182 réponses à ce sujet

[OdanUrr]

AlanC9 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

So, for instance, if I wanted to, I could release another book on the IT?

Go for it. Preferably hostile to the IT, so we can get one if those scholarly arguments going.

Sorry but I'm not interested in publishing a book about the IT. Still have to publish my own sci-fi novel though, but I'm a bit lazy.

[The Heretic of Time]

AlanC9 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The Fair Use doctrine would apply.

Not to the names, titles and images of Mass Effect. Those are copyrighted.

Everything else, such as describing the events of a game and/or writing a fan-fic about it (like the IT) is fair game.

Names and titles? So someone could only publish a book of film criticism if he didn't mention the films' titles or the names of any characters? I can see being wrong about the images, but that's just silly.

if it's non-profit, you can publish whatever the hell you want, as long as it falls under the "fair use" law (commentary, criticism and parodies all fall under "fair use").

The moment you start to make a profit however, is the moment you have to get the licenses of the product titles and imagery you're using for your own product. Often a publisher can and will do this for you, though I'm not quite sure about that.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 07 mai 2013 - 07:45 .

[TheProtheans]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Just did a quick search and found out that plagiarism is not a legal synonym for copyright infringement. I stand corrected on that one.

However, the point I was making stands, it's copyright infringement.

tbh I'm not sure you have a point and we have no idea as to what the book contains exactly so it is impossible to say it is copyright infringement.

[essarr71]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Just did a quick search and found out that plagiarism is not a legal synonym for copyright infringement. I stand corrected on that one.

However, the point I was making stands, it's copyright infringement.

Sure..  Maybe.  Not sure just how much wiggle-room one has with likeness. 

Someone revived an old thread of the Daily Show chopping up the Mass Effect likeness to "Ass Effect".  Not sure how much permission is needed with that sort of stuff.  If all he's doing to using a few screen grabs, it might not be as severe as you think.  I really don't know.

I posted only because I saw the error of your description.  It's def not plagiarism.. unless he actually wrote a story based on IT, using their universe and characters.

[The Heretic of Time]

TheProtheans wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Just did a quick search and found out that plagiarism is not a legal synonym for copyright infringement. I stand corrected on that one.

However, the point I was making stands, it's copyright infringement.

tbh I'm not sure you have a point and we have no idea as to what the book contains exactly so it is impossible to say it is copyright infringement.

We know for sure the book has 'MASS EFFECT' on the cover, with a screenshot of the game, and an image of Shepard on the backside of the book. That alone is already copyright infringement, unless that kid has the license from EA/BioWare and is authorized to use those images and titles for his commercial purposes. I very much doubt that though.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 07 mai 2013 - 07:52 .

[Seboist]

AlanC9 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

@masster blaster

Because the seller is trying to make profit off of a fan made interpretation, one that he probably didn't even help develop himself..

So what? If he actually makes money, that just means he was smarter than byne et al.

Being smarter than them isn't exactly something to brag about. These are the same goobers who think EA is willing to risk losing most of the fanbase by not releasing the ending of the game until over a year after release when most have moved on.

[Mr.House]

essarr71 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
]If the writer is using stuff from the IT vids on youtube and he did not get premisison from the creators, that is in fact plagiarism and those people can sue this kid.

Talking about another persons work - and expressing your opinion on it - is not plagiarism.

It comes down to what would be considered public domain in regards to images and likeness.  That I couldn't say how much wiggle-room there is.  So long as the kid doesn't pass off the work of the writers as HIS work, it's not plagiarism.  It has nothing to do with money, but stealing of ideas.

The book - as silly as it is - isn't anything more than an opinion piece. 

Using said work and not giving credit to the person who said it and passing it on as your own is plagiarism. Unless this writer credits people he can be sued hard, I know I would if I did a IT document with my own theories and some guy tried to use my work to make a profit for himself and didn't get premission first.

[essarr71]

Mr.House wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
]If the writer is using stuff from the IT vids on youtube and he did not get premisison from the creators, that is in fact plagiarism and those people can sue this kid.

Talking about another persons work - and expressing your opinion on it - is not plagiarism.

It comes down to what would be considered public domain in regards to images and likeness.  That I couldn't say how much wiggle-room there is.  So long as the kid doesn't pass off the work of the writers as HIS work, it's not plagiarism.  It has nothing to do with money, but stealing of ideas.

The book - as silly as it is - isn't anything more than an opinion piece. 

Using said work and not giving credit to the person who said it and passing it on as your own is plagiarism. Unless this writer credits people he can be sued hard, I know I would if I did a IT document with my own theories and some guy tried to use my work to make a profit for himself and didn't get premission first.

That would be, yes.  I'm assuming he's citing the work.  Seeing as his work is entirely about citing their work, I'd think he wouldn't miss the requirement.  He is 16 and lazy by his own desciption.. so who knows.

[TheProtheans]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Just did a quick search and found out that plagiarism is not a legal synonym for copyright infringement. I stand corrected on that one.

However, the point I was making stands, it's copyright infringement.

tbh I'm not sure you have a point and we have no idea as to what the book contains exactly so it is impossible to say it is copyright infringement.

We know for sure the book has 'MASS EFFECT' on the cover, with a screenshot of the game, and an image of Shepard on the backside of the book. That alone is already copyright infringement, unless that kid is authorized by EA/BioWare to use those images.

Well the title isn't just mass effect, so that's a + for the kid.
As for the images, I'm not sure.
If we come back at a later date we can know for sure or not.

[stysiaq]

Lol.

After over half a year I check the SP section of the boards and find this.

Okay.

[Redbelle]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

Oh dear.

I don't know what's worse, that someone is trying to cash in on this (albeit about a year too late), or that someone was sincere enough to publish this.

Are you kidding?

Go and commission an online artist to draw a picture featuring a mass effect character. Follow through on the deal and there you go. Someone has cashed in from an element of the ME franchise. Think of all the Tattoo artist's out there who have made money drawing a person's favourite character on them.

The point is...... it happens. The only difference I see here is that the book is on Amazon, who is not a small media retail outlet. If the book had appeared on a self publishing website I doubt we'd be talking about it.

So perhap's the real question is, has the written word caught up with line and ink artists in being a viable medium of expression? And why is it that it's a BW/ME fan, who has again pushed into new territory. (probably being biased there, but the whole ME3 ending thing that went down has certainly shown a greater interest in interacting with the franchise than other's I'm aware of).

[The Heretic of Time]

TheProtheans wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Just did a quick search and found out that plagiarism is not a legal synonym for copyright infringement. I stand corrected on that one.

However, the point I was making stands, it's copyright infringement.

tbh I'm not sure you have a point and we have no idea as to what the book contains exactly so it is impossible to say it is copyright infringement.

We know for sure the book has 'MASS EFFECT' on the cover, with a screenshot of the game, and an image of Shepard on the backside of the book. That alone is already copyright infringement, unless that kid is authorized by EA/BioWare to use those images.

Well the title isn't just mass effect, so that's a + for the kid.
As for the images, I'm not sure.
If we come back at a later date we can know for sure or not.

I was talking about the images and the title 'Mass Effect' being used, I don't know what's inside the book.

And I know for sure, because I've been busy in the multi-media business for quite a few years. I've had several occasions where I had to work with images, video-footage and titles from other people's work, for example when creating and/or editing a documentary for commercial purposes. With such projects, you better make damn sure you know what is and what isn't allowed according to the copyright and fair use laws. Luckily, I did have a fair good idea back in the days when I did that sort of work. I didn't want to get sued you know.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 07 mai 2013 - 08:13 .

[Seboist]

Wonder if him listing work on a "theory" [sic] by the gaming equivalent of the 9/11 "truth" movement on his resume will help him get a publishing deal?

[AlanC9]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

The moment you want to use copyrighted material in any commercial way, you have to get clearance from the copyright holder.


I can write about Mass Effect, or whatever else all day if I want, correct. But the moment I try to sell what I am writing, if it is based on proprietary work, I have to get the permission to do so, or it's plagiarism..

So a film critic has to get the copyright holder's  permission to sell a review, or a collection of reviews? A biographer of a writer has to get the writer's permission to quote from the books? Nonsense.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 mai 2013 - 08:14 .

[AlanC9]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I was talking about the images and the title 'Mass Effect' being used, I don't know what's inside the book.

The cover.... maybe. It's not advancing any argument, so I can see how fair use wouldn't apply.

[Bleachrude]

There have been various books about Harry Potter. From its influence on the wider publishing world to what themes the books are trying to get across...

Some of them have *official* status in that they have a small foreword by JKRowlings but others are just books that authors not connected to the publisher/author have written.

These are all legal.

What is NOT legal for a for-profit book is using images without the express content of the creator of said image.

Technically, tattoo artisttry of characters like Spiderman and Superman _IS_ illegal if it is done for-profit (there's no difference between a tattoo and those flesh stickers that children have and the latter will be licensed).

The reason why it isn't prosecuted is that there are so many individual tattoo artists that it makes no sense to even bother trying (if for some reason there was a singular corporation and each tattoo artist was a franchise of said corporation, better believe every company would be threatening legal action).

The kid is using images directly from the game which is illegal.

[AlanC9]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So a film critic has to get the copyright holder's  permission to sell a review, or a collection of reviews? A biographer of a writer has to get the writer's permission to quote from the books? Nonsense.

En contraire, that's exactly how it works.

Really? So there's no fair use exemption for anything?

[Inquisitor Recon]

The few remaining ITers have reached a new low it seems. How could anybody possibly think this is a good idea? EA will have him legally drawn and quartered.

Modifié par Inquisitor Recon, 07 mai 2013 - 08:25 .

[AlanC9]

Bleachrude wrote...


What is NOT legal for a for-profit book is using images without the express content of the creator of said image.
.

Actually, it can be legal. Depends on the use.

[AlanC9]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

If you're using the material for profit, no, not really. At least not when the part in question is that substantial in relation to the whole.

Substantial? A few pics out of a 30 hour game?