Copyright Law/Astro Boy...Oops, I said his name!

[stoogefreaky]

The copyright law is so confusing to me but I think I got it. But that means I'm breaking the law right now and you might too. My website contains pictures from Astro Boy...I don't own him so I'm breaking the law? The movies I've made and posted on the net is breaking the law. Almost every Youtube video is breaking the law. It doesn't matter if you're not selling the video.

Whats even worst, I have this hobby and it deals with Astro Boy. My brother and I think we can make our own cartoon and we also wish to post it on the net for Astro Boy fans to watch. Impossible, we would be breaking the law. I already have two pictures from our storyboard on my site. This is the reason why I had asked ealier about who owns Astro Boy. Maybe I can ask permission? Hows this work? They tell us to make sure to get permission before posting on sites and stuff. I'm just an amature. I'm pretty sure the Tezuka Productions Co., Ltd. will say no. Well, I guess you guys can't see it. I got inspired into making this cartoon by the Photoshop game here.

I'm pretty sure the owners of this site got permission, right?

[Latu]

Hmmm. A very interesting question. I'm not really sure of the copyright laws. I tried researching it but couldn't find anything.......I'm guessing fafner, Dr. Frag, jeffbert, or Astro Forever would know.

[fafner]

Most of the time, simply posting an image should be considered as fair use. Creating a cartoon may be considered a parody, and therefore covered by fair use.
This is a very difficult field, and as I am far from being a lawyer, take what I just said with caution

[Astro Forever]

Yes, even posting pictures might be illegal. If I were owning Wikipedia or any official site, I'd be very careful about it and would definitely ask permission. I'd ask if I were using somebody's personal work as well (actually, I've done that in the past).

In practice, I don't think many people got into trouble for posting pictures. I've heard Fox was really strict about posting pictures of the Simpsons a long time ago (don't know if it's still the case). I don't know of anybody ending up with a lawsuit against them though, they'd probably just ask for the pictures to be remove before taking any action. I've also heard of local magazines here asking some website not to put their pictures on the web. But aside from those very few cases, pictures don't seem to be much of a problem, at least when it came to fans websites.

I think companies understand that fans site such as ours help promoting their products. I, for one, would have never known about Madman's 1980 release if it hadn't been for this forum. In fact, people from companies such as Madman and The Right Stuff have posted here to either ask suggestions or inform us of what was going to come.

Videos, on the other end, are a different story. I would definitely be careful about those.

[Latu]

Most of the time, simply posting an image should be considered as fair use. Creating a cartoon may be considered a parody, and therefore covered by fair use.
This is a very difficult field, and as I am far from being a lawyer, take what I just said with caution

Yes, even posting pictures might be illegal. If I were owning Wikipedia or any official site, I'd be very careful about it and would definitely ask permission. I'd ask if I were using somebody's personal work as well (actually, I've done that in the past).

In practice, I don't think many people got into trouble for posting pictures. I've heard Fox was really strict about posting pictures of the Simpsons a long time ago (don't know if it's still the case). I don't know of anybody ending up with a lawsuit against them though, they'd probably just ask for the pictures to be remove before taking any action. I've also heard of local magazines here asking some website not to put their pictures on the web. But aside from those very few cases, pictures don't seem to be much of a problem, at least when it came to fans websites.

I think companies understand that fans site such as ours help promoting their products. I, for one, would have never known about Madman's 1980 release if it hadn't been for this forum. In fact, people from companies such as Madman and The Right Stuff have posted here to either ask suggestions or inform us of what was going to come.

Videos, on the other end, are a different story. I would definitely be careful about those.

I saw the Fair Use part, but didn't bother reading anything else since I knew you guys would come in.
I agree with Astro Forever, videos can be a problem. If you look on http://www.youtube.com you can find full episodes of some shows. Well, they aren't completely full..... They will submit episodes in parts, for example, it would say: Astro Boy Episode 1 part 1. Then to watch the rest you would have to watch Astro Boy Episode 1 part 2. Is this how they get away with submitting these videos? Also Wikipedia says that there might be copyrights, etc on some of the stuff on their website. Wikipedia wouldn't get in trouble though because the public can edit articles and add things to them, right?

[Astro Forever]

They will submit episodes in parts, for example, it would say: Astro Boy Episode 1 part 1. Then to watch the rest you would have to watch Astro Boy Episode 1 part 2. Is this how they get away with submitting these videos?

I think a few television networks complained that there were episodes of their shows on YouTube, and this is why YouTube came up with a 10 minutes limit for videos posted there. But it doesn't make it right to post episodes in halves.

Also Wikipedia says that there might be copyrights, etc on some of the stuff on their website. Wikipedia wouldn't get in trouble though because the public can edit articles and add things to them, right?

I don't understand what you mean.

[Latu]

If I were owning Wikipedia or any official site, I'd be very careful about it and would definitely ask permission.

Aren't the articles submitted by the public? It wouldn't be Wikipedia's fault if someone posted a copyrighted picture, would it? Or are they supposed to check for these things?

[Astro Forever]

Aren't the articles submitted by the public? It wouldn't be Wikipedia's fault if someone posted a copyrighted picture, would it? Or are they supposed to check for these things?

The articles are submitted by the public, but it's anonymous, therefore those who write "give" their writings to Wikipedia. I assume that the responsability would be Wikipedia's.

Some people there do seem to make verifications to ensure that copyrights aren't violated. There is a note for most pictures, I believe, but sometimes it's written that the picture is copyrighted but invoke the fair use thing Fafner talked about.

[1magus]

If anyone ever gets sued or in trouble for posting pictures just because he likes something than we offcial live in a dumb world. I have no idea why companies would not want people to spread the word about their 'product' by others posting picS.

[Latu]

The articles are submitted by the public, but it's anonymous, therefore those who write "give" their writings to Wikipedia. I assume that the responsability would be Wikipedia's.

Some people there do seem to make verifications to ensure that copyrights aren't violated. There is a note for most pictures, I believe, but sometimes it's written that the picture is copyrighted but invoke the fair use thing Fafner talked about.

Oh, I see now.