Are anime pics on the internet public domain?

[evamonkey36]

I'd like to know as I'm going to start a site, if you credit them can you still be sued?

Hey I went into the site announcements forum, that guys got the same name as me!

[HungryCrackPot]

if you give them good head, you can get whatever you want.

[Savia]

I'd like to know as I'm going to start a site, if you credit them can you still be sued?

Hey I went into the site announcements forum, that guys got the same name as me!

No. Something is not in the public domain unless the creator specifically states otherwise. If they so decide, they could sue you.

The same goes for fanfiction, fanart and all other 'derivative fiction' works. They own the copyright to your fanfiction.

[Onideus_Mad_Hatter]

When you get right down to it, everything is copyrighted, heck even these WORDS I'm typing right now are copyrighted to me. But uh, how stupid do you gotta be to think you're gonna get sued over it? What have you been watching Faux News for too long? All those fairy tale RIAA scare tactic "law suits" makin ya nervous? *snicker*

[Onideus_Mad_Hatter]

The same goes for fanfiction, fanart and all other 'derivative fiction' works. They own the copyright to your fanfiction.

Um...actually no, you're quite wrong about that point.

[Savia]

The same goes for fanfiction, fanart and all other 'derivative fiction' works. They own the copyright to your fanfiction.

Um...actually no, you're quite wrong about that point.

6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to write a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more...

From here.

[Onideus_Mad_Hatter]

The same goes for fanfiction, fanart and all other 'derivative fiction' works. They own the copyright to your fanfiction.

Um...actually no, you're quite wrong about that point.

6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to write a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more...

From here.

Oh good God, not this again.

*havin bad flash backs regarding the emulation wars on Usenet*

Yeah, bunch of people back then were trying to bandwagon hump various "copyright myth" sites. But uh, thing of it is, your source is some guy named Brad Templeton, who makes like Al Gore and boldy claims, "You may know me because I was the founder and publisher of ClariNet Communications Corp., the world's first ever ".com" company".

Yeah...

If you'd like I can start slamming you right up side the head with exact quotes from digital multimedia copyright law...or you can simply concede that your "source" isn't any more reliable from any of the REAL copyright myths floating around...your choice.

hrmmm...I feel a sudden urge to go off on a 7 paragraph tangent about "fair use" "law"...*shudder*...

[Savia]

Hey, I wasn't attacking you, just citing a source to back up my point. I'd be interested to hear these sources of yours that throw doubt on them, I've never heard of any so that'd be interesting.

This is an issue that I want to be informed on, so by all means do help me out here.

I do feel that 'smacking me upside of the head' for being misinformed is uncalled for

[Onideus_Mad_Hatter]

Hey, I wasn't attacking you,

Well fine then, I wasn't attacking you either, see how you like it!

just citing a source to back up my point. I'd be interested to hear these sources of yours that throw doubt on them, I've never heard of any so that'd be interesting.

*sigh*...bother...now I've got to go and look them up. I'll do that sometime tomorrow...actually I think maybe I'll just post Google links to the insanely long drawn out flame wars that were had over the legality and copyright regarding digital media that went on in ABEN and other emulation groups on Usenet...hrmmm...that was like 4 or 5 years ago if IIRC...I feel old now.

This is an issue that I want to be informed on, so by all means do help me out here.

I'll post the links tomorrow and you can read all you like. In a lot of the posts I start pulling exact references from copyright law and specifically digital multimedia copyright law. The info will be a few years out of date, but as far as I know not much has changed since then. BUT, for right now I must go and start making dinner, I've no time to look it up in Google. Patience grasshopper!

I do feel that 'smacking me upside of the head' for being misinformed is uncalled for

But it SOUNDS so much more cooler that way! I mean, come on, it's all about the style, the delivery!

...well okay that and I'm one evul, mean sombitch who loves a good WAR on occasion.