Scott Kurtz may be related to Bill Gates (Rant and pic)

[Sortelli]

I'll go out with you.

[Evil Jamie!]

YES!
Forget the slice of luv! I gotta keep my figure!

[RPin]

Well... That means I'll have to steal Sortelli then.

[Evil Jamie!]

Hey! Stay away from my man, biotch!

[PDI]

Couldn't you just, like, ignore me?

I was answering a direct question. Why is that offensive to you?

I'm honestly not as upset as you seem to believe -- and I can't understand why you're so upset.

Oh, but I'm not upset. I just found strange that you felt the need to bring this issue up once again when you clearly don't want us to discuss it and people forgot all about it already. Let's not drag this on, shall we? We both want the same thing.

Share da luv!

I have a bad habit.

It is difficult for me to ignore direct questions, and even more difficult to leave what I perceive to be misaprehensions alone.

If someone mispronounces a word around me, sometimes I cannot hear a single word said beyond that, because my mind is entirely occupied with trying to not correct him.

In the above conversation, I wasn't talking aobut the original topic of the thread at all -- but trying to correct a perceived misaprehension, that the conversation was NOT hearsay and rumor. Or that hearsay/rumor means "wrong."

All of which is a roundabout way of saying, "you're right."

I got wrapped up in an old habit, that of trying to be right at the cost of actually engaging in communication, and I apologise.

I actually think there's a lot of open, useful conversation that can be had on the topic at hand without gossipping about others. There are questions raised -- questions of law and of ethics, and the details of the current matter need not arise to discuss it.

I, for one, would like to know more aobut the legal aspects of, say, parody, "fair use", and copyrighting semi-tangibles such as style.

I would like to be able to discuss ethical ramifications of the same without it becoming an exercise in "you're wrong, I'm right."

Alas, I lost sight of why I entered this conversation in the first place. I don't want to be the thread cop, blowing the whistle on a "bad" conversation.

On the other hand, if I want a "good" conversation, the only way to ensure it is to embody it.

So let me offer this: I will stop striving for being right, as of NOW. I will engage in an enquiry openly and with a desire to learn.

I invite anyone who wants to engage in that sort of conversation to join me.

Anyone else may discuss as they wish -- I will consider it a threaded conversation and ignore and conversations that I cannot engage in freely without allowing my buttons to be so easily pushed.

[Sortelli]

Ha ha ha! I live to sow discord!

[RPin]

I, for one, would like to know more aobut the legal aspects of, say, parody, "fair use", and copyrighting semi-tangibles such as style.

It's all good, Scott. I think you'll have trouble looking for a copyright expert in the webcartoonists community. We all seem to know shit about this.

But one thing I understand is that you cannot copyright ideas, processes and methods, only expressions are scope of copyright law. Which inclines me to believe that you cannot copyright a drawing style, since that would fall into the "process" category.

But I'm not certain about this. I'm just as much as speculative as everyone else when it comes to this, except that I took the time to read the whole section 107 of the US Law Code (the one that deals with copyright, for those not familiar with it).

[Warren]

UR 2 EvAL!

[JPSloan]

What a coincidence... I live to discard sows.

I think that parody is vital to a healthy society. It's an easy way to allow discourse and criticism of an event or person without open hostility. Parody lets people snicker about something while they question it in the back of their head. We laugh instead of yell. Also, parody tends to elevate thinking, as well-executed parody requires a degree of intelligence.

Which is why you tend to miss it in low-brow humor, i.e., South Park (which is rife with parody, most of which is lost on its target audience).

A society whose popular culture is brimming with parody tends to engender a population who is constantly evaluating and questioning the world around them. I would much prefer such a society to one which accepts what happens to them and what the government and/or religious establishment hands them as granted.

[PDI]

I, for one, would like to know more aobut the legal aspects of, say, parody, "fair use", and copyrighting semi-tangibles such as style.

It's all good, Scott. I think you'll have trouble looking for a copyright expert in the webcartoonists community. We all seem to know shit about this.

But one thing I understand is that you cannot copyright ideas, processes and methods, only expressions are scope of copyright law. Which inclines me to believe that you cannot copyright a drawing style, since that would fall into the "process" category.

But I'm not certain about this. I'm just as much as speculative as everyone else when it comes to this, except that I took the time to read the whole section 107 of the US Law Code (the one that deals with copyright, for those not familiar with it).

"Scix," please.

Yeah, I read the gov't pamphlet on copyright when I first started writing, and I still don't know for sure. I think it's beyond a simple reading of the code and into legal precedent zone.

Which is nearly impossible for a lay person to fathom.

It almost seems like it would be a good idea for 100 or so comickers to pitch in and hire a copyright lawyer and grill him for an afternoon.

...

Hmmm...I think I just might have to suggest that to the group that's setting up the new Webcomickers' community resource. It'd be fantastic to finally have some definitive answers to some long-standing questions the community has had.

Because honestly, I think we're all working from an urban legend-level of information.

[PDI]

What a coincidence... I live to discard sows.

I think that parody is vital to a healthy society. It's an easy way to allow discourse and criticism of an event or person without open hostility. Parody lets people snicker about something while they question it in the back of their head. We laugh instead of yell. Also, parody tends to elevate thinking, as well-executed parody requires a degree of intelligence.

Which is why you tend to miss it in low-brow humor, i.e., South Park (which is rife with parody, most of which is lost on its target audience).

A society whose popular culture is brimming with parody tends to engender a population who is constantly evaluating and questioning the world around them. I would much prefer such a society to one which accepts what happens to them and what the government and/or religious establishment hands them as granted.

I have always felt that if there was any doubt, parody should be upheld.

...

That was an awkward sentence. P'haps it's time for bed.

...

What I mean to say is that if there is a case before the courts where something might be copyright infringement and it might be parody, it would be better to err on the side of protecting parody.

[RPin]

"Scix," please.

Oops, sorry. Like any brazilian, I like to adress people by their first names. I hope I didn't offend you.

It almost seems like it would be a good idea for 100 or so comickers to pitch in and hire a copyright lawyer and grill him for an afternoon.

Hard suggested that webcomic artists started a common fund to protect their interests not so long ago. Nobody seemed to share the idea, tho.

Hmmm...I think I just might have to suggest that to the group that's setting up the new Webcomickers' community resource. It'd be fantastic to finally have some definitive answers to some long-standing questions the community has had.

Because honestly, I think we're all working from an urban legend-level of information.

Ever since the Comictastic issue broke up, I've been looking for a definitive answer to the question wether comic-rippers do or do not violate copyright. I'm tired of the bullshit people say without backing up their arguments, so I took the time to read the WIPO treaty as well, and it clearly states that any creator is allowed by law to employ anti-circunvention measures in order to prevent unsolicited displaying of their content over the internet, and that each and any way to prevent or disable those anti-circumvention measures constitute copyright infringment.

Still, until we get a lawyer to confirm this, we're all back where we started. We really need someone who understands copyright to clear issues like those for us. Aren't any webcomickers who also study law out there?

[PDI]

Hard was one of the blokes I intend tot alk to.

[Chaos Cricket]

Lord, Copyright law is a huge can of worms. Anyone remember the Penny Arcade/American Greetings fiasco last year? I've noticed the comic that was over still isn't in their archives. I still think that's one of the classic (if you'll pardon the use of the term) parody/fair use cases in webcomics. It's the sort of issue that really needs to be addressed in a clear manner for the sake of the whole community, I think. Granted, I myself don't know where to draw the line with parody and fair use or copyright stuff, but it's something we should probably all know about.

[RPin]

Granted, I myself don't know where to draw the line with parody and fair use or copyright stuff, but it's something we should probably all know about.

Let me try to do some contribution here, then.

Parody is one of the uses protected (under certain circunstances, not every parody, mind you) by the fair use law. What happens with fair use is that the less an use of a work is likely to affect it negatively, the closer you get to declare said use is fair.

What rules the decision wether a certain use is fair is a combination of four factors, being them character (what I'm going to do with the work), nature (what is the work I'm going to use), amount (how much of the work I 'm going to use) and effect (how much my work will affect the original work).

In case of Penny Arcade, even thought it was legitimate parody, American Greetings probably considered it could be harmful to their characters on some way. If a judge decided that your parody can affect the marketing ability of the work you're using, then the use wasn't fair.

[Chaos Cricket]

The funny thing was, the PA comic wasn't likely to have any effect on the marketability of the character. The sort of people who'd buy Strawberry Shortcake stuff aren't the same sort of people who read PA. On the other hand, I can see why they'd still want to take down the comic just to keep from getting a large corporation pissed off at them (though I'm still curious how they even found out about the comic).

[Warren]

The funny thing was, the PA comic wasn't likely to have any effect on the marketability of the character. The sort of people who'd buy Strawberry Shortcake stuff aren't the same sort of people who read PA. On the other hand, I can see why they'd still want to take down the comic just to keep from getting a large corporation pissed off at them (though I'm still curious how they even found out about the comic).

How would your ever hear of Penny Arcade?

[RPin]

The funny thing was, the PA comic wasn't likely to have any effect on the marketability of the character. The sort of people who'd buy Strawberry Shortcake stuff aren't the same sort of people who read PA. On the other hand, I can see why they'd still want to take down the comic just to keep from getting a large corporation pissed off at them (though I'm still curious how they even found out about the comic).

PA is very popular, it's not a surprise. And you see Chuck, that's the bad thing about fair use - it's completely subjective.

Up to this date there are no formal ways to decide over fair use other than the four factor rule. If you look for examples, you'll see many conflicting cases, uses that you would consider fair and were decided against, and the opposite as well. It's always up to the judge's end to decide over it, and generally the one with the best attorney wins the case.

The fair use rule only exists because copyright law as it is is extremely uptight. If law was more open regarding the use of one's content, there wouldn't be a place for worries about fair use and what-not.

[CJBurgandy]

The funny thing was, the PA comic wasn't likely to have any effect on the marketability of the character. The sort of people who'd buy Strawberry Shortcake stuff aren't the same sort of people who read PA. On the other hand, I can see why they'd still want to take down the comic just to keep from getting a large corporation pissed off at them (though I'm still curious how they even found out about the comic).

what? I'll have you know, I'm a fan of both Strawberry Shortcake and PA. In fact, I still have that comic saved to my hard drive....

[RPin]

what? I'll have you know, I'm a fan of both Strawberry Shortcake and PA. In fact, I still have that comic saved to my hard drive....

From time to time I still spot said comic on someone's blog.