Logo

Mercedes · 07-25-2011, 01:44 PM

That is a cute dress. Who is that wearing it? Is that Katy Perry?

Ann Otoole · 07-25-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ame Lefevre

Awesome! So when will the dress be ready?

I don't think Disney has anything to do with smurfs. I don't have my large wall chart of the Disney empire though but I thought Hannah Barbera was warner bros or turner.

Anyway you have to make it yourself and not distribute it and even then LL might not like smurfs mucking around in SL.

**Vertigo Paris** · 07-25-2011, 01:51 PM

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p...words%5D=smurf

**Cindy Claveau** · 07-25-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercedes

That is a cute dress. Who is that wearing it? Is that Katy Perry?

I'm gonna make a Katy Perry av

PROVE IT'S HER!

Caliandris · 07-26-2011, 06:35 AM

You clearly all missed the TED lecture on how there is no copyright in fashion, and that's a *GOOD* thing:
TED Blog | Lessons from fashion's free culture: Johanna Blakley on TED.com

If there is no copyright in fashion in RL I don't think it is likely that someone is going to pursue you into SL for it.

There's always been a grey area *anyway* with handmade copies of Disney characters. AFAIK if you make your own original picture of Winnie the Pooh, no matter how like the original, you're only in trouble if you actually label it "Winnie the Pooh". Without the label, it's art. With the label, it's some sort of trademark infringement.

If you hand-draw a smurf, and don't call it a smurf, think you're ok, from a copyright point of view anyway. Having said that, I think the dress is hideous. Each to her own.

**Joshua Nightshade** · 07-26-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caliandris

You clearly all missed the TED lecture on how there is no copyright in fashion, and that's a *GOOD* thing:
TED Blog | Lessons from fashion's free culture: Johanna Blakley on TED.com

If there is no copyright in fashion in RL I don't think it is likely that someone is going to pursue you into SL for it.

There's always been a grey area *anyway* with handmade copies of Disney characters. AFAIK if you make your own original picture of Winnie the Pooh, no matter how like the original, you're only in trouble if you actually label it "Winnie the Pooh". Without the label, it's art. With the label, it's some sort of trademark infringement.

If you hand-draw a smurf, and don't call it a smurf, think you're ok, from a copyright point of view anyway. Having said that, I think the dress is hideous. Each to her own.

You've got everything all mixed up. You can't copyright fashion designs, like types of dresses, but you can trademark stylistic elements.

You can, however, copyright characters, and you can certainly trademark their names and likenesses. Obtaining a copyright over a character is much easier if it has specific identifiable elements to it -- appearance, personality, so on -- and drawing a picture of Winnie the Pooh and a smurf whether or not you call them such can get you in trouble.

There are differences with respect to fair use, but I really doubt this dress would fall under it. Evidently it was done with permission of the owner of the copyright (it appears to be at a Smurf movie premiere at that) but duplicating it as a knock off could get you in trouble with the person who created the dress (there's certainly enough there to be trademarked) and the company who owns the IP.

Now whether or not anyone is going to go into SL to pursue damages is something else and highly unlikely, but you're off base on the legal grounds of this.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html

Quote:

Before such rights of trademark in characters can be found to exist, the law requires that the character must have developed what the law refers to as a “secondary meaning.” This refers to the legal doctrine that when a consumer sees the particular character, it associates it with a particular source. Of course the best example would be Mickey Mouse. Everyone on the planet knows that that character stems from a particular source…Disney. To the same extent would be Bugs Bunny, the source being Warner Bros. This secondary meaning then allows the consumer to know that when he or she sees or relates to that character, that the particular source is behind it, either directly or through some quality-controlled licensing arrangement. (Read “Naked Licensing of Trademarks.”)

But there are many other characters that are not sufficiently well-known to have developed that secondary meaning especially when it comes to seeking trademark protection for characters already in the public domain (see the discussion below in this regard under the Copyright section). For those characters, the law requires the trademark applicant to show that, through extensive use and marketing and other evidence, that the public identifies that public domain character with a particular source. For example, Pinocchio in its literary form, is in the public domain. However, the widespread and worldwide popularity of Pinocchio the cartoon embodiment by the Disney company would qualify as such a secondary meaning. In other words, when we see or relate to the said character today, we universally relate it to the Disney cartoons. However, there are cases in which the public domain characters such as Little Miss Muffet, Little Red Riding Hood and similar characters were denied trademark protection because, as public domain characters, the public does not identify those characters with a particular source but instead merely as literary characters.

Quote:

As indicated above, a character can exist merely by its textual description of that character. Who he or she is, what he or she looks like, the manner of behavior and other such characteristics can all be described, in writing, by the author. As such, the character may be protected under copyright law as part of the text of that work (see discussion below). Since one of the rights of copyright is the right to make derivative works based on the work, if there is such protection, the author (or whoever is the proprietor of the rights in and to the text including the character) retains the right to make further use of that character in such derivative works.

However, the character as described textually has to be protectable by copyright, meaning that it must have sufficient originality to satisfy the requirements of the statute. If the character as described is merely a “stock” character, there may not be sufficient originality to make the character protectable.

Quote:

Some (but certainly not all) of the legal problems with the copyright protection of characters come when those characters are taken from one medium to another. For instance, a character created in a book (whether just textually described or depicted) is owned, at least presumptively, by the author or other copyright proprietor of such rights in the book. If the book is then licensed for motion picture use, for example, then the rights of copyright in the motion picture are likely to be owned the production company, distributor or some other party but in any instance, generally not the author or copyright proprietor of the source book. Thus, even though the motion picture features and may be very successful in marketing the character, the underlying rights to the character generally belong to the original author or other copyright proprietor in the book. However, because the motion picture in this example was an authorized, licensed derivative work, then the owner of the rights of copyright in and to the motion picture would, at least absent any contractual provisions, also own the rights of copyright in and to the character as depicted in the motion picture. This sort of “dual ownership” is clearly an unsatisfactory set of circumstances and thus, in any written agreement for the licensing of such rights from book to picture, the issue of rights of ownership of the licensed story and character must be essential provisions (among many other provisions of course).

Aribeth Zelin · 07-26-2011, 06:56 AM

On Winnie the Pooh it actually very much matters if its the Disney version or the original book drawings. Those aren't copyrighted anymore, I don't think. [Though I'd have to check, the book is pretty old, but might not have quite enough age to have gone into the commons yet.]

Caliandris · 07-26-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aribeth Zelin

On Winnie the Pooh it actually very much matters if its the Disney version or the original book drawings. Those aren't copyrighted anymore, I don't think. [Though I'd have to check, the book is pretty old, but might not have quite enough age to have gone into the commons yet.]

Nope, that's the point. If you hand-draw your copy, and don't call it Winnie the Pooh you're ok. It becomes an original artwork, whether based on the Disney version or the Shepard out-of-copyright one. Unless the law has changed significantly, according to legal advice I had when editing a magazine, the fact that something is a hand-drawn original, and not a tracing or a copy makes a huge difference to how it is treated legally, at least in the UK.

Also... some things which are protected in the real world would not transfer to the virtual world if the original registration did not cover that. It has been the subject of much discussion whether virtual goods can be treated exactly as RL goods, and whether companies can extend their legal protection into virtual worlds simply by wanting to. As far as I know, this varies from country to country, and type of item involved.

Myf · 07-26-2011, 07:42 AM

The Smurfs aren't owned by Disney. I'm fairly certain they're still in the hands of Studio Peyo.

Edit to add: Sony currently hold movie rights. Ultimate copyright on the Smurfs themselves is apparently shared between Peyo (his descendants) and Belgian company called IMPS.

Myf · 07-26-2011, 07:54 AM

And now I find myself wondering, did the dress's designer get permission to use Smurfette?

**Joshua Nightshade** · 07-26-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caliandris

Nope, that's the point. If you hand-draw your copy, and don't call it Winnie the Pooh you're ok.

But the point is that your point is not correct.

Deca! · 07-26-2011, 07:56 AM

You guys, stop fucking up my evil copyright-ignoring diva thread with your talk about .. Oh.

Carry on.

Chalice Yao · 07-26-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caliandris

Nope, that's the point. If you hand-draw your copy, and don't call it Winnie the Pooh you're ok. It becomes an original artwork

Only if the character is not identifyable as winnie the pooh.
Exceptions are, as usual, things like parodies.

EDIT: Of course it also depends on the country et al.

Edit edit: And while we're on topic, have some awesome alt art:

Aribeth Zelin · 07-26-2011, 08:22 AM

Considering that the last Milne work with Winnie-the-Pooh was published in '27 I think that means the original character is fair game, include for art. The first use of the red shirt wasn't even Disney, but it was done in the 30s, so it might still be protected.

But yes, it is Peyo that owns the Smurfs, I should have remembered, since I had some from before the cartoon.

Viola · 07-26-2011, 08:54 AM

In the UK, copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the artist. E.H. Shepard died in the 1970's, so his illustrations are still well within copyright.

Viola · 07-26-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caliandris

Nope, that's the point. If you hand-draw your copy, and don't call it Winnie the Pooh you're ok. It becomes an original artwork, whether based on the Disney version or the Shepard out-of-copyright one. Unless the law has changed significantly, according to legal advice I had when editing a magazine, the fact that something is a hand-drawn original, and not a tracing or a copy makes a huge difference to how it is treated legally, at least in the UK.

Also... some things which are protected in the real world would not transfer to the virtual world if the original registration did not cover that. It has been the subject of much discussion whether virtual goods can be treated exactly as RL goods, and whether companies can extend their legal protection into virtual worlds simply by wanting to. As far as I know, this varies from country to country, and type of item involved.

I have had to deal with this issue a couple of times at the BBC and my advice from our legal department was quite clear - an image that is hand drawn but is still clearly identifiable will still infringe copyright. So in your example of Winnie-the-Pooh, it's not the fact that your image is hand-drawn, per se, that will satisfy the legal requirements, the criterion will be whether you hand-draw it sufficiently differently from the Shepard illustrations and sufficiently similarly to a generic teddy bear.

Thex · 07-26-2011, 09:14 AM

Screw the dress, I'll take the contents of it.

Aribeth Zelin · 07-26-2011, 09:14 AM

Her husband might object.

Couldbe Yue · 07-26-2011, 09:34 AM

another shot of your object of desire..

Deca! · 07-26-2011, 10:15 AM

I found a whole gallery of her at the Smurfs premiere and just drooled, 1) because her tits looks amazing and flawless in that dress and 2) because that dress looks flawless and amazing on her tits.

**Cindy Claveau** · 07-26-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deca!

You guys, stop fucking up my evil copyright-ignoring diva thread with your talk about .. Oh.

Carry on.

If you buy or make this, Deca, be careful in strong winds, k?

Deca! · 07-26-2011, 10:19 AM

Thank god she color-coordinated her panties with the dress.

Ann Otoole · 07-26-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deca!

Thank god she color-coordinated her panties with the dress.

too bad she wore panties.

Merlynn D · 07-26-2011, 01:39 PM

copyright can be held by the estate of a deceased person indefinitely.

**Arkady Arkright** · 07-26-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thex

Take the dress, I'll screw the contents of it.

FIFY

07-26-2011, 06:35 AM	#30 (permalink)
Caliandris Senior Member 25 forevah! Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: London Posts: 156 My Mood: SL Join Date: Februry 2004 Business: Mediverse Client: Lots!	Take a black mark You clearly all missed the TED lecture on how there is no copyright in fashion, and that's a GOOD thing: TED Blog \| Lessons from fashion's free culture: Johanna Blakley on TED.com If there is no copyright in fashion in RL I don't think it is likely that someone is going to pursue you into SL for it. There's always been a grey area anyway with handmade copies of Disney characters. AFAIK if you make your own original picture of Winnie the Pooh, no matter how like the original, you're only in trouble if you actually label it "Winnie the Pooh". Without the label, it's art. With the label, it's some sort of trademark infringement. If you hand-draw a smurf, and don't call it a smurf, think you're ok, from a copyright point of view anyway. Having said that, I think the dress is hideous. Each to her own.

07-26-2011, 06:56 AM	#32 (permalink)
Aribeth Zelin Just call me Beth Singing along with old music Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Out in the mists Posts: 5,728 My Mood: SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009 Business: Faerycat Designs Client: Firestorm	On Winnie the Pooh it actually very much matters if its the Disney version or the original book drawings. Those aren't copyrighted anymore, I don't think. [Though I'd have to check, the book is pretty old, but might not have quite enough age to have gone into the commons yet.] __________________ Faerycat Designs In World -Marketplace 1- Marketplace 2

07-26-2011, 07:42 AM	#34 (permalink)
Myf McMahon do not fold, spindle or mutilate Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Syd, Aust. Posts: 1,244 My Mood: SL Join Date: March '07 Business: Myficalities Client: mostly Firestorm Awards: 1	The Smurfs aren't owned by Disney. I'm fairly certain they're still in the hands of Studio Peyo. Edit to add: Sony currently hold movie rights. Ultimate copyright on the Smurfs themselves is apparently shared between Peyo (his descendants) and Belgian company called IMPS. Last edited by Myf; 07-26-2011 at 07:49 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-25-2011, 01:44 PM	#26 (permalink)
Mercedes Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,382 My Mood: SL Join Date: 2009 Business: pHeNiX Client: Firestorm	That is a cute dress. Who is that wearing it? Is that Katy Perry?

07-26-2011, 07:54 AM	#35 (permalink)
Myf McMahon do not fold, spindle or mutilate Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Syd, Aust. Posts: 1,244 My Mood: SL Join Date: March '07 Business: Myficalities Client: mostly Firestorm Awards: 1	And now I find myself wondering, did the dress's designer get permission to use Smurfette?

07-26-2011, 07:56 AM	#37 (permalink)
Deca! boop got moxie? Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: (very) Western North Carolina Posts: 5,808 My Mood:	You guys, stop fucking up my evil copyright-ignoring diva thread with your talk about .. Oh. Carry on.

07-26-2011, 08:22 AM	#39 (permalink)
Aribeth Zelin Just call me Beth Singing along with old music Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Out in the mists Posts: 5,728 My Mood: SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009 Business: Faerycat Designs Client: Firestorm	Considering that the last Milne work with Winnie-the-Pooh was published in '27 I think that means the original character is fair game, include for art. The first use of the red shirt wasn't even Disney, but it was done in the 30s, so it might still be protected. But yes, it is Peyo that owns the Smurfs, I should have remembered, since I had some from before the cartoon.

07-26-2011, 08:54 AM	#40 (permalink)
Viola Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: London Posts: 187	In the UK, copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the artist. E.H. Shepard died in the 1970's, so his illustrations are still well within copyright.

07-26-2011, 09:14 AM	#42 (permalink)
Thex Senior Member Gone Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 132 My Mood: SL Join Date: 11/22/2008	Screw the dress, I'll take the contents of it.

07-26-2011, 09:14 AM	#43 (permalink)
Aribeth Zelin Just call me Beth Singing along with old music Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Out in the mists Posts: 5,728 My Mood: SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009 Business: Faerycat Designs Client: Firestorm	Her husband might object.

07-26-2011, 10:15 AM	#45 (permalink)
Deca! boop got moxie? Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: (very) Western North Carolina Posts: 5,808 My Mood:	I found a whole gallery of her at the Smurfs premiere and just drooled, 1) because her tits looks amazing and flawless in that dress and 2) because that dress looks flawless and amazing on her tits.

07-26-2011, 10:19 AM	#47 (permalink)
Deca! boop got moxie? Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: (very) Western North Carolina Posts: 5,808 My Mood:	Thank god she color-coordinated her panties with the dress.

07-26-2011, 01:39 PM	#49 (permalink)
Merlynn D Lysistrata Worked Stupid should hurt. Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 440 My Mood: SL Join Date: Nov. 12, 2006	copyright can be held by the estate of a deceased person indefinitely.

Logo

Site Navigation