Copyright Law and you.

[Chrispington]

Recently I had been attending lectures on Copyright Law as part of my digital animation adv. Diploma, thought I would share some knowledge.

May be different in some countries (so if you are serious check up with your local first), but most of them are covered by the Burne convention, signed by 96 countries.
These comments refer to Copyright Law ONLY, and it DOESN'T COVER ANYTHING BEYOND THE BASICS.
I am also trying to keep this relevant to YOU.

Any kind of artist will be interested in the following:

How do I copyright my work?
Copyright protection is automatic.
You do not need to publish your work, put a copyright notice on it (the ©) , or do anything else before your work is covered by copyright, from the time it is first created.

What does copyright protect?
Main items are:
Textual Material:"Literary works" - Novels, song lyrics, screenplays etc.

Computer programs (sub category of literary works)

Artistic works:such as paintings, drawings, photographs etc.

Dramatic works: Plays, choreography etc.

Musical works: That is, the music itself, seperate from any lyrics or recording

Cinematograph films: The visual images and sounds in a film. (Cinematograph covers anything with "moving images", however that can be interpreted differently.)

Sound recordings: the particular recording itself is protected by copyright, in addition to, for example, the music or story that is recorded.

What ISN'T protected by copyright?
Ideas, concepts, styles, teqniques or information.
For example, you could write an outline for your new flash animation, and the outline will be protected by copyright. However, someone else could write thier own outline, using your ideas, without necessarily infringing on your copyright.
In some cases, people using your ideas or styles could be in breach of other laws, but i'm only covering copyright.

Names, titles and slogans.:
Even invented words are unlikely to be protected by copyright. However using a name, title or slogan might run into trouble with other areas of law, such as Trade Marks.

when is someone infringing on someone elses copyright?
Copyright infringement can be defined as:
"Using copyright material in one of the ways exclusively reserved to the copyright owner without permission."

So if anyone but the creator of the work uses it in any of the following ways they are infringing.
The Copyright owner's exclusive rights.
The copyright owner is the only one with the right to:

(Literary, dramatic, artistic and musical works:)
Reproduce the work. (in any way)
Make the work pulbic for the first time.
Communicate the work to the public. (internet, tv, radio, in any way)

(Films, sound recordings, broadcasts and published editions:)
Reproduce the work. (in any way)
Showing films and playing recordings in public.
Transmitting films and sound recordings to the public in any way.
Rebroadcast.

Ok, I want to sell my flash to someone. What are my Legal options, and what do they mean?

By selling your flash (or anything else) you are handing over your exclusive rights as creator, as listed above.
There are two different ways this can be done.

ASSIGNING rights.
'assigning rights' means someone else become the copyright owner. It is thiers for ever.

LICENSING rights.
Is selling particular rights, and the copyright owner can constrict the contract in various ways. For example: Only in particular countries, or a particular period of time, or a set number of copies, or to a particular format (for example: hard copy only, but not posters or brochures.)
Basically the copyright holder decides the contract.

Ok, so do I have any other rights that I don't lose when I assign or license my work??

VERY IMPORTANT VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. All individual creators have rights called "MORAL RIGHTS" whether or not they own copyright.
These are the rights to:
-Be attributed as the creator of thier work. (credited)

-Take action if thier work is falsely credited as being someone else's work, or is altered by someone else but credited as if it were unaltered.

-Take action if thier work is distorted or treated in a way that is predjudicial to thier honour or reputation.

Ok so I Think I covered the most important points, but I probably missed a few. Anyhow, time for an example.
Just say a dude ripped off a denvish flash from newgrounds. In this flash denvish recorded his own sound effects and his own composed music. All the art was done by him too.

Now the guy who ripped off denvish flash infringing the following:
The actual 'notes' of the musical track. Ie. the sheet music "Literary works"

Song lyrics "Literary works"

That specific recording of the musical compostition by denvish "Sound recordings"

The artistical works that compose the still artwork in the flash "Artistic works"

the actionscript (or any other code) "Computer programs"

The animated portions of the flash "Cinematograph films"

So don't steal flash! And you CAN take action if someone steals yours.

***EDN***

Probly a lot of spelling mistakes and stuff, soz.

If I didn't make sense in any part of it, ask me.

[Cybex]

Very useful! If i ever become succesfull in flash (yeah right!) I'll bare that in mind

[Glaiel-Gamer]

So thenwhy does a copyright cost $30 if it's automatic?

[Chrispington]

At 8/25/05 05:02 PM, Glaiel_Gamer wrote: So thenwhy does a copyright cost $30 if it's automatic?

Only within america, of which I am not a citizen.
As soon as it is on the net though, it becomes an international matter. I felt no reason to quote copyright law for things within america because this is newgrounds.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

At 8/25/05 05:07 PM, Chrispington wrote: As soon as it is on the net though, it becomes an international matter.

Oh........................................
..........

[stickmoose]

At 8/25/05 05:02 PM, Glaiel_Gamer wrote: So thenwhy does a copyright cost $30 if it's automatic?

Hm, ya because I payed $30 to copyright my site.

[Chrispington]

At 8/25/05 05:12 PM, stickmoose wrote: Hm, ya because I payed $30 to copyright my site.

If you read the posts since you would know that this will protect you within america. For anything international it was already protected by the berne convenion.

[Cybex]

So if an american wanted to copyrtight something they would have to pay $30, but you can for free because you live in australia? What if you copyrighted it and then gave it to an american person for free, that would mean it's leagally theirs yeah? But they wouldn't have had to pay anything?

I'm british, do we have to pay?

[Chrispington]

At 8/25/05 05:26 PM, cybex wrote: So if an american wanted to copyrtight something they would have to pay $30, but you can for free because you live in australia?

In the other 95 countries that signed the berne convention his work is already copyrighted, but the berne does not govern internal matters. So, america decided it costs $30. Australia decided free.

What if you copyrighted it and then gave it to an american person for free, that would mean it's leagally theirs yeah? But they wouldn't have had to pay anything?

America would still have to protect my moral rights as creator of the work (burne convention), but the rights of the copyright holder (now the american) don't exist until you pay $30 "within america." (warning i have limited knowledge of american specific law). In any international matter the american still owns copyright without paying the internal $30 fee.

I'm british, do we have to pay?

Dunno, you will have a government agency in charge of it, check out thier website.

[Chrispington]

Gotta sleep now but hopefully I will know enough to answer some more questions later.

[creativespeed]

At 8/25/05 05:42 PM, Chrispington wrote: Gotta sleep now but hopefully I will know enough to answer some more questions later.

Can you add me to msn so I can discuss about my car game: [e-mail]

Thanks!

[Denvish]

At 8/25/05 05:42 PM, Chrispington wrote: Gotta sleep now but hopefully I will know enough to answer some more questions later.

The thing is, if it comes to a court case, it's not good enough just having copyright. You have to have proof that the copyright on the game is yours, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't know the ins and outs of the law, but in the case of internet publishing (in this instance, NG), I would imagine that so long as you could prove that you were the only person with access to the account that submitted the Flash on a date prior to the 'stealing', you'd probably be OK.

But with something like music, you have no proof that you wrote or recorded a song until you take some action such as taking a tape to a lawyer, or emailing it to yourself recorded delivery, which gives you a definitive date that proves you are the author.

I don't know, has this berne thing ever been thrown out in a court of law? Because I can't see it standing up if there's no actual proof of authorship besides it.

[Chrispington]

At 8/25/05 05:50 PM, Denvish wrote:
The thing is, if it comes to a court case, it's not good enough just having copyright. You have to have proof that the copyright on the game is yours, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't know the ins and outs of the law, but in the case of internet publishing (in this instance, NG), I would imagine that so long as you could prove that you were the only person with access to the account that submitted the Flash on a date prior to the 'stealing', you'd probably be OK.

But with something like music, you have no proof that you wrote or recorded a song until you take some action such as taking a tape to a lawyer, or emailing it to yourself recorded delivery, which gives you a definitive date that proves you are the author.

I don't know, has this berne thing ever been thrown out in a court of law? Because I can't see it standing up if there's no actual proof of authorship besides it.

Well copyright law is far from being a flawless system. Every country has its own laws as well as those layed down by the berne convention. Even so, there are hundreds of court cases round the world every day contesting copyright issues.

It is a horribly complex system of law but still cannont cover every possible copyright situation, and that is what judges are for.

But still, proving that you are creator or composer of any work (including musical) is not that hard. If you expect that someone might steal you work, publish a simple page on your site containing the lyrics and sheet music, with a date. Also put dates into any sound files you have for download, that would help a lot.
If someone wants to steal it and say they are the composer, you can take them to court. You have pretty strong evidence already, and possibly witnesses too. But basically any method that proves dates is good. Having your voice in (dated)recordings would also be great proof.

