Fuel is too expensive. I don't think we'll see an opening up of space until we've developed our first space elevator. It's a massive one time investment that replaces the need for chemical combustion based rockets but it all but eliminates the fuel costs and it vastly improves the safety.
You make a good point about initial investment costs. I think the author's arguments center around changes that occurred after 2002 or 2003 but that wasn't clear in the preceding or following text.
Still, I would argue that the cable companies have something to answer for after taking money from cities w/ promises of faster infrastructure and not delivering on the promise.
But from what I've read, most internet services can be made faster at the ISP level for very little cost by making some simple changes to either hardware or software. (not an expert, so I'm not sure on this)
Pokemon Co. International also has lots of officially licensed 3D products on the market in just the same pose as the planter so just making it 3D isn't enough to make it derivative or transformative.
Trademark doesn't apply here because the bulbasaur image does not represent Pokemon Co. International or the "trade" they do in their various markets. Pikachu maybe, but the "Pokemon" logo is what's protected by trademark.
I agree that Pokemon Co. International is being overaggressive in this case but their actions are w/in the scope of the law. A solution needs to be found where users like this can make these awesome things and companies like Pokemon Co. International can still retain control of their property.
I thought someone had to profit from it, kind of like how anime studios look the other way at fansubs until the show is licensed. But I'm okay w/ being wrong.
That and Pokemon Co. International already sells 3d bulbasaur trinkets like key rings. She doesn't own the copyright on the character Bulbasaur. Pokemon Co. International does. What she made, no matter how many people say it's a "fat cat," is a bulbasaur. Bulbasaur does not exist as a concept, as an independent idea. The idea of "bulbasaur" is not of the same type as the idea of "love" or "peace" which can't be copyrighted
There is no trademark issue here. The only trademark in question is "Pokemon" and that awesome blue and yellow logo. That is the "mark" under which Pokemon Co. International conducts "trade." Their trade happens to be fictional characters and they hold the right of copy over those characters by virtue of their having conceived of them. It would become a trademark issue if someone tried to compete in the same markets as Pokemon Co. International using the same name or "mark."
If I wrote a song, and someone copied it and sold it for profit they would be literally stealing my ideas and then selling them to profit themselves while I did the all of the intellectual leg work.
If I painted a picture and someone copied it and claimed it was their own, then sold it for profit, I would argue that's theft.
Taking the labor of another person and then selling it for your own profit is wrong.
Consider the artist's perspective. What if someone came into your job, claimed to have done all the work you did, then your boss paid them and not you? They're the one profiting, and you are quite clearly at a financial detriment.
I merely pointed out that Pokemon Co. International (I was wrong in saying it was Nintendo, Nintendo was not directly involved in this) has a right to protect their intellectual property. I also pointed out that I don't like their capricious enforcement of their legal rights.
But I don't think it's constructive of me to point fingers and assume a mantle of righteousness or judgement. I'm more interested in finding solutions to this silliness. Maybe Pokemon Co. International and other businesses like them need to explicitly spell out which derivations are acceptable.
But that sounds like making a customer sign a EULA every time they buy a product... I think it's unreasonable to subject someone to that level of contractual insanity. But I also think it's unreasonable for a company to let anyone use the images and properties they developed for anything they want.
Of course even defining a middle ground draws a line somewhere in the gray void of copyright law that must be enforced. And no matter how minmalist or maximalist the copyright law is, there will always be those who seek to exploit every legal loophole there is to enrich themselves. Likewise, in the absence of any copyright law there will be those who abuse that trust to enrich themselves at the expense of the creator.
And so there's the problem as I see it. If you try to find a middle ground, you have to have a legal framework to define it. If you have any legal framework, there will be those who will abuse it. But if you have no legal framework, people will still abuse the system.
I think we should look to the way Japan has traditionally handled the doujin market to handle this kind of stuff. Pokemon is so embedded into US pop culture there needs to be a provision for it. Sort of like if a brand name becomes too well associated w/ its product (e.g. Xerox, Kleenex, Band-Aid) then it loses its trademark. Or maybe it's more like a cover song... Micro-licensing?
Any other ideas out there that protect intellectual property rights while respecting the rights of the public at large to create derived or inspired works?
Are you sure about that statuette thing? As I understood it if they labeled the statue "James Bond" and sold it they would be infringing on the trademark, but if they copied the likeness (e.g. the suit, the Walther, the pose) then that would be copyright.
Now in your case if it was just a "generic" model in a tux w/ a gun, it might not be a copyright issue in itself, but once you label it "James Bond" you infringe on the trademark and you clearly imply that you're copying the image of the character as well which would likely lead to a copyright issue.
But I may be wrong!!! Is there a lawyer in the house?!?
I mostly agree with you. But your argument seems to imply that you think there should be no copyright (kooparight?) law. While I do think our copyright laws are very insane and restrictive, they are still laws and I wasn't arguing whether the law was good or stupid (it's stupid). We need copyright for certain things. If you write a song, no one else should be able to take your words or your music and profit off of them to your detriment. Even though you think I should get "FUCK"ed I still think you deserve that right.
I respect everyone's opinion but I don't see what's transformative about designing a bulbasaur model. I do agree it's cool but that bad ass looking planter cannot be misconstrued for anything other than a bulbasaur. This righteous planter is no more transformative than making your own James Bond story.
Making said James Bond or bulbasaur statue isn't really the problem. The article mentioned that "sales went well," and I think that is where Nintendo gets their legal clout from. I don't think Nintendo should be doing this (though I realize I came across that way earlier) but as long as anyone is profiting from the likeness of a Nintendo property, their sole right of copy gives them the all the justification they need to request a takedown.
That Nintendo aggressively protected their property isn't the problem. It's like many of you and I said earlier: Nintendo isn't consistent in pursuing this stuff. What about all the stuff at cons? What about every homemade trinket, magnet, bauble, or pendant? Nintendo's enforcement is very arbitrary.
But where should they draw the line? What if Nintendo wants to sell a stuffed pikachu for $20 but someone online makes it and sells it for $15? Is that copyright infringement? Does it cease to be copyright infringement if Nintendo isn't selling pikachu dolls? Does it cease to be infringement if Nintendo never sold pikachu dolls? To what degree does a character or likeness have to be transformed before it ceases to be infringement?
I think there are a lot of gray lines here and a lot of legal territory we haven't explored before. I suspect Nintendo may be just as confused about what it can and can't do as we can be. I hope they don't raid cons but I'm pretty sure they have the right to. I hope they don't aggressively police Etsy and Ebay but as things stand now, I still suspect they have the right to.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by shadycrzy.
(untitled comment)
Re: rehash on failed material
Still, I would argue that the cable companies have something to answer for after taking money from cities w/ promises of faster infrastructure and not delivering on the promise.
But from what I've read, most internet services can be made faster at the ISP level for very little cost by making some simple changes to either hardware or software. (not an expert, so I'm not sure on this)
Re:
Characters can be copyrighted. Check out Walt Disney Productions vs. Air Pirates 1978: http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rwarner/classes/legalaspects_ukraine/copyright/cases/walt_disney_prod uctions_v_air_pirates.htm
Pokemon Co. International also has lots of officially licensed 3D products on the market in just the same pose as the planter so just making it 3D isn't enough to make it derivative or transformative.
Trademark doesn't apply here because the bulbasaur image does not represent Pokemon Co. International or the "trade" they do in their various markets. Pikachu maybe, but the "Pokemon" logo is what's protected by trademark.
I agree that Pokemon Co. International is being overaggressive in this case but their actions are w/in the scope of the law. A solution needs to be found where users like this can make these awesome things and companies like Pokemon Co. International can still retain control of their property.
I like how John and Hank Green operate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHp3c9ziIq0
Also, read this: http://www.wwlegal.com/posts/property-in-fictional-characters/
Re: Re: duh
Re: Re: some infringement? no such thing
There is no trademark issue here. The only trademark in question is "Pokemon" and that awesome blue and yellow logo. That is the "mark" under which Pokemon Co. International conducts "trade." Their trade happens to be fictional characters and they hold the right of copy over those characters by virtue of their having conceived of them. It would become a trademark issue if someone tried to compete in the same markets as Pokemon Co. International using the same name or "mark."
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares
If I painted a picture and someone copied it and claimed it was their own, then sold it for profit, I would argue that's theft.
Taking the labor of another person and then selling it for your own profit is wrong.
Consider the artist's perspective. What if someone came into your job, claimed to have done all the work you did, then your boss paid them and not you? They're the one profiting, and you are quite clearly at a financial detriment.
Re: Re: quiet thread got crowded...
But I don't think it's constructive of me to point fingers and assume a mantle of righteousness or judgement. I'm more interested in finding solutions to this silliness. Maybe Pokemon Co. International and other businesses like them need to explicitly spell out which derivations are acceptable.
But that sounds like making a customer sign a EULA every time they buy a product... I think it's unreasonable to subject someone to that level of contractual insanity. But I also think it's unreasonable for a company to let anyone use the images and properties they developed for anything they want.
Of course even defining a middle ground draws a line somewhere in the gray void of copyright law that must be enforced. And no matter how minmalist or maximalist the copyright law is, there will always be those who seek to exploit every legal loophole there is to enrich themselves. Likewise, in the absence of any copyright law there will be those who abuse that trust to enrich themselves at the expense of the creator.
And so there's the problem as I see it. If you try to find a middle ground, you have to have a legal framework to define it. If you have any legal framework, there will be those who will abuse it. But if you have no legal framework, people will still abuse the system.
I'm stymied. What ideas do others have?
last thing
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:383659/#files
doujin
Any other ideas out there that protect intellectual property rights while respecting the rights of the public at large to create derived or inspired works?
Pokemon International
Re: Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares
Re: Re: re: duh
Re: re: duh
Now in your case if it was just a "generic" model in a tux w/ a gun, it might not be a copyright issue in itself, but once you label it "James Bond" you infringe on the trademark and you clearly imply that you're copying the image of the character as well which would likely lead to a copyright issue.
But I may be wrong!!! Is there a lawyer in the house?!?
Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares
Re: Re: The Ancient Tortoise in a World of Hares
quiet thread got crowded...
Making said James Bond or bulbasaur statue isn't really the problem. The article mentioned that "sales went well," and I think that is where Nintendo gets their legal clout from. I don't think Nintendo should be doing this (though I realize I came across that way earlier) but as long as anyone is profiting from the likeness of a Nintendo property, their sole right of copy gives them the all the justification they need to request a takedown.
That Nintendo aggressively protected their property isn't the problem. It's like many of you and I said earlier: Nintendo isn't consistent in pursuing this stuff. What about all the stuff at cons? What about every homemade trinket, magnet, bauble, or pendant? Nintendo's enforcement is very arbitrary.
But where should they draw the line? What if Nintendo wants to sell a stuffed pikachu for $20 but someone online makes it and sells it for $15? Is that copyright infringement? Does it cease to be copyright infringement if Nintendo isn't selling pikachu dolls? Does it cease to be infringement if Nintendo never sold pikachu dolls? To what degree does a character or likeness have to be transformed before it ceases to be infringement?
I think there are a lot of gray lines here and a lot of legal territory we haven't explored before. I suspect Nintendo may be just as confused about what it can and can't do as we can be. I hope they don't raid cons but I'm pretty sure they have the right to. I hope they don't aggressively police Etsy and Ebay but as things stand now, I still suspect they have the right to.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by shadycrzy.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt