182 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...


If I know my way halfway around IT, then I'd guess it is based in its 100% entirety on nothing else but the Mass Effect game. That is quite substantial.

Substantial is measured against the original work, not the derivative.

[Ninja Stan]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Stuff like "Ass Effect", "Mass Defect", Mass Erect" and other stuff like that are (usually at least) non-commercial parodies.

Check your country's Fair Use laws. Many Fair Use laws allow for use of copyrighted material in parody or satire. Most also allow use of copyrighted material in reviews and scholarly analysis, which may be the category this IT book falls under. Of course, for actual legal advice, one should contact a legal professional.

A general rule of thumb is as long as you don't try to make money of it, you can use it (provided you make it clear you don't own any of the base material, though even if you didn't, if you aren't using it for commercial purposes most people wouldn't bother acting against).

I believe that this is not at all the case. A violation of copyright or trademark still occurs even if no money is made on it. Those disclaimers you see on websites posting such material will not necessarily protect the users against cease-and-desist notices or legal action. While rights holders may not necessarily pay attention to little infringements, they can and do keep an eye out for infringements. For example, notice that SNL Digital Shorts can no longer be found on YouTube except on commercial channels like Hulu or their creators, The Lonely Island. Also, My Little Pony: Friendship is Witchcraft, a non-commercial, fan-made parody of the Hasbro television show, can no longer be found on YouTube. You can also look up "House of Cosbys" for an example.

Again, for actual legal advice, consult a legal professional.

[The Heretic of Time]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Quoting literary work falls under fair use, as long as you properly provide a source (Harvard method is prefered).

A review falls under criticism and therefor also under fair use, as long as the review is informative and transformative, and doesn't compete with the maerket of the original product(s).


In both cases you don't need the copyright holder's permission to publish your work, but when the copyright holder deems your work as copyright infringement, the burden of proof is on you, meaning that you have to proof that your work indeed falls under fair use. Failing to convince the judge that your work falls under fair use, and you can say goodbye to your work, unless you pay a fine and pay for the license of the copyrighted work.


EDIT: However, using any form of copyrighted material (images, movies, audio) in a commercial way is forbidden under any and all circumstances, unless you have the license or permission from the original copyright holder.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 07 mai 2013 - 08:43 .

[AlanC9]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Quoting literary work falls under fair use, as long as you properly provide a source (Harvard method is prefered).

A review falls under criticism and therefor also under fair use, as long as the review is informative and transformative, and doesn't compete with the maerket of the original product(s).

And interpretation is a form of criticism.

EDIT: However, using any form of copyrighted material (images, movies, audio) in a commercial way is forbidden under any and all circumstances, unless you have the license or permission from the original copyright holder.

The good folks at Stanford have provided a list of cases where courts have held otherwise.

[The Heretic of Time]

AlanC9 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

EDIT: However, using any form of copyrighted material (images, movies, audio) in a commercial way is forbidden under any and all circumstances, unless you have the license or permission from the original copyright holder.

The good folks at Stanford have provided a list of cases where courts have held otherwise.

Okay, I should have been more clear. Using unedited copyright material (images, movies, audio) is forbidden unless you have the permission or license of the copyrighted material. Fair Use only applies if your work is transformative, or a parody on the original material.

Using my favorite Linkin Park song for my crappy Naruto AMV (home-made "anime music video") is forbidden under any and all circumstances, unless I have the license or permission from Linkin Park to use their music for my crappy Naruto AMV.

Using a tiny fragment of Linkin Park's music for my crappy YouTube video intro (no longer than 30 seconds) for my YouTube video-game walkthroughs is allowed under "fair use" in most cases, though I'm not certain.

Creating my own remix of Linkin Park's music for my YouTube video intro most certainly falls under "fair use", as long as my remix is transformative enough and not just the original song with an annoying reverb effect thrown on it.

[AlanC9]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Using my favorite Linkin Park song for my crappy Naruto AMV (home-made "anime music video") is forbidden under any and all circumstances, unless I have the license or permission from Linkin Park to use their music for my crappy Naruto AMV.

Using a tiny fragment of Linkin Park's music for my crappy YouTube video intro (no longer than 30 seconds) for my YouTube video-game walkthroughs is allowed under "fair use" in most cases, though I'm not certain.

Creating my own remix of Linkin Park's music for my YouTube video intro most certainly falls under "fair use", as long as my remix is transformative enough and not just the original song with an annoying reverb effect thrown on it.

Right. I think this book is like the second case. Except the cover; I imagine that's infringing.

[The Heretic of Time]

Anyway, whether this stuff is copyright infringement or not, it's pretty lulzy. It's hilarious to see how far this little fan theory has developed into an actual cult. It's also hilarious to see how much of a spaz the author of this book is (that little description he wrote about himself, LMAO, classic, pure genius!).

If EA would sue his ass and take away all his money, well, that would just be icing on the cake really.

[Wayning_Star]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Stuff like "Ass Effect", "Mass Defect", Mass Erect" and other stuff like that are (usually at least) non-commercial parodies.

