fchan

discussion

Why is Vicki Fox yiff a no-no?

Pages:1
1Report
Furvy at 24 Apr 2006: 18:16

I created a thread for Vicki Fox under /f/, and apparently everything related to her is a no-no even though this contradicts the DNP.

The only stated rules for Vicki Fox are no posting of images from the official website. Since every picture I could find was linked to the site, on my thread header picture I posted a picture of a standard red fox, trying to abide by these rules.

Sage left the message:
    "Vicki Fox is © and TM Michael Russell/Vicki Fox Productions.

    You are not allowed to post any image of her, no matter who drew it."

which I cannot understand because a third of the images here are of copyrighted characters as well as characters from yet another webcomic, VGCats. Plus, fanart is simply fanart. I assume all fanart of copyrighted characters on this site was done without permission, so what's the exception with Vicki?

2Report
at 24 Apr 2006: 19:16

maybe the person that "owns" (*gods, copyrighting arguments for furry characters makes me laugh everytime i hear about it*) has become more than just a DNP artist? maybe they've gone above and beyond the call to be a thorn in the side of any site that violates their (*snickers*) copyright? (*LOL*)

3Report (sage)
Furvy at 24 Apr 2006: 22:46

Take a look at Yiff FAP under /f/. Even on there, this guy Rouge2 is badgering us with threats of a Yiff FAP shutdown.

Everybody who reads this - right now - Go on a hunt through the Vickifox website and try to find anything that is related to copyrighting as far as creating personal fanart and exhibiting it. You won't be able to because for one, there are NO CLEAR LISTING OF COPYRIGHTS of Mike Russel's characters anywhere on the site, and fanart is protected by the First Amendment by freedom of speech and press.

I really wish somebody who is knowledgeable about Mike Russell would clear things up about what the hell is with him. If the admin or either of the mods reply, parts of this thread should actually be posted on the DNP because he seems like an extremely volatile person as far as furry copyrighting.

4Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 06:29

>>3
at risk of going over what copyright law is (in NorthAmerica at least which is where i'll assume the servers for this site are) i think you're right.  which is why i chuckle everytime i see someone saying that their image is copyrighted to them.

last i checked, it takes signifigant money to copyright anything and the "poor man's copyright" of sending it to yourself through insured mail is inadmissable. and if fanart was illegal, i don't think that TLK or Balto fanart would still be around.

maybe they're DNP because the Admins don't want the headache of having to deal with a pissed off furry? dunno, but it's lame as hell to cause a fuss saying something's copyrighted when chances are it really isn't.

why do furry artists that do this shit think that they're law experts? if they're law experts, why are they trying to make a living off their art and not, oh, i dunno, being lawyers? makes my head spin (in the LOL-Tastic way)

5Report(capped) (sage)
Sage Nadia#Admin at 25 Apr 2006: 13:23

It has always been my intention to bring about the issues of Trademark and Character Copyright law into the operation of fchan. Vicki Fox isn't unique. There are other characters in the fandom which are trademarked. You just haven't dealt with them in the public eye as yet.

I also have copyrights, trademarks, and even a servicemark under my control. I hold a lot of respect for what they represent. At the same time I realize that  trying to introduce things to fchan takes time and a bit of tact. To many here think they know everything and never bother to consult a true legal firm.

If you have a problem with the ruling, take it up with the owner of Vicki Fox and his legal counsel. Get him to authorize her use.

6Report(capped) (sage)
Sage Nadia#Admin at 25 Apr 2006: 13:27

Forgot to include another point of law for you:

Fanart isn't protected by law when it is of an adult nature. It also isn't protected by law if it has the potential to do damage to the public face of a trademark/servicemark or icon.
This doesn't hold true for actual people though. There are different laws which cover those issues.

7Report
Furvy at 25 Apr 2006: 17:48

Still, none of this explains why Mike Russell's copyright differs from any other copyright of VGCats (as previously mentioned), nor Ozy and Millie, nor any other commercial trademarked and copyrighted character which is presented in an adult nature here.

My questioning isn't over copyright rulings, it's over why Mike Russell's characters take some sort of high and mighty legal position which isn't apparent with other characters presented here.

8Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 19:17

>>7

Well I think the reason VGcats isnt banned is because I dont think Scott really cares about p0rn (I dont know about Ozy and Millie's creators though...).

Most artists dont care about the whole copyright thing unless you do something REAL horrid. I just think this particular author just wanted to raise a bit of a ruckus because of porn being "immoral".

9Report
at 25 Apr 2006: 19:22

(I dont know about Ozy and Millie's creators though...).

last I heard He's living in the blissful land of total deniel :)

10Report
Mike Russell at 25 Apr 2006: 20:18

Other artists who do not persue and protect their intellectual property either: (a) do not know how, (b) do not care, or (c) actually approve of the erotic artwork.

I do know how to protect my artwork, I do care, and I do not approve of the erotic depictions. Therefore, I guess that makes me a rare art producer in this "fandom".

The basic message ... please respect other people's property.

11Report (sage)
at 25 Apr 2006: 22:23

>>4 "last i checked, it takes signifigant money to copyright anything"

Wrong.  Copyright is *automatic* the moment the work in question is created in all 200+ countries that signed the Berne Convention copyright treaty. 

However, *protecting* and/or *enforcing* your automatic,God-given copyright *can* take a lot of money and effort, especially after doing something so stupid as scanning it into an electronic form and hosting it on a machine accessable from the internet.  Indeed, such a feat can be practically impossible, as some folks are learning. 

In addition to what Nadia has said, about 'everyone thinking they know' I'll just add that it doesn't even necessarily take an actual law firm to find stuff out - A lot of the basic stuff that folks in the fandom get wrong all the time can be discovered and learned from the internet - Just try making an effort and stick to repurtable sources (And "I heard that Bernal blah, blah, blah..." on forum XYZ by FurryFox498 is not a reputable source.)

12Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 11:59

>>11
 can you post a link to the Berne Convention please? i know google would probably find it for me, but i'm being a lazy MoFo atm :P

13Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 15:29

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Start there, >>12

14Report
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 26 Apr 2006: 16:50

I'm not sure how it works in the states, but here in Canada, if you do decide to go to court (and ask for a reasonable sum in damages), you;d better not have or produce any A) pedo-porn of any sort, or pictures that could be considered child pornography by one of reasonable mind. B) Copyright infringing characters of your own, including art done of trademarked characters done without permission that could be considered damaging to the image of the trademark, which has included in the past, any characters produced for the purposes of entertaining children or persons underage depicted in a manner that is distasteful and damaging to the original image... so porn definately, but also having a picture of Buster Bunny (or someone resembling the character closely enough) flipping the viewer off and swearing, etc. C) Stolen (pirated) intellectual property of any sort.  Obviously, it's still illegal to steal from a thief, but in Canada, you don't have a hope in hell of making a case if you're a hypocrite to the point of being criminal yourself.

I'm starting to dislike law students to tell you the truth; they make me feel... uneducated when they speak.  By their third year they actually start talking like that all the time.  The first party agrees provided the third and fourth article are observed and such.  Ugh, he gave me a book, which I'll slowly plod through to find out if the bugger's telling me the truth (or at least all of it), but until then, since he actually studies this stuff, I'll bow to his wisdom.  Nobody else I've talked to (that has any confirmable credentials) has contracdicted him.  They either agree, or they aren't sure... but something just smacks wrong of the whole thing.  Where does it stop, and what constitutes a just punishment for something that is usually just a piece of fan fiction... albeit twisted at times.

Whatever the case, I've always found it odd how one artist's creation - the creation of a character concept and image - seems to have no validity to many communities (Anime seeming to have it the worst really, but Furry being up there), while other art, drawings this time, often of the characters created by other artists, and so rarely used with any sort of permission, is protected by zealous fans and artists alike.  Seriously... that's not cool.  If distributing art without the artist's permission is wrong, then it should be wrong regardless of the medium... or at the very least, don't try to claim ownership of derivative work!  Daffy Duck revieving a blowjob from Mrs. Cunningham is not parody, it's self indulgent smut.  I like self indulgent smut, but by that token, I've cut my moral legs out from under me.

Anyhow, just curious, who's Vick[y] Fox?  Comic book character by chance?

15Report
at 26 Apr 2006: 20:33

Actually, theres a simple answer to this. Mr. Russell has it in his head somehow that Vicki Fox is part of some big franchise like Disney or the Warner Bros. cartoons, and defends his characters accordingly. I dont know... Maybe having a big name artist like Shelly Pleger working with him has bloated his ego temendously. *shrug*

16Report
Janglur at 26 Apr 2006: 22:38

>>14

I agree completely to a degree.  As an unwritten rule, many fan-artists don't sign their name to the work, and put the character creator's copyright on the work, to show respect and to refuse profit (even non-monetary, fame profit) from the character.

Fanart is, I feel, acceptible however.  It is a sign of respect as long as it's not violated.  And a certain degree and situation of violation is acceptible as parody.  If these weren't observed, then I would have to prosecute my own daughter for drawing Simba of Lion King.
While the RIAA is willing to take this extreme of a stance, the line between what's acceptible and what's over-opressive is clear, though many would like to think and convince others it is in not.

17Report
Furvy at 26 Apr 2006: 23:12

Mike Russell actually emailed me yesterday explaining his side in all of this. Here are the key points which I found of most significance in his letter:

"To protect myself from trademark dilution, I am required by legal practice to show an active role in reporting and removing violations.
 
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act provides me the legal resources to request web operators remove images or text that are clear violations of my copyright or trademark.

