'use them'. But it would be a fake, and anyone who actually has a fearmonger would know that. And if you want to keep pushing it, so will a collection of people who know better.
Right now, you'r 'that guy' who's defending theft. Why? At the moment, the only reason that one can surmise from your actions is that you're simply lashing out because you don't like the idea of being told you can't have something unless it's paid for. It's a very selfish attitude to go around trying to say "yeah well you may be asking people not to do this but that doesn't mean they can't do it!"
It still doesn't change the fact that if they did try to create a copy of MY fearmongers specifically, it would be without my permission and therefor it's considered rude.
In short: No, you really can't have an official fearmonger just because you want to make one. Because it wont be registered in the family album.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Actually, I'm not defending theft, but fair use. Depending on how the person used your concept (if it was creative use instead of simple copyright violation), you were not automatically entitled to stop him. If I wanted to draw a fanart of your fearmonger, I could, and that would be within my rights (although you are correct that it wouldn't be entirely polite to do so without permission). Different people interpret use differently, which is why your blanket statement was inappropriate.
I'm guessing that you're defining use within a narrow context, and in that case you're completely correct. As I've stated before, you have complete control over the direction and merchantability of the Fearmongers Brand, as distinct from the fearmongers concept. There is a distinction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you've been really over-reading in to this since the beginning.
It's just like an artist saying "please don't trace my work"
Yes, someone can trace anyone's art whenever they want in their own home, but if they start posting it up on-line claiming it's their art because they drew it it's still considered lying and morally wrong
The same applies to anyone trying to make a fearmonger character without permission
I don't know why you wanted to make something so simple in to something so complex, but there you go, it's not rocket science.
Don't steal my creature concepts. They are not yours. You did not make them. End of story. You want one? I make them and sell them with bio sheets. That's that.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I agree, I think I misinterpreted what you meant by 'use'. Next time maybe give frame of reference? 'Only those who purchase from me will be able to use them in the fearmongers universe' is a perfectly reasonable statement.
Actually, tracing is not really acceptable. It's unprotected copying. If someone redraws something of yours freehand, that's pretty marginal. They're in a dark gray area if they post something like that online, especially without attribution.
The same does not apply to anyone making their own original fearmonger-style character. Anyone who does this is perfectly within their rights to post it online, make stories about it, etc. They cannot claim that it's a bona-fide Fearmonger without infringing on your (unofficial) trademark, but anything else is fair game.
I'm making this complicated because it is complicated. You can't make unilateral statements and expect them to be respected. You own certain aspects of your concept, but perhaps not as much as you think, or even more than you think in certain areas. If you'd like to get a better handle on what you own, what is and isn't acceptable use, I think it might be more productive if we Skyped or something (we're what, 3 comments deep? I promise I'm not as dense in person). If legal stuff gives you too much of a headache, and you'd simply like to stumble along without it, that's your prerogative as well.
Like I said, your idea is very good, and deserves certain protections. Attempting to give it all the protections at once is actually counterproductive, as others have no choice but to violate them for intellectual access to your work, not to mention that doing so is dictatorial in nature.
Happy Valentine's Day!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... Actually I passed out Fearmongers to my close friends whom I trust to practice with them and ask questions about them in order to perfect the info on their bio. I'm not in the mood to go in to legal stuff as I am not planning to bring legal shit in to this in the firstp lace
Steal my original species/characters?
You'll be more or less put on a wall of shame for 10,000+ people.
That's all there is to it.
I don't need all these legalities and technicalities.
When someone says "please don't do this thing", it's generally the polite thing to do, especially if their requests are reasonable, doable, and not harming anyone.
Anyone who breaks that rule might not be breaking the law. But they are a HUGE douchebag for knowingly taking something that doesn't belong to them.
And I sure as hell WILL call out said douchebaggery if it occurs.
Some day, this species will be a part of a much bigger world in a much bigger project and will be copyrighted along with the other characters and species within that world as I do plan to release it to the public. And guess what? things like the official fearmongers might show up in the official comic/game that's in production. After that point, people can make fan characters, sure, because it's access to the public.
But right now, information about this world and its creatures are under wraps and I have multiple bio sheets in the works. I'm making this species available pre-emptively to test it all out.
I'm not comfortable talking on skype either. I have enough on my plate and it's constantly active, I really don't need another person on there especially because I know I'll get frustrated after a while.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Just a few points before I shut up:
1. Due to this post, your idea is already accessible to the public, not under wraps.
2. US Copyright occurs automatically. You already have copyright on all your work, but it doesn't quite grant you the rights you think it does.
3. Looking at the above reply, after an initial proclamation of contempt for the law, you say "Steal...You'll be put on a wall of shame for 10,000+ people." You're attempting to expand the rights granted to you through emotional blackmail, which is not particularly acceptable from any angle.
I may not continue replying, since I've think we've gotten to the point where it might become less than civil. So I guess I'll just repeat one last thing: Happy Valentine's Day!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You mean like how stores put photos of people on the wall who shoplifted?
Because yeah, it's essentially similar. You're stealing a purchased good. Just like bootleggers get in trouble, or people who steal patterns from plush artists.
Just don't steal my shit, that's not so hard to do.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
The practice of placing photos on the wall predates modern surveillance, its chief purpose generally being to allow the employees to determine who's not allowed to enter the store. An attempt of a similar practice online (on the open web) is far less acceptable, as the internet is a public forum instead of a private enterprise.
People who steal patterns from plush artist shouldn't get in trouble. The plush artist has no intellectual property rights in this regard (at least without a design patent, which are narrow in scope and could only be granted to extremely innovative designs).
You'll notice, perhaps, that I'm not stealing your shit. I'm merely drawing a line between what is your shit and what is public domain. I have no desire to steal what is yours nor defend anyone who does so.
EDIT: Actually, it occurs to me that you may have misunderstood the purpose of this conversation. In my eyes, I'm making an argument that 'only people who...can use them' is not legally proper, and that you should change it to something like 'only people who buy fearmonger adopts from me have any right to them.'
That not only sounds more impressive, it's actually true, and does nothing to counter either of our core arguments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It shouldn't have to take multiple paragraphs and arguments about law to simply say "Grammatically, that statement isn't true."
I'll change it then, even though you're probably the ONLY person who has taken issue with it thus far for whatever reason. Then kindly stop trying to justify people taking things that aren't theirs without permission.
It's not public access. They do not have permission.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
It's not a matter of grammar, but law. The reason this conversation continued so long is that you don't seem to have a very good idea of what is/isn't fair use. It's okay, not a lot of people do.
Thank you for changing it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why are you not registering that it was never an issue of the law in the first place but just me asking for respect? Seriously. YOU are probably the only person who even remotely cared about this.
Everyone else gets what I mean. Which is simple: don't steal idea that is not yours
Law be damned, it's rude and morally wrong. You should know better.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
And then there are always people like you who don't factor in the concept of common decency and respect.
It is RESPECTFUL for people to not try to steal an idea I have been working months developing on. Especially if they don't actually understand what these creatures are and how they function.
You can't read my mind.
You can't unlock all the information about these creatures, like their magic, diet, laws, society, the way they're born, the way the feel, the emotions they are and aren't capable of.
You wont know ANY of that without buying one and getting the species bio sheet.
Just like people buy tabletop RPG instruction booklets to play the game, people are buying a 7+ page of instructions on how to use these creatures.
Anything else would simply not be a fearmonger. People can claim they made one, but they will not be included in the Fearmonger Family Album. They wont be canonically included in the lore. And they will not have the ability to properly portray what the fearmongers I created are meant to be.
I'm not asking out of greed. I'm asking because I put a lot of work and love in to these guys and they simply can't be substituted by anyone who doesn't have the bio sheet.
I have a right to be paid for my writing just as much as I have a right to be paid for my art.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Absolutely you do have the right to be paid for your works, and all the rights you've detailed above. I'm not taking issue with you selling what are essentially premade commissions, or running a paid RPG. I think it's reasonable to operate on the assumption that you can have trademark-style protection of the Fearmongers brand (which incidentally, would prevent people from claiming that they had a genuine Fearmonger for sale). Anyone who steals any component of your work and uses it for economic gain stands to be punished by copyright law.
I'm just saying that nothing in that allows you to make the statement that 'only people who buy the fearmonger adopts from you can use them'. All non-commercial use is exempt from restriction.
To go back to your RPG analogy, you are absolutely entitled to sell books filled unique fantasy creatures, detailed backstory and complex interaction for whatever price people are willing to pay. Someone who didn't have the book would not be able to play the RPG correctly. However, there's no law to prevent someone who'd seen the book's contents from using the same creatures in their private games or fanmade works. Such a law would be intellectual tyranny. My issue with your post is that you imply, purposefully or not, that this sort of law exists. This sort of misdirection is especially harmful for nations where portions of the law are determined by jury, like our own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Be that as it may, copying him will just make you a complete twat and you won't get access to the full lore so everyone will be able to tell that what you have is just a cheap imitation.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I wasn't talking about copying in the first place, just distinct, original use of the concept. I feel like that's a large portion of the misunderstanding here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That may be true friend, but here's the bottom line: Jitterbug-Jive, as an artist, is within their rights to say, "Only people who buy the fearmonger adopts can use them." By placing this disclaimer in the description, they now have something in writing that states this work is protected by the copyright laws which you have alluded to. And I'll bet you're thinking, ".... nah."
But I'm right and here's why.
I'd like to address your points with an analogy or two, if I may.
You said that, "All non-commercial use is exempt from restriction."
So, essentially what you're saying is, it's okay for people to use a product they didn't pay for, just because they saw it advertised? Am I allowed to walk into a convenience store, and take a dozen cases of Pepsi just because I saw a commercial on T.V. for it?
I'm not profiting from taking the Pepsi. I'm not advertising the stolen Pepsi so it's non-commercial, right? I'm just.... walking out of the store with un-paid Pepsi, and then drinking it privately in my own home. So I guess that's alright then...?
Using an established concept for "non-commercial" use.. that's not a real thing, and it never will be; because you ARE profiteering from it. You're stealing a unique, interesting, and unusual concept for your personal gain; that gain being that you have an awesome character.... which isn't really your's because you stole the concept from someone else.
Stealing is stealing, no matter how you paint it friend.
But if you buy a character from that concept, you're essentially buying a piece of that concept's pie! The author of the concept has given you permission to make that character YOUR'S. It's 100%, genuinely, absolutely, positively, YOUR'S. Because you now own a "share" in the concept! So yaaaay good for you! You now have a cool character, and the owner of the concept makes a little pocket change. Win-Win.
That's Capitalism man. Hell that is the way of the world. You pay for the things you want. You don't get to take something or use something that doesn't belong to you just because you want to.
I'd like to return to my soda analogy at this time, if you folks will bare with me.
Let's say I saw a picture of Pepsi, and thought, "Gee, that's a swell looking thing. I think I'll paint a picture of some Pepsi." I would be well within my rights to paint a picture of Pepsi. I am not drinking Pepsi I didn't buy, I'm not sharing the un-purchased Pepsi with my friends, and I'm not giving the Pepsi a back story and having it interact with my Coke or A&W Root Beer cans.
So, in conclusion:
> non-commercial use of an established concept is stealing period.
>Purchasing a piece of the concept is what absolutely must happen if you want to use a concept because that is the way of the world: we pay for what we want.
>FAN ART, however of existing characters, who have been certified through payments for the concept, is acceptable; because it does not infringe on the copyright laws
I know this was an earful, and you'll have to forgive me if this was a long read, but I hope now this clears the air for all you folks who might be confused.
Peace!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The non-commercial consumption of Pepsi is distinct from the act of shoplifting, and unquestionably legal. The inappropriate copying of existing art is equivalent to shoplifting. The use of the elements of such art is equivalent to the consumption of Pepsi in your metaphor. The problem being that this character sheet has been posted for free, online, the equivalent of handing out metaphorical Pepsi to everyone who visits the page. It's unreasonable, having done so, to complain when they drink it, while you would be perfectly justified to complain if they copied the free Pepsi and created more.
Concepts, in and of themselves, and distinct from any media produced from them, are not protected under copyright law. They may be secured to a limited extent through design patents and trademarks, but that's it. Fanart does not require any certification through payment to be acceptable. The creation of fanart is protected by the fair use doctrine irrespective of any payment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude, you can't be serious.
You're essentially justifying blatant disregard for artistic integrity...
And yes, while Jitterbug-Jive's concept of Fearmongers is abstract, it's an abstract idea that will generate revenue. Fearmongers themselves could be used in stories, comics/graphic novels, scripts, etc. meaning those things have the potential to turn a profit. Therefore, they are a commodity, because their is some kind of financial gain. You're treating this as if it were some kind of ambiguous idea that can't be owned. However, this product falls under the protection of Copyright law due to its semblance to several definitions of copy right law:
201 . Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
Author or authors of the work (work as defined as a piece that generates revenue). Jitterbug-Jive is essentially asking people to pay money to become official partners of the original work he has created.
(c) Contributions to Collective Works. — Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
Meaning yes, any other use of the product owned by several individuals, is in fact, a violation of the Copy Right laws designed to protect original content.
So to avoid violating copyright laws, please refer to:
(d) Transfer of Ownership. —
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
No where in these two lines of the legal process of transference of rights does it state that fan art is a viable means of transference of rights to a profit-making product.
And you'd be right in saying, "Fan art is an exercise of free-speech and freedom of expression." But it is in direct violation of U.S. Copyright law, which, just like freedom of speech and expression, are protected by the Constitution. And copyright is defined by the initial owner of the product, as per Chapter one of the U.S. Copyright Law, section 201 subsection a.
Take for example, Buttons Adventures; a "fan-work" created by Jan Animations. While the intent was to borrow from an established concept, it was a concept that generated some kind of revenue. Therefore, it was in direct violation of Chapter five, section 501 subsections a-f.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I am serious.
Abstract ideas that generate revenue require patents for protection. The idea is not protected by copyright, because copyright protects only specific works (i.e. a single piece of art), and not abstract ideas. Abstract ideas are generally not a commodity for a very good reason; they can cover large numbers of possible actions, so making them generally defensible as commodities has a very oppressive effect.
Your argument seems to be mostly quotes with little relation to your argument (just definitions that you've blown out of proportion). Please check your definitions of 'ambiguous' and 'semblance'. Also, note that U.S. Copyright Law was mostly written after the U.S. Constitution, and the Fair Use doctrine is included in this law.
As an aside, you're correct that Jan Animations generating revenue excludes it from protections given non-profit works (you'll note that I said only the creation of fanart, not the sale of it, was protected). Whether it constitutes legitimate enterprise is far from cut and dry, however, it doesn't really relate to my argument in general.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Semblance: noun: archaic: resemblance; similarity.
Ambiguous: adjective: unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
So yes I used those words correctly
And if " (you'll note that I said only the creation of fanart, not the sale of it, was protected)," is exactly what you mean, then fanart of something that has already been licensed, is, indeed, protected under the Fair Use doctrine.
You can go ahead and respond to this if you want; loop the argument back around on how 'abstract concepts can't be regulated,' or whatever... but know that the argument on my side ends for me here. I've come to realize that... it's really pathetic that we're debating about this at all really. I'm embarrassed that I've allowed myself to get this involved in an argument that is so pointless that it hurts to read back through my responses. I don't know if this is your attempt to reach out, get attention, or to try and formulate connections with others, but I do hope that if that is your goal, you do so in a less distant and disagreeable way.
You seem like a really intelligent person, and its such a shame to see it being wasted on something as frivolous as this. I hope that you continue to be diligent in your studies, and that you go into a field that is in need of your intellect. And whatever field you decide to pursue, I'm sure you will excel! I hope that you find a lot of success in your life, and that peace and happiness finds you wherever you go!
Good luck with everything Mr. Biasedeyes
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I apologize it I seem overly distant or academic; it's due in no small part to my personality and upbringing. I'm a bit painfully aware that reading my writing might seem like pressing gravel into your eyes for some, and try to simplify it, but 20 years of practice is hard to break. Please feel free to ignore everything I've written below, my continued argument and vocabulary correction; you seem like a nice person and I don't want to cause you any injury. Just know that I'm not arguing that there's no protection, but rather that there is protection that is different in form. Also, since the start of this argument, Jitterbug changed his description to be completely correct. It's now quite legally sane, which was my initial intention. It's important because would be infringers can no longer use this sort of argument to defend themselves.
In order to determine whether or not you're using something correctly, try replacing the word with the definition, and see if it still makes sense.
"this product falls under the protection of Copyright law due to its [similarity] to several definitions of copy right law" First, sad to see that 'semblance' is archaic. I like that word, but it seems it's not in common use any more. 
"You're treating this as if it were some kind of [unclear or inexact] idea that can't be owned [because a choice between alternatives has not been made]." This use might be considered correct, but since I never implied that there was any unmade choice between alternatives, I don't think it's correct in context. Ill-defined or indefinite would be better for what I'm guessing you're trying to say.
I'm trying to explain the extent of the legal protections given to artistic works, to counter the rabid misinformation which artists tend to spread. Artists are actually protected quite reasonably in theory; even if the DMCA safe-harbor laws leave a loophole that's far too exploitable in practice. There's no cessation in copyrighted products, and the accessibility of abstract concepts is an important intellectual freedom. My argument doesn't end here... though that's not really any indication of correctness.
Please don't worry yourself on my account. I have my hands in several pots when it comes to intellectual pursuits, perhaps the most important of which is leaning languages where I naturally express myself less formally.
祝你好运！
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh, I like the look of these! Brilliant idea and this one's design is fantastic!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
These look great. I think I might keep an eye out for one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've been eyeing these up for ages, I absolutely love them. Would they be for sale for $ only, or would you consider taking 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Money only for now, but maybe in the future I'll start making point options, but it wont be for a while and depends on how well they do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course, I can guess with your current monetary issues 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ooh I might have to get premium, I'll look in to it, maybe make it an investment after selling a couple Fearmonger adopts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
you dont need a premium membership for it, actually! You can just click edit page, and then input the commissions widget and edit it. It takes quite some time for the points to process though so it might not be worth it. DA also gets 20% so while people buy 80 points for a dollar most people charge 100 points per dollar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It takes ~2 weeks for the funds to process, but I've withdrawn quite a bit this way. You need to use the premium content or commission widgets.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
actually you do not need a premium membership for it. i can use it and i dont have one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0