FOX goes after Firefly website

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 15:51
VIEWED: 17780
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

THEVOICEINMYHEAD

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:11 AM

I have been playing on the site for years, my own self. Has everyone forgotten when FOX went after the people that were making t-shirts and stuff a few years back, because they found out that they could make a dollar off of something that they had let drop and not bothered with it? or is everyone too new to remember?

Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

Browncoats are forever

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by thevoiceinmyhead:
Has everyone forgotten when FOX went after the people that were making t-shirts and stuff a few years back, because they found out that they could make a dollar off of something that they had let drop and not bothered with it? or is everyone too new to remember?

I remember Universal filing a suit over a misunderstanding about the Serenity logo on certain versions of EleventhHour's shirts; they thought her references to "Serenity swirl emblems" were about the actual logo rather than something she designed herself, and that infringement had occurred. I remember it very well. The suit was dropped, if you remember that. Her store remained open for quite some time after until she chose to close it down.

I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

THEVOICEINMYHEAD

Monday, January 10, 2011 9:21 AM

there was much more to it than that, and a number of people were affected

Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

Browncoats are forever

ZEEK

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:55 PM

I had a temp job in a trademark lawyer's office when I was in college. From what I understood they have to go after anyone they find using their trademark or they're basically giving up their rights to it. Something like if it can be shown in court that they knew about others using it and they did nothing to stop it then anyone can use it from there on out.

So, just because a fan site isn't doing them harm they can't then turn around and go after a tv show or something who uses their stuff. Also in this case I think it is directly harmful. If they licensed their logo on such to an RPG company for an official game then they have an obligation to that RPG company. They can't charge them for something they let others use for free.

So, you may consider the actions evil but it's the general system at fault. Not just Fox.

I'm no lawyer though. So, all that may just be my misunderstanding of what trademark lawyers do.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 10, 2011 3:54 PM

I guess it's all dependent on whether the fansite has enough money to front a lawyer or wants to pay a few thousand for the sake of keeping up their pasttime. Probably it's just too expensive to fight it.

Unless... You mean you think this leaf on the wind site had posted rules directly from the player's manual and handbook for the RPGs? In that event they might also have a case, though it would be Universal and Margaret Weis Productions filing suit instead of Fox.

Trademark images could prompt a lawsuit, but it still doesn't make sense to me that you could define any of that as damages unless money was involved.

ZEEK

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:11 PM

It would damage the business of any officially licensed products.

Think of it like pirating a movie. You might have gotten that pirated movie for free but there are still damages. Just because no money changed hands doesn't make it ok.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:49 PM

Hmm. I guess a magazine writing an article has to request use of stills from the parent company.

Still seems weird, since my mind does not equate a still to the entirety of a work itself, and it seems even stranger if no money is exchanged. Now a logo, I could understand that, as it can be considered representative of the entirety of a work.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:51 PM

Your analogy to piracy works if it's the handbook that was posted, but I don't think that's the case because Fox didn't publish the handbook. While your initial assessment of the motivations of the trademark lawyers is probably correct, there's still something we're missing that provides the legal basis for their action.

A non-profit magazine writing an article still has to request use of stills from the parent company. Why? Answer this, and we'll know why legal action was brought against the website.

As for the law itself, it's weird, since my mind does not equate a still to the entirety of a work itself, and it seems even stranger if no money is exchanged. Comparing to your piracy analogy, that would be like quoting from a paragraph of a published work (since about a paragraph of a shooting script is, at most, what a screenshot would compromise). Yet I'm relatively sure you can quote parts of a work without facing legal action, so long as you make clear you are not the author of the work. Piracy would be getting the whole thing from a source that is not the parent company.

Now a logo, I could understand that, as it can be considered representative of the entirety of a work.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:12 PM

Found it.

I looked up copyright infringement. What they did does not constitute "copyright piracy," which would be manufacture and sale of a product wholesale. It does, however, potentially constitute "copyright theft."

Quote:
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

What I see is that currently copyright theft is considered only a civil suit issue, whereas copyright piracy is currently considered a criminal issue, but there are wheels in motion to make all forms of copyright infringement criminal.

Which shuts down fans and people who want to buy the products. Way to shoot themselves in the foot.

Of course, we'd also be having an entirely different conversation if we were talking about photography, where a collection of images could make up single intellectual property (a work), or other type of painting or artwork. So maybe this is the frame which we should discuss the issue.

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:15 PM

The thrice cursed Fox strikes again, eh? Bastards just can't stop kicking us can they? They have a reserved spot in the Special Hell when their time comes.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

X.O. / Battalion O.I.C.

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

http://76thbattalion.proboards.com

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE