Welcome to the most fun website in the world!
|
BlogBelow are the last blogs of this player. You can also post comments or subscribe.
|
| DR • Copyright and Crediting |
| This is from the blog series Designer Rant that I wrote on a site that shall not be named and has been re-edited to fit VP (because why not post it here as well, it's not like designing is something this universal). Please keep in mind, that this is no invitation to talk about the primary source of this posts (I don't want the mods to delete this blog) and that while some of the topics or specific examples might not be completely true or fitting for VP, they certainly can be found on pixel based dress-up games and thus I think them important to get mentioned in the context of VP as well. So, basically, this is designer content but make it commentary from my angry and frustrated mind. (Also thinking about publishing my tutorials I made because some of them just look fucking amazing.) Welcome guys, I hope you're ready for some heavy topics and legal talk. There is no way we can get around this. There is occasionally uproar in the online community regarding copyright issues and the importance of crediting and how that ties in with pixel based dress-up games like VP. Now, let's make no mistake, VP definitely has a devil may care attitude and openly encourages its designers to infringe on copyright for the sake of pushing sales for the MCW. (I mean, those who remember those really fancy themed months where we were all in the throes of Winx and W.I.T.C.H. and The Witcher and just fricking Disney all over?) But legally speaking ... those could get VP into a lot of trouble. No worries for us designers though, we don't own the designs anymore after uploading them and would not have to face any legal repercussions - especially considering we don't have any way of deciding (officially) where those copyright infringing designs may be used. (There is kind of legal grey area in them being just accessible in the shop - kinda, not really - but if they're MCW rewards, they definitely break the law.) But this also brings into question what is allowed and how would it work with properly crediting the original creator? Copyright, intellectual property, trademarks - WTF is that even? W h a t i s c o p y r i g h t ? Let's start with the basics. Copyright is the term we use when we talk about the protection of intellectual property. But that's actually a bit wrong. Copyright is a specific kind of intellectual property. Intellectual property (short IP) is the umbrella term for "intangible creations of the human intellect". That's a bunch of big words for saying that it's ideas and concepts drafted up by the human mind that can't be touched nor do they deplete after "use". No need to get into the nitty gritty, let's just talk about the two examples of IP that relate to the designer work on pixel based dress-up games. One of them is copyright. Copyright gives its owner the exclusive rights to a creative work. What exactly the law defines to be a creative work depends a lot on the national law of a country. Generally speaking this usually means it has to be something thought out and distinct and it has to have a creative value (yes, it's lawyers deciding on what is creative, there are flaws in the system and the irony is not lost on me). Copyright usually expires around 70 years after the creator died (European laws). Now, fun fact: The owner of the copyright does not have to be the creator. But that's not really important for us, it's just nice to know. So, to give a few examples of things that are copyrighted: - art in general (that means any form of visual art, be it drawing, statues, photography) - music pieces - artistic texts (so basically any form of text that has an artistic and personal purpose eg recipes don't count - the way a recipe is written down and presented is, but the recipe itself (the ingredients and preparation steps) is not) - characters (most noteably book / movie / comic characters, but also characters like Drag Queens and Kings and other artistic personas (which ... I mean in theory Lady Gaga would fall under that since it's a persona crafted by Stefanie Germanotta, but artists usually don't count as copyright protected - it's difficult in that case). T r a d e m a r k s a n d t r a d e d r e s s e s - b e c a u s e w h y n o t m a k e i t c o m p l i c a t e d But copyright is not the only form of IP that designers need to be mindful of. The other more important part is trademark and trade dress. Trademark is rather simple and easy to explain: it's logos that help identify the brand owners. Trademarks usually come in handy when it comes to licensing deals. Best example: whenever a new Star Wars movie drops, many companies will work out deals with Lucasfilm (which now belongs to Disney, so with Disney) to use the characters and other aspects of the world created by George Lucas. Legit partnerships can be recognised by the use of the trademark (aka the logo associated with the brand/franchise). Of course this only works in a perfect world where there are no fakes and scams, but let's pretend the world is perfect for this example. A trade dress is the form of IP you can actually find in fashion. Because in the fashion industry, many things don't really get recognised as distinct art. It would be pretty difficult if someone were to hold all legal ownership of the pattern for pants. Could you imagine? No other company would be allowed to make pants without their accord. This is why clothes are deemed functional and are excluded from copyright laws. But there are a few exceptions to the rule. To explain the difference of a trademark and a trade dress: The Louis Vuitton logo is a trademark. It identifies the brand. But the pattern they have on their clothes made up by the logo is a trade dress (just like the Burberry tartan is) since it identifies the item as being a Louis Vuitton design but it's not inherent to all Louis Vuitton designs in that form. It is pretty difficult to get a complete item of clothing recognised as a trade dress. The most current case I could find is Dior on their quest to register the saddle bag as trade dress. As of now, anyone can make a handbag in the design of the Dior saddle bag and it would be all right. As long as they don't put the Dior logo on it, anyone can just make and sell such a bag. But if Dior manages to register the bag as a trade dress, then suddenly bags that share the distinct features protected by that trade dress (the exact features need to be defined on paper for that) would infringe on the IP and Dior could sue. The Wild West of the fashion industry D u p e o r F a k e - w h a t i s a l l o w e d ? So you probably know already that Fakes are prohibited in the real world. That's because they use the logo and exact markings of the original designer item and make people believe that it is in fact an official release from said designer brand. They appropriate the IP of the brand and break the law. But what about dupes? Well, this is a really interesting topic. You see, dupes don't pretend to be something they are not. They very clearly lack the logos or crucial elements of the original design. But to the untrained eye or at first glance, you might not recognise it as a dupe and it might remind you of the real deal. And that's ok, this is absolutely allowed. Occasionally, it is even encouraged - even though many brands pretend like it's not. D e e p d i v e i n t o t h e i n d u s t r y If you're really interested in this, please do yourself a favour and check out this amazing TedTalk by Johanna Blakely on the protection of IP in the fashion industry. I had a blast watching it and I learned a whole lot about the finer details in copying fashion. Knowing and understanding these nuances will help you as a designer to not infringe on copyright laws and get your designs approved. If you want a bit more of an inside look, I recommend the "The Norman Lear Center: IP & Copyright" Playlist by the USC Annenberg channel on youtube about intellectual property and copyright with a focus on the fashion industry. B u t w h a t a b o u t g i v i n g c r e d i t ? If you've watched the TedTalk, then you now already know how the fashion industry due to its lack of proper protection is constantly ripping itself off. And here comes the thing: For all the protected arts you need to credit whenever you use someone's idea or concept to make your own out of it. Not even every creator or rights owner allows every form of use - so sometimes even too close of an inspiration would be considered illegal. But for fashion, this simply does not exist. So from a purely legal point of view ... you don't need to credit it. Now this brings me back to threads of people asking for designers to give credit to the real life design. The thing is ... the inspiration we used might not be the original creator of the item we designed. We would be crediting the wrong one. Needless to say that we couldn't even say in the name what it is based on since the brand names can't be used for things that aren't from that brand. (Remember, trademarks.) We can choose to still give credit if we say that's the level of respect the original designers deserve. We can chose what brands to copy from and what to not touch based on our own moral views. But truth be told: none of us even would need to do that. Because just ripping off a design is not illegal, it's not even immoral. Just a reminder though: As soon as someone of us designs something, we draw it. It becomes art. Now if I make a dress, that doesn't mean someone else can't make their own version of that dress, they absolutely can. But they are not allowed to take my dress and edit it in any way and use it as their own, especially not without asking me for permission. |
Private
Private
Private
0
0
0
0
Block Player
