monochromera In reply to Remi-Adopt [2016-09-20 03:07:42 +0000 UTC]

sadly for some, fantasy species/races will likely never be copyright-able, least over here in the States. (it would be an utter disaster- can you imagine when people put fantasy novels out of business for having winged or pointy-eared humans? or when dogs with bandannas are a copyrighted species and people start challenging the dog food bags? even well-known creature races like Hobbits, Wookiees, and Na'vi don't have copyright protection as a race- as far as I know anyway. If it was possible, the rich would have already done so!) but individual designs are definitely copyright-able so you are spot-on with that! The biggest thing with getting copyright registered and more or less recognized by the govt is to meet specific checklists for things like 'how large of a portion does this object or character or whatever else constitute in a written/filmed/drawn/theatrical/etc work?' and 'what are it's distinguishable features individually' and quite honestly, with how varied each design within a species/race is- those pretty much dissolve. (hence why Disney who is diligent in shutting down ANYTHING they can sue had a rough time with that particular case- and that distinction was just as different if not less so than the difference between two designs of a CS) Trademark is really the only option, which is a great protection for the product but as Nokkelborth mentioned DEFINITELY not worth the money needed if you wanted to go out suing the copycats. On top of that, industrial design tends to lean more towards things like the cast of franchises or it's merchandise, or physical objects, to my understanding. Trying to win suits over things as varied as CS and as un-solidified in products would be difficult to say the least and judges tend to let the copycats go since there's not very much to work off of legally other than "well it has a lot of similar traits...??" plus things CAN be coincidence and that argument is very hard to disprove in court if the copycat wasn't +faving all the designs and ripping each off individually. 
You've got a good understanding, definitely! But if you do have hopes up for CS being copyright-able, again here in the US more than anything, it wouldn't be something I would encourage you to hold your breath for, because it is not likely the government will ever want to deal with for all the turmoil and easily-pointed fingers it would cause. Sorry to ramble btw, you don't have to take my words to heart I suppose, just wanted to add some things that may not be mentioned or easily grasped considering the ridiculous vagueness of most laws, copyright especially. 

PS to onlookers; if I'm off any, anyone can totally toss criticism my way, though I'd also like to request like the journal's host had, for it to be someone knowledgeable in the subject or to have backup links so I can read up on things m'self. I don't want to spread misinformation AT ALL, but wikipedia and/or blog links don't cut it as education >_>

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Remi-Adopt In reply to monochromera [2016-09-21 20:02:17 +0000 UTC]

I am not really looking to copyright any of my species, dw if you think that ;u; even trademarking is off limits for me right now, at least not with such a small account and species - if they ever grow REALLY popular I might consider it or if I wanted to make specific merch around a species with my industrial design things (f.ex. plushies, toys, etc.) and sell it in actual stores. But that would be a whole new challenge to begin with, so I'm really not planning any of that for now.

I don't mind the "rambling" at all, you were just trying to help and explain things further so I appreciate that <3 Oh, and when it comes to industrial design + copyright claims it is mostly not the appearance of a product either, but its function.


--


I could imagine hobbits/wookies/na'vi being copyrighted or trademarked in some way, but definitely not just their designs. It would be the design primarly + their behaviour, story, their lifestyle, etc. to round everything up otherwise that could really end up in a mess and a huge limitation in the creative freedom of people. Sushidogs are trademarked aswell: www.sushidogs.com/disclaimer.h… I think this disclaimer explains pretty well how the trademarking aspect of CS works!

--

Example for how it works in industrial design: you cannot copyright a lunchbox with a red accent, but if it has a special mechanism/mostly in combination with materials (getting air out to form a "vacuum"+silicone as an example) you could get that copyrighted/trademarked and therefore designers who want to release a concept they will always have to check first if some company already came up with the idea before them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

monochromera In reply to Remi-Adopt [2016-09-22 03:29:04 +0000 UTC]

I'm pretty sure that would be an unfathomably pricey endeavor even if the legal bits all fell into place. All the same, merch would be a very nice thing to create, and would definitely require some kind of legal grounds to prevent exact copycats. Though mockbuster rip-offs are bound to pop up for anything with success ;w; sadly. Rambling again, pardon. But I do wish you luck with your creatures, even if you're keeping it small. Trademarking would be a good step if it ever got wicked popular, but yea, best to hold off considering the costs and difficulties. Might I ask, what are your species? I have 0 knowledge of any CS stuff outside of the ones my friends are into tbh

