Character/identity rights

Character/identity rights

Postby Lyberta » 03 Oct 2020, 05:44

Deleted.
Last edited by Lyberta on 01 Oct 2021, 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
Lyberta
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 10:45

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby Julius » 03 Oct 2020, 11:44

Hmm, yes interesting thought. In a way this foreshadows similar discussions broader society will have soon about VR avatars.

There are already youtubers who have build quite a "personality cult" around a specific (usually female looking anime) VR character doing for example Beat Saber dancing. And similar to Instagram "influencers" they will probably try to protect that from copycats.

On the one hand you could look at this via trademarks and copyright i.e the avatar can be seen as a sort of "character brand" (similar to Mickey Mouse) separate from the person, but on the other hand I think most people will consider it more akin to personality rights on photos of their biological face like Lyberta has already mentioned.

As for the legalities around it: I doubt personality rights can be applied to this legally for the foreseeable future. Hence similar to copyleft one would probably have to come up with a clever "license hack".
User avatar
Julius
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 14:02

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby GunChleoc » 03 Oct 2020, 16:23

Looks like you need something similar to CC-B_SA, only that the "By" requirement needs to be replaced/amended by some legalese requiring "This usage of <Lyberta's fursona> is not authorized by Lyberta" instead of the usual author attribution.
User avatar
GunChleoc
 
Posts: 502
Joined: 20 Sep 2012, 22:45

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby Danimal » 03 Oct 2020, 16:38

Im a bit surprised, Lyberta, werent you a defender of total freedom on the internet? this goes fully against what you have been preaching for years now on this forum.
User avatar
Danimal
OD Moderator
 
Posts: 1407
Joined: 23 Nov 2010, 13:50

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby Lyberta » 05 Oct 2020, 08:51

Deleted.
Last edited by Lyberta on 01 Oct 2021, 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
Lyberta
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 10:45

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby DrAltaica » 14 Oct 2020, 19:08

Lybertax
independently organized Lyberta depiction.

Sorry I've been benging TED talks.
User avatar
DrAltaica
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 14:49

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby Wuzzy » 15 Feb 2021, 03:22

The real question is: Why do you want to add such a clause in the first place? Why do you think it will benefit you? I mean, what is your plan with this? This is what I always wonder when artists want to apply restrictive clauses, especially when there's not even an expectation of money.
Is it personal pride? Or is it because you would feel 'robbed'? Or is it something else. Seriously, unironically, I just want to know. I saw so many artists having this mindset, but I never understood it. Maybe I'm just bad at empathy or something. But if you do not want to answer this, eh, whatever. It's not that important.

Anyway, I don't know if I can actually help you answer to your actual question (not a lawyer), whether the "this thing was not approved by me" sentence is still compatible with FOSS or not, I'm not sure. This idea that it is somewhat comparable with the attribution clause sounds reasonable on surface, but I don't know if it would be techically inompatible with FOSS.
Actually, when I think about it, thinking about FOSS licenses is the wrong approach, it's better to look at the Definition of Free Cultural Works

The interesting part is that it includes a section called "permissible restrictions". It looks like what you want would fall under a "No Endorement" rule:

https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_ ... ndorsement

Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.

Such an attribution should not imply an endorsement by the original authors of changes made by others. Licenses may place restrictions on the use of one author's trademarks in versions of the work which have been modified by others.


IIRC, the "BY" (Attribution) clause in the Creative Commons license also ALWAYS implies that the license grant itself is NEVER an official endorsement of the artist. E.g. just becaue you grant someone to use your work under CC BY 4.0, does not mean you also officially endorse the things whatever other people do.

As for my personal, layperson, not-a-lawyer opinion: I feel like this condition you like to add is not really that big of a deal. It's basically just a single sentence that would amount to about the same work as the usual attribution requirement that we all are used to anyway. So, in my opinion, it seems not an unreasonable request. But I would say it more depends on how practical it is to implement. If your request would be a ton of work to honor, that might be a little problem. You weren't very specfic here so far.
However, one practical problem I see is that there does not seem to be a ready-made license for your very specific usecase. In general, the recommendation is to only use licenses that have stood the test of time. And writing your own license is BAD (law is complex, the chance that you screw up as a layperon is high).

Off-topic:

That macOS thing: Heh. I'm not judging. As you (and everyone else in this forum, I hope) probably know, I am a big FOSS zealot. But I think it is not wrong if you use proprietary systems for yourself. Nowadays, I see using proprietary software for yourself kind of a "bad habit", as smoking, i.e. you harm yourself but not neccessarily others (Unless you're pregnant, OK, the analogy is not perfect! I know.). Just be aware that Apple, Inc. is a BIG enemy of user freedom (much worse than Microsoft, actually), as documented here or here. The problem are the big MegaCorps that abuse their users and workers, not the users themselves, after all.
There's a reason why I'm in that FOSS game. It's not just because. I think FOSS is ultimately beneficial to society as a whole, while proprietary software primarily only benefits its legal owners / copyright holders and is, overall, harmful because of built-in control mechanisms, lock-in, legal threats, dominating the competition, and all that. FOSS is stll the underdog, but I am still convinced things can change to the better, but it is still a long struggle.


Also: Trans people are valid. Took me long enough to say that, and I feel like a little shit for not saying it earlier. In the last months, I have learned a lot about trans issues, and I completely underestimated the constant discrimination from basically everywhere. Like, holy shit. I recommend everyone who reads this to up their knowledge about "transgender" as well, there is SO much misinformation about this topic (esp. from conservatives, they are FULL OF SHIT). I don't know what I should link, so I just link Wikipedia.
User avatar
Wuzzy
 
Posts: 989
Joined: 28 May 2012, 23:13

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby Lyberta » 29 Apr 2021, 15:06

Deleted.
Last edited by Lyberta on 01 Oct 2021, 03:14, edited 1 time in total.
Lyberta
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 10:45

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby DrAltaica » 31 Jul 2021, 14:57

Lyberta {l Wrote}:So I'm in the process of creating my fursona and I came to the most important part: rights.

I noticed that most people have "You may not draw my fursona without my permission" on their FurAffinity page and that screams "proprietary" to me. But what would be a legal contract/license for Free Culture fursona?
You can't copyright character. IT use to be on FAQ on Copyright.gov

Characters are concepts/ideas which cant be copyrighted. As long as you aren't violating the copyright on one of the depictions of that character. the author is going to sue into oblivion making you defend yourself from a lawsuit that they have no chance of winning if it reaches a judge.

Another thing. Fashion copyright doesn't exist ether so you can't copyright their outfit.

Thus a drawing, picture, depiction, or written description of a
character can be registered for copyright. Protection does not, however, extend
to the title or general theme for a cartoon or comic strip, the general idea or
name for characters depicted, or their intangible attributes. Although the copy­
right law does not provide such protection, a character may be protected under
aspects of state, common, or trademark laws, and titles and names may some­
times be protected under state law doctrines or state and federal trademark
laws.


[url]I want to put a full legally sound (at least in US) legal contract on my FA page before I publish any art of my fursona.[/quote]
Oh that's easy just put:
"I live in the USA which means, I can sue anyone at anytime for any reason and we both have to cover our own court costs unlike the rest of the world where the losers has to pay everything. So do something I don't like and I'll see you in court."
User avatar
DrAltaica
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 14:49

Re: Character/identity rights

Postby drummyfish » 01 Aug 2021, 12:55

DrAltaica {l Wrote}:You can't copyright character.


What about Mickey Mouse?
socialist anarcho-pacifist
Abolish all IP laws. Use CC0. Let's write less retarded software.
http://www.tastyfish.cz
User avatar
drummyfish
 
Posts: 448
Joined: 29 Jul 2018, 20:30
Location: Moravia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests

cron