FOX goes after Firefly website

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 15:51
VIEWED: 17780
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

PIRATENEWS

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:27 PM

Quote:
Sorry,"leafonthewind.ajjegames.com" does not exist or is not available.

Just move it to another server and change its name.

Keep it judgment proof. Or countersue ("use of this site constitutes contract for marketing services").

Frak em! Firefly Lives!

ZEEK

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
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.

I know the piracy thing was a different issue but it's the same concept. If we want to keep it closer to the topic then think about a videogame. Let's say Iron Man 3 is coming out and Electronic Arts buys the rights to create a videogame featuring Iron Man. At the same time some fans create a game featuring Iron Man that they allow people to download and play for free. Sales of the officially licensed Iron Man game will likely be hurt in some amount by the fan made game. Which is why Marvel would have to take legal action against the fan work.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:49 PM

They weren't using characters from the series, only the setting, so that's still not right. Though yes, that would (and has) attracted copyright lawyers as well, and I'd have to look more deeply into it to understand the mechanisms at work for that case.

This particular scenario is further complicated by the existence of an authorized table top RPG, which the play-by-post may or may not have been drawn from. With a tabletop RPG it's understood that use of the setting is allowed for personal storytelling among a group of people of varying size.

So I can only conclude it is specifically the images used and logo use which is attracting legal action, which I think is more like the "even one photograph that's part of a collection is intellectual property" analogy.

MICJWELCH

Monday, January 10, 2011 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm. I guess a magazine writing an article has to request use of stills from the parent company.

Technically, that falls under "Fair Use." Copyright laws are entirely different if you're doing something either for commentary or parody purposes. The point of that is mostly to make sure that news programs can report without having to clear everything first. Why parodies are included is a bit of a mystery, but it means that "Mosquito" will probably never have any legal issues, while "Browncoats: Redemption" had to jump through a lot of hoops. Requesting stills is done as a courtesy more than anything, but it also means that they may get higher quality images.

As a side note, this kind of thing is exactly why Freedom is no longer a Firefly fan film.

"Always be yourself. Unless You suck." - Joss Whedon

FOLLOWMAL

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:45 PM

It's a shame to lose a site to Fox again...but I understand the laws they apply to it. Still doesn't mean I think it's right though.

:(

TENTHCREWMEMBER

Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:27 PM

[quote=thevoiceinmyhead]

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?

Oh, I remember this. Many of us got letters and threats, but it was 11th Hour who really got assaulted. Ultimately it all worked out, but I have to agree with most people who wonder "YTF does FOX even care now?" I mean, at some point it becomes part of our culture (I guess legally they still retain the rights). But I guess they are bored since most of the programming on that network is crap anyway. I think they are still just bitter that they tried to destroy something special, and it refuses to die.

We're too damn pretty to die. Sorry to disappoint you FOX.

TCM

STORYMARK

Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:38 PM

It's amazing.... people don't read.

As explained above, if they don't pursue it, it endangers their legal position on other copyrights. Just the way it is.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIKA56

Friday, January 14, 2011 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
It's amazing.... people don't read.

As explained above, if they don't pursue it, it endangers their legal position on other copyrights. Just the way it is.

In that case they could have granted permission for the site to use the logos etc. That could have been done without prejudice to their copyright ownership surely?

Zebadiah Sika (XO Dragonfly-class pirate vessel "Shadow", LOTW)

11THHOUR

Friday, January 14, 2011 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TenthCrewMember:
Quote:
Originally posted by thevoiceinmyhead:
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?"

Oh, I remember this. Many of us got letters and threats, but it was 11th Hour who really got assaulted. Ultimately it all worked out, but I have to agree with most people who wonder "YTF does FOX even care now?" I mean, at some point it becomes part of our culture (I guess legally they still retain the rights). But I guess they are bored since most of the programming on that network is crap anyway. I think they are still just bitter that they tried to destroy something special, and it refuses to die.

We're too damn pretty to die. Sorry to disappoint you FOX.

TCM

Just for clarification... it was not 20th Century Fox that initiated the action against my Cafe Press shop, rather it was a law firm working for Universal Studios. From what I understand this law firm was recently hired by Universal (usually they did things in-house) and were trying to demonstrate their effectiveness at ferreting out copyright infringement. Problem is, the law firm was unaware of the relationship Universal encouraged and worked with the fans to help promote the movie Serenity. Also the law firm went after my Cafe Press shop and ALL of my designs are original, no official graphics or characters were incorporated into the designs. It isn't just respect for official copyright ownership, it's also artistic integrity not to rip off the designs of others. I can do my own art thank-you-very-much.

It's really a long, long story with a lot more to it, but in the end through the awesome support of the Browncoats, and even some very official type folks associated with Firefly/Serenity, it came to light that the law firm's case was not particularly strong and would end up causing an embarrassment to Universal and a terrible PR story. In the end, the law firm did not request removal of any of my designs, but they did request removal of any written references to the movie Serenity. But that's the difference between how a law firm sees something, and a fan. I put the references in some of the product descriptions for humor and also as part of helping to promote the movie. The law firm saw those references as trying to pass the items off as official Serenity promotion items. Lawyers, they so often attribute the most negative motivations to someone's actions... sheesh...

20th Century Fox hasn't really done that much with their Firefly licensing rights. Pity, because they missed out on years of creating products (as long as they were well done) that fans are eager to buy, and this activity also helps keeps Firefly alive and selling the DVDs. Guess they didn't think the financial return would be worth the investment, or something. Who knows... but the rumor is their rights run out next year, and things could get very interesting after that...

11th Hour

P.S.
And for anyone who might wonder, because the question has been asked before, the web banner I made does incorporate official images... and it also happens to be the winning banner from a contest conducted with Universal's blessing back-in-the-day on their Serenity message board. Things were more fun when the studios saw the benefits of working with the fans.

>>>}———————————————)))======<[]>======(((———————————————{<<<

"Because teenage pranks are fun when you're about to die!" - Hoban Washburne

11th Hour Firefly & Serenity official and fan art: http://www.11thhourart.com

Cafe Press Shop ~ http://www.cafepress.com/11thhourart

Spread the word today ~ Give the gift of Firefly: http://www.apple.com/itunes

http://www.11thhourart.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/11th
hourar

SPACEJANITOR

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:16 AM

Fox saves their lawyers for people who threaten to make money off the props that Fox chooses not to make, such as Serenity Gear.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE