|
Eldred posted:Let's suppose for a second that that is a real thing. How would you tell the difference? Suppose? Three-fourths of the Internet is dedicated to it
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:The first clue is when you post about how upset you are on the internet, in a place for other people to read about it and comment back to your post. We are all discussing things on the internet here. Is everything faked for internet attention, or just outrage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that's good. I knew who it was immediately and I haven't seen that anime in loving ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
          
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
I thought that Zoidberg was the true face of horror until I scrolled up and saw the melting Mr. Popo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The first clue is when you post about how upset you are on the internet, in a place for other people to read about it and comment back to your post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Eldred posted:I thought that Zoidberg was the true face of horror until I scrolled up and saw the melting Mr. Popo. There's so many hosed up cosplays of Mr Popo but that was definitely one of the worst. Here's a few more!      And of course tons and tons and tons of people wearing blackface for the costume, including the infamous 'itchy balls' costume: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
The Royal Manticoran Navy has filed an amicus brief in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, set for oral argument at the US Supreme Court on, of course, Halloween. A summary from SCOTUSblog: quote:The Star Athletica case involves a provision of federal copyright law that makes a “useful article” — clothing, for example — ineligible for copyright protection. But if part of it represents a creative design, that might gain such protection. The company that took the issue to the Justices said that lower courts have come up with at least ten different ways to separate what can be copyrighted from the rest of the article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The Royal Manticoran Navy has filed an amicus brief in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, set for oral argument at the US Supreme Court on, of course, Halloween. They cited the Cosplay WIki entry. gently caress YOU MY ENGLISH TEACHERS!  And Hero's of cosplay. Sir, I call YaYa Han to the stand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Wisdom of Solomon in this case says Shoot Everyone Who Thought This Was Something Worthy of Bringing To Court. What a waste of loving time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
RickVoid posted:Wisdom of Solomon in this case says Shoot Everyone Who Thought This Was Something Worthy of Bringing To Court. I'm reading it right now, it's actually rather interesting. Because, if the previous judgment is upheld, simple items on clothing; stars, stripes, chevrons and the like, could be copyrighted and could not be used without permission of whomsoever holds said copyright. Can you imagine what that would do to the fashion industry? They are not just talking about someone dressing up as Mickey Mouse and making a buck at it, they are literally deciding who can use what and how you can dress. On a national level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
RickVoid posted:Wisdom of Solomon in this case says Shoot Everyone Who Thought This Was Something Worthy of Bringing To Court. I mean, based on that summary, it's less "copyright infringement doesn't apply to cosplay!" And more "can an element of design that defines a form of dress be copyrighted without copyrighting that form entirely?" So it's less inherently stupid and more just as stupid as you find capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Poops Mcgoots posted:I mean, based on that summary, it's less "copyright infringement doesn't apply to cosplay!" And more "can an element of design that defines a form of dress be copyrighted without copyrighting that form entirely?" I hope we get some kind of resolution that amounts to basically, "Jesus loving christ, you greedy litigious fucks need to cut it out. You have your copyright or trademark but people are allowed to dress up as your characters and mostly do whatever they want. And people can wear whatever they want. Now please gently caress off." Though I could see a good argument for a lawsuit to protect copyright/trademark if a cosplayer went to like Neo Nazi or KKK rallies as the character because that could damage the brand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Though I could see a good argument for a lawsuit to protect copyright/trademark if a cosplayer went to like Neo Nazi or KKK rallies as the character because that could damage the brand. Yah! gently caress the 1st amendment! Who loving needs it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Yah! gently caress the 1st amendment! Who loving needs it? There first amendment lets you speak for yourself not for others (even if those others are fictional.) I understand that cosplay is a form of expression and should be protected but it has already been decided that hate speech is not protected speech so eh? Dressing up as Sonic the Hedgehog and loving around at a con is probably fine. But dressing as Sonic the Hedgehog and going to a Klan rally could be argued as an attempt to display that character approving of such things by a crafty lawyer. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:I'm reading it right now, it's actually rather interesting. Jenner posted:I hope we get some kind of resolution that amounts to basically, "Jesus loving christ, you greedy litigious fucks need to cut it out. You have your copyright or trademark but people are allowed to dress up as your characters and mostly do whatever they want. And people can wear whatever they want. Now please gently caress off." There's nothing about using the designs in public or cosplay or anything related to that  The entire case is about Varsity Brand's cheerleading uniform designs being so ubiquitous and commonplace that they're almost integral to the concept of a cheerleading uniform, and whether or not that pushes them into being part of the utilitarian function of the uniform (and can't be copyrighted) and not an artistic design element (that can be copyrighted). It's not 'stars, stripes and chevrons', it's those design elements used in a specific manner reminiscent of decades of cheerleading uniforms produced by Varsity Brands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Jenner posted:There first amendment lets you speak for yourself not for others (even if those others are fictional.) I understand that cosplay is a form of expression and should be protected but it has already been decided that hate speech is not protected speech so eh? What you are describing already happens and it's called a smear campaign. It's a civil matter. Anyone can be sued, at any time, for any reason, in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
ishikabibble posted:There's nothing about using the designs in public or cosplay or anything related to that Varsity brands hold the copyright to the designs. Not just the overall cheerleading outfit, but every aspect that goes into it. In the brief it even states how they have copyrighted the basic shapes; chevron, stars and so on. They have cornered the market and are currently being scrutinized, by this case, if they are acting as a monopoly. The question being asked is when is it no longer A halter top and skirt and when is it a cheerleader. This is literally the; "Is a hotdog a sandwich" question. Cosplay comes into it with, are cosplayers using copyrighted characters in a manner of them inserting themselves into the world of the character or are they literally becoming the character? In this very thread we have already had similar arguments. Is Jessica Nigri an accurate representation of the character "Roadhog" or is she simply so outside the range of the characters attributes, that she is simply a woman in a halter top and a gas mask? Another example that is in the brief. Police uniforms. They are designed for us to understand this person has some certain purpose, because of the manner of his/her dress. Or is he simply some guy in a black uniform with an ostentatious hat, while open carrying a firearm? Is a judge's robe a symbol of the court? Or is it simply a person wearing a shroud so that he isn't naked? They are trying to define the nature of reality. VendaGoat has a new favorite as of 01:28 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
copyright doesn't care if you go out and cosplay as something, copyright cares if you're making money off of someone elses IP
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
starkebn posted:copyright doesn't care if you go out and cosplay as something, copyright cares if you're making money off of someone elses IP Guess how that correlates to professional Cosplayers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
starkebn posted:copyright doesn't care if you go out and cosplay as something, copyright cares if you're making money off of someone elses IP Correct. So all the cosplayers that are making money. Did they violate copyright? Or, were they constructing their own distinct and unique version of a character? Are they really the character or are they a person dressed in a manner of their own design? Where is the distinction? Seriously, this is one of the reasons I do not take money for my cosplay photography. I'd rather not be sued. And by someone else donating to charity, (I'd say no lawyer on Earth, but come on) very few lawyers would want to go through the enormous stress headache of figuring out if any damages were done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Guess how that correlates to professional Cosplayers? You mean the people that get hired by the companies that own the IP?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:You mean the people that get hired by the companies that own the IP? And the ones that don't?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:And the ones that don't? This is the big thing, because they aren't just pretty faces wearing a costume or outfit like a spokesmodel, they put serious time and effort into making those high-quality costumes themselves while making money off appearances with their work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
What are the implications for the professional Elvis or Hillary Clinton impersonators?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:This is the big thing, because they aren't just pretty faces wearing a costume like a spokesmodel, they put serious time and effort into making those high-quality costumes themselves while making money off appearances with their work. And winning, sometimes substantial, prizes in events. Part of the judgment at these events are accuracy of character and construction. Two things that are absolutely diametrically opposed to the question of this case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:This is the big thing, because they aren't just pretty faces wearing a costume or outfit like a spokesmodel, they put serious time and effort into making those high-quality costumes themselves while making money off appearances with their work. Filthy criminals
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:This is the big thing, because they aren't just pretty faces wearing a costume or outfit like a spokesmodel, they put serious time and effort into making those high-quality costumes themselves while making money off appearances with their work. Then it's up to the creator of that IP to decide to sue them or not. If they do they might win. They would have to decide whether the PR hit is worth the effort though. If Games Workshop, one of the shittiest companies for C&D litigation regarding it's IP, doesn't ask people to stop playing dress up as their characters then I don't know if it would be a problem with many other companies. But companies are probably within their legal rights to do something if they choose to. I think if I was a cosplayer who got sued I would try very hard to imply I was dressing up as that character as a tribute to the character, not as a representative of the brand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
The problem comes when somebody tries to profit off of the IP of somebody else, which is what copyright law was created to prevent in the first place. If you were truly trying to pay tribute to a character, you wouldn't be doing it for personal profit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I think if I was a cosplayer who got sued I would try very hard to imply I was dressing up as that character as a tribute to the character, not as a representative of the brand. Yeaaah no. The case would just run the cosplayer down, because they likely don't have the money to pay legal fees for a prolonged case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Yeaaah no. The case would just run the cosplayer down, because they likely don't have the money to pay legal fees for a prolonged case. Hence the Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands and this being filed by a third party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:What are the implications for the professional Elvis or Hillary Clinton impersonators? Depends on jurisdiction and circumstance. California can gently caress you and come back for attorney's fees. But most likeness defendants are profitable corporations. Nobody's chasing down a dude on the street.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
starkebn posted:copyright doesn't care if you go out and cosplay as something, copyright cares if you're making money off of someone elses IP starkebn posted:Then it's up to the creator of that IP to decide to sue them or not. If they do that to a "professional cosplayer" I guess they would decide the PR damage would be worth that paltry thousands they might possibly be able to recoup in damages. IANAL but I think the brand exposure of a good cosplay costume is probably worth more than the hassle of litigation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
starkebn posted:If they do that to a "professional cosplayer" I guess they would decide the PR damage would be worth that paltry thousands they might possibly be able to recoup in damages. Japanese companies can get very litigious over their properties, regardless of whatever brand exposure it might give them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Japanese companies can get very litigious over their properties, regardless of whatever brand exposure it might give them. yet how many cases have you heard of?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Those guys who dress up as the latest movie character in front of the Chinese Theater in Hollywood and charge cash for a photo, are they just cosplaying? Representing the brand, or paying tribute to it? Because nothing happens to those guys to my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Hamshot posted:Those guys who dress up as the latest movie character in front of the Chinese Theater in Hollywood and charge cash for a photo, are they just cosplaying? Representing the brand, or paying tribute to it? Because nothing happens to those guys to my knowledge. They are already being punished enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
starkebn posted:copyright doesn't care if you go out and cosplay as something, copyright cares if you're making money off of someone elses IP The correct term for this is "trade dress", not copyright.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
slomomofo posted:The correct term for this is "trade dress", not copyright. Okay, thanks. We're discussing people who win cosplay competitions with cash prizes, would that be different? Also all the chicks who do the mostly naked -> naked photo shoots are probably getting paid by the photographers too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:53
|
|