Plagiarism In Other Sites

Well I was going across a few other Star Wars sites I was part of. Then I stumbled upon a new Embassy section where sites could ally with the one I was previously part of. i went through one of the sites and found this:

http://newsithempire.10.forumer.com/viewto...p?t=166&start=0

Look down until you see a dude named "Darth Thanatos". Unless I am mistaken, the lightsaber in his signature is Darth Vexatus'. Would this infringe on the copyright laws of not only there forum rules, but be illegal too?

I was just wondering. I might be able to find a few more.

Depends. It's all fair use stuff. If he's claiming it's his, that he created the image, then there's something you can do. But really, it's just like the image of Jar Jar Binks you have as your avatar, TIE Fighters in your signature, etc. If you're not claiming ownership and you're just using it for nothing more than "it just looks cool," there's not much you can do. And from what I see, it doesn't look like anything actionable.

That is Goat's saber, and that Thanatos kid is actually a rogue member of our club so I'm willing to bet it's the same person

i think this actually just falls under the 'common courtesy' heading. Using Goat's saber in his sig just... because? Please. Yeah it's not illegal, but it really makes the offender look like a total asshat. There's potentially 2,500 people who know it's not his image. All it really takes is one to infiltrate their board and post the facts.

I'm sure Muz would care if the guy claims he made it himself. I know if someone was out there using the saber I designed before I joined the DJB and claiming it to be their own - I'd be pissed and find a way to shut them down.

In a semi-related tangent... notice the sig of "Darth Byss"... THAT is why we have RULES about SIGS on THIS board. Not only does his actual post contain barely a single line of text, but his array of sig images brings his entry to about half my screen, vertically. Insane.

Definately using someone's image without asking is tasteless in my opinion.

Typically when I notice other clubs that are using our graphics without permission I politely ask them to remove it. In this case the graphic is Goat's saber, and if he wanted it removed - or if Muz wanted it removed, assuming he drew it - then I would request they take it down. But I don't usually go seeking out this sort of stuff, Typically any club who is c/p'ing our graphics is very small and not really our "competition", if you will.

Asked a similar question on the Lucasarts forums. The answer in a nut shell is the only person that has copyright or reserved trade mark rights to anything Star Wars related is George Lucas. Every lightsaber, jedi, dark jedi, sith referenced is owned by him and him alone. Does not matter if you created the graphic or the story or the club. Everything related to Star wars belongs to him. He is the ONLY one that can demand copyright or infringement of any kind with regards to anything dealing with Star Wars. We are "allowed" to use these things because they have become common place referenced items in the genre and Lucas promotes SW fans having fun, unlike Viacom who owns Star Trek and actively seeks to such down any not officially sponsored Trekie site, and will take legal action against you if you don't.

So in a nutshell, its not our lightsaber, its our fan created image of a lightsaber, we have no rights to it, we are using it at Lucas' pleasure. They equated it with taking a picture of a red corvette and writing your name on it, then seeing the same picture with someone else's name written on it. Can't claim to own the rights to the red corvette picture regardless of how you customize it. GM owns the corvette likeness not us.


Just was I was told.

*cough* Not quite true, Eludjae. In another corner of the internet, I'm a member of a Star Trek RP group, who use lots of canon material and made up a lot more besides. We've never had a problem of any sort with Paramount. I'd be surprised if they knew we existed, in fact. Kinda like Lucas knowing about the DJB. Bravo Fleet's been around for... 6 years, maybe 7, and insofar as I know, nothing's been said to us about anything, especially since we make no money off the group at all.

I'd have to totally disagree. Art created by an artist is theirs, and theirs alone unless they choose to share it.

Exactly, Macaroni.

<3 topics revived after like six months of inactivity

And nothing Star Wars I create belongs to Lucas

Yeah. If an artist creates a graphic of a lightsaber, he's not claiming ownership of the lightsaber idea - just a visual depiction of a lightsaber. Same with fictions or whatnot.

I'm no law expert, so I'll wait for Kir or Jac to answer this in detail, but shortly perusing the US Copyright office I found:

Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

*

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
*

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
*

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
*

To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
*

To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
*

In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.


Under these basic rules, using my limited legalese, I would determine that the Lightsaber is a copywritten artistic work and that the artists including the Herald are creating derivative works of the Lightsaber model, thus infringing on the Lucasarts Copyright. Jac/Kir: am I wrong in this line of thinking?

Now, if Muz, Shikyo, or others created something similar to a lightsaber, but didn't call it such, they would be the copyright holders to those specific works. However, since we are a Fan club and therefore refer to them as Lightsabers, we are infringing on the LA copyright.

