#copyright stuff

[chaos-ducks]

Or ask Jorge Rivera to borrow his

I could I could however, id prefer to be doing this legally and I can’t find anywhere to request a license for the show or his contact information for requests such as this. :(

[mossy-chaos]

"WE LOVE AND APPRECIATE YOU GRIAN!" we all say in unison

[chickawah23]

The Grammy stunt Taylor did really bothers me too, it's like barely a millimeter away from her commiting like six felony counts of criminal copyright infringement and that is exactly the reason she had a music lawyer as part of the team that worked on the LPSS, because the only reason Taylor's not a convicted felon for that Toe stunt is because the psedonym on the folklore/evermore copyrights for her unidentified US citizen co-writer is Willam Bowery instead of William Bowery, she exploited the smallest loophole to get away with what otherwise would be a very egregious felony crime spree considering a 1992 amendment to US copyright law made it a felony to lie about things like citizenship for pseudonyms on copyright applications with the intent to increase financial gains, which would be Taylor's intent in your scenario #2 😬

Okay this discussion of copyright law keeps coming up so I just wanted to actually pull the law as well as some circulars from the copyright office that discuss copyright law and registering pseudonymous work and registration in general straightforward terms.

To start, Taylor and Paul had a full discussion about pseudonyms in the 2020 Rolling Stone article. So I’ll start with that excerpt:

——

Next this is an excerpt from a compendium on the law regarding the application for copyright:

——

Next this is a circular that discusses pseudonymous works generally. I am attaching excerpts that point out that Taylor and her team are not required to provide the author’s real name anywhere on the application for a pseudonymous work.

——

And finally, Taylor and her team have the option at any time to file a supplementary registration to add the real name of the pseudonymous author. Literally at any time. We saw it done on the copyright for TIWYCF. Also she can correct the domicile/citizenship too without much issue.

Taylor could have filed the supplementary registration at any time and she still hasn’t because the person still has not been identified. That is the main take away here, in my opinion.

[mack3030]

I found many meshes (Hel-Studio, Cowbuild and Leosims sell on their patreon) at sketchfab ! And ddaeng-sims sell 3d models also.

This is one of those “once you see it you can’t unsee it” moments.  This might be a good moment to talk a bit about a little known fact. Did you know that 3D model sites that sell stuff like that have specific licenses/restrictions if the models are related to a certain brand? Let’s take a look at an example. 

Notice that we little thing that says “editorial use only” for this Chanel lipstick? The reason for this is simple. Chanel is a big brand. In this day in age of lawsuits, the lawyers who work for turbosquid KNOW that some people will use 3D models to infringe upon Chanel’s copyright/brand name rights. So they put this little tag on the model to say “Hey, this model should ONLY be used for certain things.” What certain things? Let’s check their EDITORIAL USES clause!  

Basically a TL;DR version of this says:  * You can use this model if you are the brand holder (chanel) itself.  * You have gotten a license to use it from the brand holder.  * You are part of a news broadcasting team.  * You are using it as part of a documentary.  * You are a teacher/student using it ONLY for the purpose of a class/demonstration/learning and you are not making a profit. 

Now let’s talk into the not allowed uses, because THIS is the sticky wicket that creators have gotten themselves into.  Note the whole commercial purpose line. It basically says you cannot use the mesh to make any MONEY off of it. And below it, it says that you can’t even modify it so that way it doesn’t look like the brand. So making a “parody” version of a brand (Ex: instead of Chanel, changing it to SHANEL) using that model isn’t okay. 

And this isn’t JUST a turbosquid thing. This is a common thing on almost ANY 3D modeling site. Here’s an example of a purse that’s a brand name purse found on sketchfab. 

As I’ve talked about time and time again, PAYWALL CREATORS DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. They don’t care about the rights of their patreons, they don’t care about the rights of EA, they certainly don’t care about the copyrights of these brand holders, and they for sure don’t care about the terms of 3D modeling sites.  Now, you may say “Okay Sunny, but what if I was releasing this content for free?” If you were releasing it for free, it’s still a violation of the copyright of the brands, don’t get me wrong. However, Chanel or Gucci or whoever will be less likely to have a problem with someone who’s just putting their brands in a sims game for free. If that person is making MONEY off of it, those brands have more of a reason to be concerned, because someone is making money off of a 3D model of THEIR brand/designs/product. Now do those brands care enough to go after people? I think they’d have to have some complaints registered with them, but in this lawsuit happy world, you never know and it’s way better to be safe than sorry. 

[breezeinmonochromenight]

So... do you know the truth about Gackt? I don't know this subtleties and this whole thing at all, but like... does he owns Genesis' character?

Nope! He owns nothing but his face and voice regarding Genesis and has never been credited with the design.

[jensrolt]

top 10 anime betrayals: normal people getting taken off youtube

[thefloatingstone]

its so gorgeous! but didnt toby say he doesnt want other people merchandize Undertale? or doesnt it count for artists? sorry its just a question not to be rude ^^"

Hey there! :D

The official consensus is that Toby does not mind fan projects being sold using Undertale as long as what is being sold is NOT Mass Produced.

This means he does not want people to use websites like Redbubble or Teefury which sells mass produced shirts with people’s fanart of Undertale on it. Essentially, anything which is made in vast content to be sold in mass amounts is a no-go for him.

However, fan projects and independently printed things (Zines, pins, buttons etc) are ok as the expense to print these things comes from the artist’s own pocket, and the nature is an artist selling their work, rather than an artist mass producing product of the BRAND. So you printing 50 copies of a zine and selling it at a con or through “Pay what you want” digital services is ok. But printing thousands upon thousands of copies of a printed zine to put on store shelves next to copies of Batman Year One and the IDW My Little Pony comics, is NOT ok.

The only hard “no” is using the official Undertale logo on any of your products.

This one

The reason being is the logo is itself a copyrighted image and title. And so if someone else is to infringe on this copyright, Toby HAS to enforce his copyright over it and issue a cease and desist, because if he does NOT enforce his copyright, he runs the risk of LOSING the copyright. (It’s all law stuff I don’t fully understand but I kinda get what it means)

In Toby’s own words;

“When in doubt, Anything made by hand by yourself is fine as long as it doesn’t include the logo. Anything outsourced to be manufactured by a third party, is a no go.”

[mole-reads]

This comic came out a week or so before a discussion about fan games and IP has begun, sparked by this tongue-in-cheek advice video and a very serious AMA by a lawyer specialized in video game stuff, and it makes me think humor webcomics are pretty much so wrapped under layers of parody protection that they don't ever need to care much about this sort of stuff.

Also, such opportunity lost in not naming her "Justin Bailey". Or "Justine Bailey" I guess, but a guy's name would just be funnier.