If the person steals it and voilates your rights as owner and creator within the country that you live in, (uk?) for example, burning cd's or playing your songs at a live gig, and they DO NOT do anything international (internet is always international) then they are only subject to your countries internal copyright laws, which I do not know.

Anyway, copyright law is trying to keep up with the evolution of the internet, but it will be blurry on emerging technologies for quite some time.

I hope I answered the question and didn't just rant.

[liam]

I already knew all that but I'm sure most people didn't, good idea to post this here.

[HaroFreak]

Brilliant. This thread should be pinned on the top for future reference.

[Sikes]

At 8/26/05 05:30 AM, HaroFreak wrote: Brilliant. This thread should be pinned on the top for future reference.

Yes, but... Why has it been posted? Don't get me wrong, I'd hate for someone to get rich off of an idea i planned to get rich off of, but this seems to be urging people to take action against anyone who makes a work with their ideas at all. That would mean anyone making a Madness knockoff would see Krinkels in court, the countless Zelda flashes would have to end since we're now promoting legal action, and strawberryclock could win enough money in lawsuits to buy a small country...

I know that all of that stuff sounds great, but most of the time when someone uses someone else's character in a flash it's just some preteen kid who's in awe of the series and draws a certain excitement from pretending to be part of it by creating his or her own fan work. What I'm trying to say is that I haven't seen anything on Newgrounds worthy of legal action, so this is good to know and all, but if we're serious about a career in this sort of stuff wouldn't we learn it in college?

Newgrounds is great because of how much freedom we have here, it's the American way and all that. To get legal on someone's ass over a flash seems dumb to me.

[Taylor-1]

At 8/26/05 05:41 AM, Sikes wrote: the truth

I have to go with sikes big time on that.

I mean why would anyone wanna drive a poor kid who makes flash out onto the streets by sucking his faimilies bank dry?
all because the poor kid made a spoof or whatever? its bull.
its not like he/she is profiting off of it.
just leave it be newgrounds has been working great. it doesn't need this to turn it into a strict hellhole.

[liam]

At 8/26/05 05:41 AM, Sikes wrote: stuff

Did you even read the original post?

It clearly says, and I quote:

What ISN'T protected by copyright?
Ideas, concepts, styles, teqniques or information.

So ideas AREN'T protected by copyright, pretty much all your post is wrong.

[Sikes]

Wow kid, get off my ass okay? If this doesn't apply to flash then why is it in the flash forum?

[T-H]

If you clearly label something as a parody, and give the original author full credit you are in no trouble unless your parody it is just blatent slander of the said concept.

[liam]

At 8/26/05 05:53 AM, Sikes wrote: Wow kid, get off my ass okay?

I was correcting you, I didn't want you to keep thinking that Crispington is wrong where it was in fact you. I would have done the same to anyone that made such a stupid mistake.

If this doesn't apply to flash then why is it in the flash forum?

It does apply to flash, if you had read the original post you would have realised so.

[Chrispington]

At 8/26/05 05:41 AM, Sikes wrote:
this seems to be urging people to take action against anyone who makes a work with their ideas at all.

Ideas are not protected. Read the post please.

I know that all of that stuff sounds great, but most of the time when someone uses someone else's character in a flash it's just some preteen kid who's in awe of the series and draws a certain excitement from pretending to be part of it by creating his or her own fan work.

Well there would hardly be any reason to prosecute such a case as the leagal costs would be more than the artist would gain from having a little fanflash removed. Plus fan flashs can help the artist work become famous, so why prosecute?

What I'm trying to say is that I haven't seen anything on Newgrounds worthy of legal action, so this is good to know and all, but if we're serious about a career in this sort of stuff wouldn't we learn it in college?

How can you say that? Some of the flash on newgrounds is definatly worth protecting.
Other sites that don't credit artists or change the credits are violating the moral rights of the composer as well as infringing on thier copyright.
There are many sites that live on stolen flash, and the site owner is making money from which the flash artist should be getting income, and at the very least, credit an a link.
By law those site owners should be asking permission. Then the artist can dictate their own conditions for the licensing of thier rights, as well as demand income if they think thier work is good enough. The site owner must agree to the conditions if he wants to display the work.

