Where am I. Who are you people. What's going on. What time is it. Why does everything taste like the sound of yellow.
when she says she doesn’t send nudes
when guys objectify women and expect them to send nudes
when someone asks you about your nuclear plans for russia
When Russia sends you nudes
Okay so apparently all it took for me to become good at this game again was to get the SMG shield penetrate upgrade. Hopefully this means updates will be coming faster now.
I want you to step back and learn what the phrase ‘all rights reserved’ means.
Under current US copyright laws, any creative work is automatically protected from the moment it is first published, performed, or produced. This means the creator of the work must be recognized as the legal owner when it comes to fair use of that work by others. Essentially, the writer of a novel or the sculptor of a statue holds all of the legal rights to that work unless or until he or she decides to grant some of those rights to others. One common way to establish these rights is to include the phrase all rights reserved somewhere on the work itself. It is quite common for movie producers to include the phrase as part of the film’s closing credits, for example, and publishers may also include it on one of the front pages of a novel. The phrase serves to remind others that the original creator of the work still owns every right to the material.
Legally, I am not even obligated to put that phrase on my blog, if the artist creates something, and there is no further notice on copyright, automatically, all rights are reserved.
The phrase all rights reserved does not have to appear at all on a published work in order for the creator to receive copyright protection. Many artists and producers use it as more of a warning to those who may be considering unauthorized use of that material or creation. By pointing out that all rights are still held or reserved by the original creator, the phrase establishes awareness of the current copyright laws and an implied willingness to pursue legal action if those rights are violated.
So what doe the rights in ‘all right reserved’ include?
Without my direct permission, no one has the right to edit, reproduce, sell, use or create derivative work except me.
So what does derivative work mean?
A derivative work is a new, original product that includes aspects of a preexisting, already copyrighted work. Also known as a “new version,” derivative works can include musical arrangements, motion pictures, art reproductions, sound recordings or translations. They can also include dramatizations and fictionalizations, such as a movie based on a play.
You drew the exact same character as me, it contains aspects of preexisting work, and thus, this is a derivative work. Derivative work include parodies. This is also a parody created from derivative work. Only Marchel Duchamp had all the rights to make the parody because the Mona Lisa is public domain.
However, a copyright owner can grant permission to someone else to make a derivative work based on his or her original—if permission is granted (in the form of a license or assignment), then creation of the derivative work is not infringement. But if the original isn’t yours and you don’t get permission to use the original from its creator, then you’re infringing that author’s copyright.
I have not given you a license or permission to create derivative work. You are in fact infringing copyright. I explicitally pointed out not to USE or EDIT my artwork, but it still says all rights are reserved. If you didn’t know what ‘using’ my artwork entails you shoul’ve sent me an message.
I did not grant you to do this without permission. And since my artwork is commercial, you also do not have the right to sell your derivative work (which I know you were considering.)
I ask you to delete your work, because like stating above, it’s infringing copyright.
Should every fanartist and fanfic writer be prosecuted for copyright infringement as well, then?
Because according to what you’ve written and sourced, well, that seems to be the case.
And if no, then you should let go of this one case.
You cannot argue the illegality of only an isolated incident. The law either applies everywhere identically, or nowhere at all.
Technically, according to US copyright law, all fanart and fanfic is illegal. It gets by without legal issue by being so unimportant that it isn’t worth the owner’s time/money to go through all the legal hoops to bring it down. But if the owner of the original work ever wanted to, they could bring charges against everyone who has made fanart/fanfic about their work. Though I haven’t heard of any going that far; usually they just request that fanfic websites don’t host anything based off their stories (Anne Rice being an example of an author who has done so.)
As for the original issue of parody, well, that’s where stuff gets complicated. The part of the law dealing with fair use in copyright, and therefore parody, is thus:
are u familiar with the concept of parody
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.”
Whether or not a parody falls under criticism or comment is going to be under a lot of varying interpretation, and I’m not going to make any comment on this specific case. Just throwing out that copyright is not an ironclad set of rules; there are exceptions, and those exceptions can get real wonky and confusing at times.