Trademarked species I have heard of yes- sushidogs especially- the combination makes sense. Though gl to witch if she ever wants to take someone to court, because the lore is the only thing standing between the copycat being convicted or not ;w;
and I am not 110% on the wookies/hobbits/na'vi -there is some kind of legal protection on them, however I don't think it was the races- just the titles and characters- so a trademark as well. At least, that's the extent of the legal battles LucasFilms and others have fought for and often times won owo/ never seen them take artists or fan-character creators to court, despite their constant attacks on domain names and products/events with matching titles (including things that used names from the characters!) So I'm thinking trademarks are likely the extent of any kind of protections a species can be given, but time can only tell where the law goes o:

I think a lunchbox that intricate would be more of a patent sort of thing, but I still see where you're coming from! c: 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Remi-Adopt In reply to monochromera [2016-09-22 11:09:51 +0000 UTC]

I completely agree with that but I guess as a person who does business with designs, you should always be prepared for some cheap rip-offs. Not necessarily to go to court with them but also mentally, a lot of (especially) artists don't seem to be able to make a difference between "business" and being "personally involved" and are very hurt seeing their species copied.
Awh thank you dear! And my species aren't really worth mentioning XD

Yeah I think the trademark only helps her to back her rights up against people who always complain and maybe issues on the internet, but not so much in the real world IF she had to protect the species. I still have to see what else trademarks could be good for. Ohhh ok that makes much more sense, but if they also have some protection on the race-names and location-names that would make it hard to copy them anyways. And people pick up very fast if you copy a whole storyline, so that would only make a bad reputation for those who do so (more so if it's such well known characters as the named ones).

And omg yes patents, trademarks and copyrights.. gahh I really need to get words done right. I guess they'd trademark/copyright certain company names though where they produce those types of lunchboxes orz Sorry, English is not my first language I didn't want to misinform anyone but good thing you caught up on it XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nokkelborth In reply to Remi-Adopt [2016-09-17 14:32:55 +0000 UTC]

Oh yeah, you are absolutely correct in all that!
As far as I know, if you want to register a closed species what you do is make a design to be like... the base representation of your species, some kind of "generic" adopt to speak for all your species, as well as trademarking their name. This works the best for species that are heavily trait-based and have one common body type, otherwise I would recommend registering the other possible body types that are different enough.

Also yes! That's why I put #3 there, since being registered is basically a requisite to be able to file a lawsuit, BUT it is not a need to file a DMCA notice, as far as I know c:
Since lawsuits are normally very expensive and long processes, I doubt our community would have much more benefits from copyright protection besides filing claims with an ease of mind, I do not think anyone here would sue a 13 year old for trying to make a "revolution" by copying their CS, since it is a waste of time and money and you get little out of it, besides making the other person spend a lot of money (since they are also liable to cover your expenses if you win, afaik) which they probably dont have, just like many bootleg sellers go unpunished until they start getting big, since that is when it actually becomes worth suing. Of course, it is always good practice to at least have some registered designs, I would leave trademarking for only bigger species, since trademarking is not only a longer process, but also a more expensive one o3o at least in my country

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Remi-Adopt In reply to Nokkelborth [2016-09-21 19:51:40 +0000 UTC]

Yes I have noticed that, it is just really complicated to even get one thing registered so having species with multiple forms must be a pain in the butt if you want them registered.

Hmm I am not sure, I never had to do that before except for with stolen art, not stolen species! I sure hope so though, it would be a great help if it ever comes to that. (Although I have noticed that most artists won't bother with rip off species except for blacklisting the people who do that and warning members of the group).
And true, I would never even think of trademarking a species that doesn't have the following yet, it would just be a huge waste of time and money regarding the probability of it being stolen or making enough money through merch etc. to make up for that ;w;

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nokkelborth In reply to omateki [2016-09-17 06:21:12 +0000 UTC]

Satire is not considered fair use when it copies an earlier work (a.k.a. if it is a derivative work)
The point of satire is to criticize and encourage the improvement of whatever is being criticized while being humorous and, to an extent, subtle; as far as I have seen, people who do what you mentioned do not have any intent to satirize something.

Point #9 is very useful with the four points I quote, because they help determine if it is fair use or not <: 

All in all, if you are not able to tell one apart from the other, it is copyright infringement, even if you change the name, if you can STILL recognize it as a certain species (since they already have specific characteristics that are immediately associated with them) then it is an infringement.

I hope this helps!

I have seen some people trying to shield themselves from infringement by using the "fair use" card, but probably none of them actually read the facts. 
Don't let anyone fool you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

omateki In reply to Nokkelborth [2016-09-17 06:33:07 +0000 UTC]

okie dokie! thanks so much~

👍: 0 ⏩: 0