Check your country's Fair Use laws. Many Fair Use laws allow for use of copyrighted material in parody or satire. Most also allow use of copyrighted material in reviews and scholarly analysis, which may be the category this IT book falls under. Of course, for actual legal advice, one should contact a legal professional.

A general rule of thumb is as long as you don't try to make money of it, you can use it (provided you make it clear you don't own any of the base material, though even if you didn't, if you aren't using it for commercial purposes most people wouldn't bother acting against).

I believe that this is not at all the case. A violation of copyright or trademark still occurs even if no money is made on it. Those disclaimers you see on websites posting such material will not necessarily protect the users against cease-and-desist notices or legal action. While rights holders may not necessarily pay attention to little infringements, they can and do keep an eye out for infringements. For example, notice that SNL Digital Shorts can no longer be found on YouTube except on commercial channels like Hulu or their creators, The Lonely Island. Also, My Little Pony: Friendship is Witchcraft, a non-commercial, fan-made parody of the Hasbro television show, can no longer be found on YouTube. You can also look up "House of Cosbys" for an example.

Again, for actual legal advice, consult a legal professional.

the "kid" should'a got permission really, as "Shepard" is probably pretty much ME. Just say'n

(unless Bioware is tacitly admitting this as a canon for Shepard, by Acquiescence ?)

[PsyrenY]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Wow, dude is 16. It would be illegal for him to play ME3 here.

Isn't it kinda low to pick on a kid though? Wishing a giant corporation sued him and ruined his life and so on... I mean, is that who you want to be?

No need to ruin his life. They could just ask Amazon to delist the book.

Now if it was Bethesda Zenimax, the kid might be in more trouble, those folks have very trigger-happy lawyers as we saw with the Notch debacle.

[DeinonSlayer]

This may just be the saddest thing I've ever seen.

[Seboist]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

This may just be the saddest thing I've ever seen.

IT is the gift that keeps giving. I lost count of all the laughs I've gotten at their expense.

[AlexMBrennan]

This discussion seems somewhat academic - do you really think that kid would challenge Bioware legal? Because that could get really expensive really quickly, and I doubt the publisher would support him...

[Hainkpe]

It's an independently published "book." Satire! Love it. I am tempted to buy it just to donate. XD

[estebanus]

Saw this a while ago on the official IT forum. This kid obviously didn't know what exactly he was doing, so I hope EA will just tell him to pull it off amazon and to return any money he made from it. He doesn't deserve starting his life with a huge debt.

[Seboist]

Does he have an account on here?

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

This discussion seems somewhat academic - do you really think that kid would challenge Bioware legal? Because that could get really expensive really quickly, and I doubt the publisher would support him...

Sure. It's not that he'd lose, it's that he couldn't afford to fight. Unless he could talk the EFF or somebody into taking it on.

OTOH, there's no rational basis for EA to pursue an action in the first place. All it would do is make EA look bad. It'd be like going after CleverNoob, etc. -- which they could do, since not making money doesn't give you immunity. Selling a book like this can't harm ME3.

But in practice, they could probably get the publisher to yank the project without much trouble.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 mai 2013 - 10:31 .

[M Hedonist]

Took a quick look at the publishing platform. It's a self-publishing, print-on-demand company. Apparently, it doesn't even cost anything to get your book 'published'. Which really just means they upload your text file into their database and print a book whenever somebody orders it. Also, unlike with a normal publishing company, there's likely no selection and editing processes. This kid might have done a very grave mistake...
However, assuming there are no legal issues, there's really nothing sad about it. He practiced his writing (and probably also arguing) skills and is making some money off of it, too (though I doubt there is high demand for the book). Even though the subject of the book may be controversial, this has brought him at least a little bit farther in life.

[PsyrenY]

Seboist wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

This may just be the saddest thing I've ever seen.

IT is the gift that keeps giving. I lost count of all the laughs I've gotten at their expense.

Indeed - MEHEM seems to have taken its place on the fanfiction throne now, but it's still kicking.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Lol.

That is all.

[ElSuperGecko]

Seboist wrote...
IT is the gift that keeps giving. I lost count of all the laughs I've gotten at their expense.

What a sad little excuse for a human being you are.

[Mr.House]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Seboist wrote...
IT is the gift that keeps giving. I lost count of all the laughs I've gotten at their expense.

What a sad little excuse for a human being you are.

What's wrong with laughing at IT and the boloney they spew?

Modifié par Mr.House, 08 mai 2013 - 10:14 .

[wolfhowwl]

Mr.House wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Seboist wrote...
IT is the gift that keeps giving. I lost count of all the laughs I've gotten at their expense.

What a sad little excuse for a human being you are.

What's wrong with laughing at IT and the boloney they spew?

Mocking the mentally ill is cruel.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 09 mai 2013 - 01:14 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Good to see banning IT discussion has successfully managed to stop the BSN being an unpleasant, toxic environment then.