Now, people will probably come out and say "FAIR USE, FAIR USE!" However, if I understand correctly, Fair Use applies only if you never intend to profit from the work. Now, say a publisher is compiling an Unofficial Book for SW and they ask to use some of our creations in return for a royalty for those artists. Not saying that it would happen, but it could. And at that point, someone has made a profit on the work that is derived from a copywritten work.

Wow, my brain hurts. I need to stick to taxes

I would think that this would qualify as visual arts.

If a person took a picture of something, they would have copyright of that image, but not of the item it captures. Reproduction of the image without consent would be probably actionable....

if this wasn't the internet, where almost everything is stolen as a matter of course, and it's not worth the legwork to have stuff taken down.

For example, I might not have rights over the design of a corvette, but if i take a picture of a corvette, i have rights over that picture.

Further.. intellectual rights get even murkier still... If Lucas had such a ironclad lock on the concept, why has it been stolen in scads of media? Gundam, Deus Ex, No More Heroes... all have things incredibly similar to lightsabers in them.

And further, Lucas would have shut down the various lightsaber shops that make 'custom' weapons not found in the films. The designs of the sabers he put in the films, however... those he has pretty exclusive rights to...which is why the various prop guys won't make them.

In other words, yeah, we could probably do something... but it's not really worth it to me.

I agree with you Muz, I've always been a proponent of copyright laws.

That said, Lucasfilm LTD. IS going after that guy in the UK for selling replicas of Stormtrooper armor made from the original mold.

Yes, that situation is different, cause the guy is making money on them. So, as long as Muz doesn't try to sell his lightsaber designs to the highest bidder, I'm sure you'll be just fine

Plus, I doubt Lucas knows about us or cares. It's all about the dollahs!

Hmm

ZOMG resurrections galore!

I caught the EH using images I created for the DJB. I bitched and they ignored. Typical for those mouth-breathing ape men. Anyway there's nothing I can really do about unless I wanted to hack into their systems and cause widespread panic.

I won't bother. Use of this graphic is like so many other things, people will lose interest in a few weeks and it'll be like it never happened.

Hey, you know why people make copies of things like ST armor, right? Because even if Lucas put out an "official" version, it'd be horribly overpriced!

Case in point: Master Replicas Lightsaber Hilts. Not the ones that light up, but the 'collectors' pieces. Why are those $500? Retarded. They should be $50.

ZOMG resurrections galore!

I caught the EH using images I created for the DJB. I bitched and they ignored. Typical for those mouth-breathing ape men. Anyway there's nothing I can really do about unless I wanted to hack into their systems and cause widespread panic.

I won't bother. Use of this graphic is like so many other things, people will lose interest in a few weeks and it'll be like it never happened.

Hey, you know why people make copies of things like ST armor, right? Because even if Lucas put out an "official" version, it'd be horribly overpriced!

Case in point: Master Replicas Lightsaber Hilts. Not the ones that light up, but the 'collectors' pieces. Why are those $500? Retarded. They should be $50.




They are worth $50. The other $450 is the SW licensing fee.

I kept meaning to post on this but then I forgot about it.

Technically the LucasArts guys are correct, George Lucas owns the copyrights to just about everything Star Wars, and if he so chose, he could make a lot of SW fans lives hell by introducing them to his legal department.

However, considering the massive popularity of SW is only increased via fan sites (like ours), many of whom make their own Lucas-inspired material, it is in their best interest to leave everyone alone. Every once and awhile they go after someone for something big - I think recently they sued one of those companies that makes Stormtrooper armor, but most of them time they don't care.

As somebody said, it's all about the money - if people are doing something with their intellectual property, they don't necessarily care since it helps their product. But if people are making money off of their intellectual property, they will pursue it.

I've recently started to make some custom sabers from scratch. They're pretty tough to make, considering I buy the raw parts and use rotary tools and other things to make them.

If I started selling them, would I get pwned? Or should I pull a ParksSaber and move to Aussie?

I'm not actually a lawyer, so I can't give you true legal advice - but I would assume that creating replica lightsabers does indeed fall under some license owned by Lucas, so you probably could be sued. Granted if you're only creating a few sabers, your business probably won't be noticed, but you would be running the risk.

If you truly want to know, contact a lawyer - preferably one who has a good grasp on copyright law.

NEGLIGENCE! TRESPASS TO CHATTEL!

I think that calling what you've made a lightsaber and trying to sell it would be bad, But if you called them something else, i'm not sure but i think thats ok, as weapons that resemble lightsabers have appeared in other media.