Obviosly the site owner will only agree to your conditions if he thinks they are worth it. So good flash = better conditions.

To get legal on someone's ass over a flash seems dumb to me.

For people making money off my work, or altering the credits in any way, I would take action if it were hurting my income. They have to ask permission and accept my conditions.

[Sikes]

Such a stupid mistake huh? Not a mistake, a minor mistak, a common mistake, but indeed a stupid mistake... Well it's good to know you're a dick to everyone, if you would indeed have done this for everyone. I kindly ask that you not reply to me on anymore topics, you seem to only want to flaunt yourself and try to belittle me and it's really very ignorant. Let this be the end, I'm sure that if you let me be in my thinking, someone else will correct me but much more politely. So chill...

[Sikes]

At 8/26/05 06:04 AM, Chrispington wrote:

:Read the post please.

To get legal on someone's ass over a flash seems dumb to me.

For people making money off my work, or altering the credits in any way, I would take action if it were hurting my income. They have to ask permission and accept my conditions.

Apparently you didn't read what I said either, lol. Guess we're even. :P

[Chrispington]

At 8/26/05 06:09 AM, Sikes wrote:
Apparently you didn't read what I said either, lol. Guess we're even. :P

I did read it. All of it.
And answered it.

[liam]

At 8/26/05 06:07 AM, Sikes wrote: Such a stupid mistake huh? Not a mistake, a minor mistak, a common mistake, but indeed a stupid mistake...

That was the most hypocritical sentence I have ever read.

Well it's good to know you're a dick to everyone, if you would indeed have done this for everyone.

Telling people they had made a mistake and that they should read a post before having an opinion on it is not being a dick, it is common sense.

I kindly ask that you not reply to me on anymore topics, you seem to only want to flaunt yourself and try to belittle me and it's really very ignorant.

I already asked you to stop flaming and said I would do so too, you chose to ignore me. Also, I will reply to your posts if necessary, such as the post above where I corrected you.

I'm sure that if you let me be in my thinking

¿Hablas inglés?

[Sikes]

Let me help you out here man, cause you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying.

At 8/26/05 06:04 AM, Chrispington wrote:

To get legal on someone's ass over a flash seems dumb to me.

For people making money off my work, or altering the credits in any way, I would take action if it were hurting my income. They have to ask permission and accept my conditions.

In my post I stated that if someone were trying to make money of off my work I would take action too, yet here you're acting like I didn't. I don't think you really paid me much attention, and that's fair enough, but please don't take my words out of context.

[Chrispington]

At 8/26/05 06:16 AM, Sikes wrote: In my post I stated that if someone were trying to make money of off my work I would take action too, yet here you're acting like I didn't. I don't think you really paid me much attention, and that's fair enough, but please don't take my words out of context.

You didn't say "off your work" you said "an idea i planned to get rich off of" which is not protected, as I said!

Looks like you didn't read your own post.
Please stop filling this thread with shit, it is not about you.

[liam]

At 8/26/05 06:16 AM, Sikes wrote: In my post I stated that if someone were trying to make money of off my work I would take action too, yet here you're acting like I didn't. I don't think you really paid me much attention, and that's fair enough, but please don't take my words out of context.

You said that you would take action if someone tried using an idea of yours that you planned to get rich off of, Chrispington is saying he would take action if someone was using his flash unjustly and it was effecting him in any negative way. You only wrote one line about how you would take action against anyone who took an idea of yours, which is impossible, and the rest was about how you think taking action over using ideas is stupid.

[Sikes]

At 8/26/05 06:14 AM, -liam- wrote: Stuff that he didn't have to.

Ok kid, I'll humor you a bit longer but this is getting old.

My first sentence was a reference to you calling my mistake a STUPID mistake. A mistake is a mistake, you only add the word stupid if you're trying to make a mistake seem bigger than it is. In case I lost you already, my point is that you just, again, went out of your way to be offensive toward me.

As far as asking you to leave me alone, you told me that you were done, the post said nothing about me having to agree or comply or anything, you said that you were going to leave me alone, but that's not even the point here.

And for letting me be in my thinking "let me be" means "just leave me alone" and "in my thinking" means "continuing to think what I currently believe to be true" so the statement was requesting that you not try to correct me even if I think the sky is green with orange polka dots, someone else will correct me if it's worth correcting and they won't talk down to me the way you do. I don't think there's need for further discussion on the topic.