Erotic fan artwork of my characters is not protected under the law. The artwork is not protected as parody. My lawyer says that courts generally rule that erotic fan artwork is malicious and represents an intent to harm the character, the owner, the artist, or all three. Since erotic artwork dilutes the clean image I want associated with my characters due to my business plan, I must be more diligent to enforce my trademark.
 
Other artists who do not persue and protect their intellectual property either: (a) do not know how, (b) do not care, or (c) approve of the erotic artwork.
 
I do know how to protect my artwork, I do care, and I do not approve of the erotic depictions. Therefore, I guess that makes me a rare art producer in this "fandom"."

In a nutshell, he wishes to enforce the legalities which he has bestowed upon his creations, and he is personally against erotic art morally. Why is he so strongly against erotic art of his characters? By information gathered on the site and common sense, I believe that we can assume he's Christian. End of story.

18Report
at 27 Apr 2006: 09:34

>>17

Mike Russell is indeed a fairly devout Christian...  However, the one doesn't necessarily follow the other.  Believe it or not, not *all* Christians are against erotic artwork.  KKatman, for example, makes no secret of her Christianity (it's even been the subject of several jokes in her webcomic), but her webcomic FYI contains no small amount of sexual humor and the art in her VCL library is *hardly* what anyone could call squeaky-clean...

Russel's issue is pretty much what >>15 said:  He thinks Vicki Fox is a major franchise just waiting to happen, and (by all accounts I've heard) has been shopping her around for years trying to get a cartoon studio or comic-strip syndicate interested in her, so he doesn't want anything floating around out there that might damage the character's integrity and make her unmarketable.

Whether or not a handful of parody sketches, *obviously* done without the character's owner's approval, floating around on a few chan-type boards in a relatively small fandom *would* damage the character and make her unmarketable is debatable, to be sure, but such a debate is unlikely to change his mind.

19Report
Wolfblade at 27 Apr 2006: 17:33

Why is this guy a bad guy?

Does this community feel that it is right to tell a creator that simply by the act of sharing their creation, they MUST consent to allow anyone to use their creation however they wish?

We feel porn is ok, he obviously does not. So draw porn of a character whose creator doesn't mind. Nobody has mentioned him being a nazi against porn in general, so as far as has been said so far, he is only out to eliminate porn of a character HE created and does not wish to have used as such.

Looking at this logically, I would think that it is BECAUSE his character is not a huge franchise that he is so strictly required to be on top of its misuse. The larger the audience of a particular character is, the more impractical it would be to expect someone to fight EVERY violation.

I didn't see anyone mention it yet, and by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but as I've had it explained to me; copyright and trademark are two different things. Copyright is automatic, Trademark is something you have to go through a process for. As such, you have more protections and legal recourse with Trademark, but part of what it takes to KEEP those protections is that you have to make a visible effort to USE those protections any time a trademark violation is brought to your attention.

Remember Calvin and Hobbes? And the stickers of Calvin pissing on whatever? The creator apparently didn't mind those enough to bother prosecuting when they first showed up. When it began to get out of hand, and variations of the image started becoming things he DID have a problem with, he found that by not doing everything in his power to eliminate the stickers in the first place, he showed consent in the use of his character in that manner, and so lost his trademark protections against any similar use. Whether fact or rumor, this has been cited as one of the many reasons he stopped doing that strip.

And again, it ultimately comes back to respect. If you respect others' wishes, then when you KNOW, when you see firsthand in remarks or actions from them that they do not wish THEIR creation to be used in such-and-such a way, then you do as they ask. Period, end of sentence. It does not matter WHY they ask what they do, they do not need to give YOU their reasoning. If someone says "hey, I made that, could you not use it that way?" ANY action on your part other than doing as they've asked is disrespectful to them.

Some people don't care about respecting an artist. There will alway be more when they get fed up and leave. Some people DO care about respecting artists and would like to continue seeing work from someone they appreciate. In most cases where there IS respect, and just plain general human decency, one person tends to just not wish unhappiness on another. Then there are people who by their actions and their treatment of people, do NOT have respect, but try to tell everyone they do. These people are sometimes worse to have to deal with than the ones who openly admit they couldn't care less.

If you respect creators' rights, you do as a creator asks with anything they created. You do not make them jump through hoops to beg you to do something that you should do by default, whether in deference to the law or just respect, you just do it. You do not try and claim you are protecting someone's rights by protecting someone ELSE'S ability to infringe on those rights.

I don't see how this guy is doing anything other than protecting the rights he has, and that should not make him a bad guy. Just because someone is in some way interfering with letting you do something you might want to do does not make them a bad guy.

Remember kiddies: your rights stop where another's rights begin. We have the right to blah blah blah up until what we want to do keeps someone from doing what THEY have a right to do. Having your creations remain under your control is a right. Getting to misuse the creation of someone else is NOT a right.

20Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage