[In 2008, I wrote a few posts on the blog “The Art Of The Possible.” I just noticed that “The Art Of The Possible” no longer exists, but I found a copy of one of my posts on the wayback machine, and decided to post it here on “Alas” for the first time. The comments people left in 2008 can be read at the Wayback Machine’s copy of the post. –Amp]
Reading a post on “Positive Liberty” from back in August, I came across this comment from D. A. Ridgely:
And okay, so we’ll always have people writing bad poetry whether it is copyrighted or not. For the most part, copyright of bad poetry at least could be said to do no harm. The world does not suffer by my refusing to share my high school written poetry with it.
But the world does suffer if real works of good art go uncreated because self-interested artists decide there’s just no point in doing art, better to go get that MBA.
On another blog, Jim Glass wrote:
Say that without copyright you came up with a great, clever cartoon and put it on your web site. What would prevent the scouts from Disney or Fox from just taking it as their own, putting $1 million behind it, making $100 million, and saying screw you. Would you go on to make another cartoon then?
Defenders of our intellectual property system frequently bring this question up: Without intellectual property (in the form of copyrights and trademarks), what incentive will artists have to produce art?
I’m a cartoonist (you can see my cartoons here and here, if you’re curious), and the only art form I know a lot about is cartooning. Most cartoonists are big fans of intellectual property, and get hysterical if someone says copyright is threatened. But copyright and trademark, as they exist in the US, have been a mixed blessing for some of the best American cartoonists.
The problem is, once we have a system of law which says “only entity A can publish stories about such-and-such characters,” then it’s possible for the right of a creator to sell stories about her characters to be taken away. This has, in fact, been the rule for most of comics history. Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, didn’t own Superman – and, decades later, found themselves penniless and legally forbidden from selling comics featuring their most valuable creation.
Jack Kirby is the most commercially important creator in the history of American comic books. Kirby created or co-created Iron Man, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four, The Silver Surfer, Captain America, Thor, and The X-Men, among others. Collectively, Kirby’s creations are intellectual property worth billions, providing huge profits (and thousands of jobs) not only in comics but also on TV, in movies, and in toys.
But during Kirby’s commercial peak, in the early days of Marvel Comics, Kirby was often unhappy with his pay and with his rights as a creator. Furthermore, Marvel had a “gentleman’s agreement” with DC not to poach artists from each other, and no other comic book company had a stable of valuable superhero properties to hire Kirby to draw. As a result, Kirby’s pay wasn’t in line with the worth of his work.
Kirby didn’t stop working — how could he? He had a family to support. Plus, by all accounts, Kirby loved creating comics. But what Kirby did, according to Mark Evanier’s biography of Kirby, is stop creating new characters for Marvel. Instead, when Kirby thought of a new idea, he’d write it down on a scrap of paper and put the paper aside. Many of those papers got lost.
Eventually, Kirby was hired by DC comics, and he went on to create some powerful work. But DC rarely gave Kirby the support he needed (they even went so far as to have another artist redraw Kirby’s Superman faces, since Kirby’s faces didn’t look like DC’s then-existing house style). Even though his work remained artistically good, Kirby never again hit the same peak commercially, and his pay was still lousy. As soon as Kirby found work outside of comics — creating character sheets for Saturday morning animations — Kirby quit comics.
If the purpose of intellectual property law is to encourage the best artists to create as much of their best work as possible, then IP law failed Jack Kirby. Kirby’s interests weren’t protected. The value of his work made it essential to Marvel Comics to legally divorce Kirby from his creations (they even refused to return his original artwork for years). The fact that any character he made up, he would have been giving up the right to control, encouraged Kirby to withhold characters during his most fertile creative period — ideas that might have been worth millions.
Well, you may say, that’s Kirby’s fault for selling the copyright to his work, rather than holding on to ownership. But suppose Kirby had refused to work with Marvel Comics. Who would that have helped? The world would most likely not have had the X-Men, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four, and many other Kirby creations. Again, IP law would have failed to encourage Kirby to create as much as he could create.
Probably if Jack Kirby were here, he would disagree with me. But I think Kirby would have been better off if it hadn’t been legally possible for Marvel Comics to own the exclusive right to publish the characters Jack Kirby created.
Suppose that instead of our current system, we had a system of compulsory licensing for fictional characters. What this means is that anyone could write or draw any fictional character they like — but if they aren’t the original creator, then they are legally obliged to pay the creator a royalty for use of their work.
So to return to Jack Kirby’s case. Yes, certainly, Kirby would have been pissed off because people were using his characters in ways he didn’t like — but that was frequently the case anyway. (For example, Kirby hated what Stan Lee did with the Silver Surfer character). The difference is, Kirby would have had no motive to withhold characters during his most commercially valuable period, because he wouldn’t have been giving those characters away forever by drawing them.
It’s also likely that Kirby would have been more successful at enticing another publisher to hire him, if Kirby could have offered not just his own services, but his own services on his hit creation The Fantastic Four. That, in turn, might have forced Marvel comics to pay Kirby what Kirby was worth, in order to keep Kirby from moving to another company.
The down side of this is, Kirby might have found himself in the position of competing against another creator’s version of The Fantastic Four. But would this be such a terrible outcome?
1) Kirby might have been better off being able to create The Fantastic Four, and competing with another version of the same characters, than he was in reality — in which, for his entire post-Marvel career, it would have been illegal for Kirby to create a Fantastic Four comic.
2) Kirby would have welcomed being paid for all the times that lesser creators used his creations in their work. This would have provided Kirby with an incentive to keep on creating new characters, rather than our current system, which motivated Kirby to withhold new characters.
3) Comic book consumers would be better off if publishers had to compete to produce the best Fantastic Four comic. This, in turn, would have raised Kirby’s value to his employers.
When I bring this topic up in conversation, I am inevitably asked how I’d feel if someone other than me started making up their own comics about Mirka, the protagonist of my comic book “Hereville.” Wouldn’t that make me furious?
I don’t think it would. I think that my version of Mirka — my particular vision — is what makes “Hereville” worth reading (if it is worth reading). If our laws were set up for it, I’d be happy to compete with other creators, to see who’d produce a Mirka that readers want to read. In the end, I think that the best work sometimes has a competitive advantage, and will tend to be remembered most by readers.
And if someone else ends up having a hit best-seller based on my characters — well, at least I’d get royalties. But I might get more than that, because sales of character-based fiction are not a zero-sum game.
For instance, when popular movies are made of comic book characters, sales of that comic book go up. Suppose Joan draws a best-selling ExampleLass comic. That could easily cause the sales of David’s competing ExampleLass comic to go up, because interest in the character is increasing. If David is the creator of ExampleLass, then he’d benefit twice — once in increased sales of his own comic, and then again when Joan pays David royalties.
I’m sure that compulsory licensing would have problems. But so does any imaginable system. The real question is, might compulsory licensing be better than our current system? For many of the best creators, such as Jack Kirby, I think the answer might be “yes.”
Way to screw over and piss off fanwork creators.
1) Not necessarily. The compulsory license requirement could kick in after a certain level of sales revenue, for instance, or be based on a percentage of sales rather than a flat fee. In both cases, fanwork done on the not-for-profit model would be fine — and those few fanworks that do make substantial profits might benefit from having a path to legitimate publication.
2) And in any case, fanwork wouldn’t be any more illegal under this proposal than it is under the status quo.
In any case, a good point, and thanks for bringing it up. I love fanwork and wouldn’t want it put on worse footing.
I’m still of the mind that compulsory licensing would destroy otherwise good properties before the originating artist was even half-way done with them.
An example of what I would have expected to happen to J.K. Rowling had compulsory licensing been the norm:
1) J.K Rowling invents Harry Potter.
2) J.K Rowling writes first book of series. Sees some success. Then writes second and third books of series.
3) Harry Potter becomes extremely popular.
4) Disney and other big corporations force (via compulsory licensing) Rowling to license HP to them while she’s still working on Book 4.
5) Disney floods the market with HP paraphernalia and non-Rowling HP-books (milled out by underpaid lower-talent or just plain lower-luck artists), introducing numerous elements into the “customer-base” canon that actively work against Rowling’s plan for the stories (turns out Hermione and Harry are fated to marry according to paid Disney hack-writer I. Shitzbooks. And that Harry and Draco are actually BROTHERS thanks to the three shoddy comics written for Time-Warner by Arty McUnderpaid) and generally pillaging the property in every conceivable fashion to max out fiscal return.
6) J.K. Rowling hardly makes a dime off of Book4 because the corporate-machine has stolen almost everything by paying her a pittance. The movies never happen, because the HP-fanbase has been glutted and fragmented by the works of the compulsory “licensees”, since the majority of every fan-base skews away from “purist” in one fashion or another.
7) Rowling sees only a fraction of the immense success and wealth she has seen in the real world, while the corporations that stole her work “for a small fee” are rolling in the dough at her expense.
8.) Rowling never writes books 5, 6, or 7, because her idea has been so thoroughly violated that it’s just not worth it to her. She quits and never writes another book ever again.
9) Her “compulsory license” fees soon die off as HP popularity quickly goes away thanks to shoddy third-party workmanship and Ms. Rowling never creating new material.
10) This cycle of ridiculous over-exploitation is repeated for every single artistic work that ever achieves even the most modest of followings, because that’s “good business” for immense corporations.
Huh? I don’t get this.
Jack Kirby’s views are only one of many. They have limited relevance to answer the question “what would be best for everyone, in the aggregate?” which is really the issue when you’re making national law. Some folks will get screwed by any system you choose; there is never a perfect outcome. They don’t even have that much special relevance to “what would be best for comic artists?”
But Jack Kirby’s views have enormous relevance w/r/t the question “what would be best for Jack Kirby?”
I have no problem disagreeing with Jack Kirby on his general attitude towards copyright, just as I have no problem forming my own opinions on food stamp policy even though I’m not currently on food stamps. But it seems odd to choose to disagree with someone about their own life. Why not use a different example?
I think that the way this applies to comic books is not the way it would apply to other forms of art. The history of how copyright interacts with prose novels is way different than the stories you tell of how it works with comic books and I don’t think you’re addressing prose writer’s problems with copyright or solving them.
What MisterMephisto said.
The problem wasn’t that Jack Kirby was allowed to sell exclusive rights. The problem was that the comics companies never paid what those rights were really worth, and never offered a fair alternative (“all right, we’ll only buy the rights for a 10-issue run, but we’re not gonna pay you as much”). It was an exploitative industry that abused its power. I don’t think that non-exclusive rights would have helped much for the reasons MM points out.
What you’re proposing is a system that says I can’t actually sell certain rights, even if I want to, and even if I’m being offered a fair sum for them.
Trademark is actually very different that copyright and it annoys me to see them lumped together. With trademark, there is a “use it or lose it” that doesn’t exist in copyright. If JK Rowling does nothing to stop people from (freely) trading fanfic, it has absolutely no impact on her copyright. But if she trademarks “Hogwarts Candy” and does nothing about Hershey selling “Hogwarts Candy”, she loses her rights to enforce that trademark.
MisterMephisto,
Good points, except that Disney would not have the ability to completely ruin Harry Potter, because all of the counterfeit Mickey Mouse stuff would have kept Disney from becoming the behemoth it is.
Mythago,
I think the problem gets even more complicated when you look at other types of trademarks. McDonald’s has a HUGE interest in keeping its brand clear. A compulsory licesnse fee is not going to protect McDonald’s from other people selling crappy food.
Then, when you get into patents, you run into similar sorts of problems. Inventors at, say, 3M usually have to sign over their rights to anything they think about at any time while they are working there. They can’t do as Kirby did and hide their inventions. But, if 3M could not control its inventors, there probably would not be much of a 3M left.
Photographs become even more problematic. Essentially, it could probably only be sold once and then it belongs to the world (especially with the internet). Professional photography might simply die out.
-Jut
Pingback: » Copyright, Comics, and Compulsory Licensing Team Valkyrie FTW
JutGory @7: But what I’m talking about is the non-voluntary nature of trademark enforcement. If a fifth grade elementary school sells Our Students Draw Mickey Mouse clay plates as a school fundraiser, Disney cannot say “Aw, that’s cute, and it’s not like it costs us anything really” without potentially diluting their ability to enforce their trademarks when EvilCopyCo starts pumping out counterfeit mouse ears. Whereas if people start putting Hereville fanfic up on their blogs, and Amp chooses to do nothing about it, he does not lose his ability to enforce his copyright.
I think if we’re going to go Amp’s route, we’ve got to have a MUCH more serious approach to anti-trust and cartel behaviour, because that’s basically what did Kirby in: collusion by the industry (namely, Marvel and DC, as no one else was selling anything like the two) to underpay and rip off the artists.
It’s that intent to exploit that won’t be fixed, no matter what the scheme of IP or not is: companies like that will do everything they can to screw people as much as they can, because corporations are sociopaths, with only one goal: to put more money in their basket than yours. If that means agreeing with my rivals across town that neither of us will pay a reasonable wage, and we’re the only two with movie and other licensing contacts that will allow me (the small creator) to be employed at a living wage, then I have two choices: i can create (as Kirby did) under protest and while being exploited, or I can find a new career.
And this argument only applies times a thousand if you happen to be less than fully privileged in society. I’m a disabled trans queer woman: think Marvel or DC are going to make ANY effort to pay me for my story? And if I don’t go to them, where do I go?
You’re approaching things from the top end, Amp; I approach them from the bottom, as I’m from the bottom of the working class, on top of my other disprivileges. Down here, IP protection is just about the only thing making it even marginally viable for me to be a writer, because sure as hell no government I’ll see in my lifetime in Canada or the US will ever put together a real anti-trust regime with bite. MisterMephisto’s scenario is pretty much exactly where I figured it would go, too.
I don’t see any direct connection between Jack Kirby’s situation and yours. Until/unless you choose to give someone else permission to use the specific detailed characters in “Hereville” like Mirka, you own the copyright, and you can take legal action against anyone stealing that intellectual property from you, whether they call it “fan fiction” or anything else.
Fanfiction != theft. My writing Supernatural fanfiction does not deprive Sera Gamble, Jensen Ackles, or whoever heads the CW this week of the money coming from Supernatural episodes. And various other people writing Supernatural fanfiction led directly to my buying seven DVD sets, a dozen tie-in books, several other things Ackles and Padalecki and Cortese star in…you get the picture.
I don’t think I said that there was a direct parallel between Kirby and myself?
I’m totally delighted with Hereville fanfic, btw.
“I’m totally delighted with Hereville fanfic, btw.”
I hereby announce the First Annual Make Barry Regret His Words Hereville Fanfic Contest.
Rules
1. Entries must be 500 words or less. If the joke can’t work in 500 words, it can’t work.
2. Entries may be “mature”, adult-themed material, but may not in the judgment of the judge (me) constitute child pornography in any fashion, because that’s creepy and I don’t care what the goddamn Internet rules are, this is my contest.
3. Entries must be directed to me via e-mail (docrocket@gmail.com) by January 31, 2012 at midnight or when I turn off my computer, whichever comes first. So get it in before I close the contest.
4. The contest will have two prizes.
a) The “That there is funny, I don’t care who you are” prize for general comedic excellence
b) The Barry Deutsch’s Idealism Memorial “I now regret Hereville fanfic” prize for worst fanfic craptitude
5. Robert Hayes will be the sole judge of the “funny” category. From the entries each year (assuming this absurdity continues) he will select the four worst contenders and forward them to Barry. Barry will read them with increasing despair, and will, with a heart grown leaden with hate and bitterness, select the worst.
6. The prize for the funniest piece will be $25 cash money, and the right to brag that with a fanfic piece, you earned more than Hereville creator Barry Deutsch earned in the first X months of working on his epic, where X is to be filled in by Barry later, after another despair-filled session of angst.
The prize for the worst piece will be up to Barry, although it would be pretty skinty of him to do less than a signed copy of “Hereville”, the cheap bastard.
7. Yes, this is real, at least for 2012, and unless Barry vetoes it (because of his creeping Republicanism). Further years, we will see how this one does.
@ampersand#12 “I’m totally delighted with Hereville fanfic, btw.”
In this case, you have given tacit permission to others to use your copyrighted creation, and if that senario is mutually beneficial (as Ellie points out), that’s fine for everyone concerned.
My point was that you could (not that you necessarily should) take legal action to stop non-sanctioned use of your characters if you chose. Irving Berlin fought MAD Magazine all the way to the Supreme Court over “White Christmas,” and lost only because MAD’s version was judged to be satire.
That right there I’m pretty sure actually is illegal.
That said, were I familiar with Hereville, I would play. Not to make Barry regret his words, mind you; just because it’d be fun. Sadly it’s out of my budget right now. …but the local library does have it. Guess I know what I’m doing tomorrow.
There is something very wrong with the world when fanworks by creators dedicated to emulating the canon creator have less legal protection than fanworks dedicated to pointing and laughing at the canon creator.
EllieMurasaki –
Yep, that’s the current law. You *can* use/steal other’s copywrited material, but you are legally required to litterally add insult to injury.
Robert: ” I hereby announce the First Annual Make Barry Regret His Words Hereville Fanfic Contest.”
Boy, as a humorless misanthrope with no artistic ability, I am intrigued about the opportunity to antagonize and annoy.
You say: “Entries must be 500 words or less. If the joke can’t work in 500 words, it can’t work.”
Do I just describe the entry, or do I have to be able to draw it? I am thinking a circular “Family Circus” style frame…well, I don’t want to ruin the surprise.
-Jut
Fanfiction != theft. My writing Supernatural fanfiction does not deprive Sera Gamble, Jensen Ackles, or whoever heads the CW this week of the money coming from Supernatural episodes. And various other people writing Supernatural fanfiction led directly to my buying seven DVD sets, a dozen tie-in books, several other things Ackles and Padalecki and Cortese star in…you get the picture.
Let’s not please get into a stupid discussion of how intellectual property violations aren’t really theft because it’s intangible or that it doesn’t count if it doesn’t cost any money. (“Yeah, I took your car without asking, but here’s the money for mileage so WTF is your problem?!”)
That said, authors generally don’t do anything about fanfic because they don’t care and/or it’s pointless. It doesn’t lessen their intellectual property rights, if it’s not sold it’s not taking cash out of their pockets, and seriously, there’s not a lot of reason to go after it.
Mythago, how sad is it that when I saw “fanfic” my brain immediate translated that as “blocks of text” and COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT THE FACT THAT HEREVILLE IS A GRAPHIC NOVEL.
Any medium is acceptable for Hereville fanfic, be it epic poem, illustrated story, comic book, theatrical play, Broadway musical with cast of thousands, etc. The “500 word” limitation is hereby reworded to “relatively short”. You may submit your 10-minute live video reenactment of you as Mirka dueling your husband as the troll with both of you naked and in a swimming pool full of pudding, but unless one or both of you are really hot I’m not watching more than the first 30 seconds.
I have a picture from when I was in my 20s that’s really hot. I’ll see if I can get one of my tech buddies to do some kind of animation thing.
They had cameras in the 1830s?
I didn’t say it was a photograph.
So the people who make money off Supernatural DVD sales would be better off without the money from my DVD purchases? Money that they only have, I remind you, because Supernatural has a thriving fandom and I wanted to play too.
Further, fanworks are…not actually intellectual property violations. Take fanvids, which are the nearest to being such because they use the actual footage from the actual moving media they’re fanworks of. What’s the rule, ten percent? So for a four-minute vid (which is a long vid), as long as the movie or TV show totals more than forty minutes, which they all do unless it’s a show with a twenty-minute pilot and no other episodes in existence, it’s fair use. And the vid is invariably commentary of some level on the media in question. The commentary might be anything from “there’s an awful lot of objectified dead women in the first couple seasons of Supernatural, do you think there might be a problem here, Supernatural” to “aw, Voldemort is such a woobie” to “KIRK/SPOCK FOREVER!11!”, but it’s still commentary, again fair use.
You’re talking to a fanwork creator and consumer. It is not a stupid argument, and I refuse to accept your framing.
So completely awesome!
(More words I may regret later?)
Ellie, I’m not entirely sure what you think my framing is. You appear to be assuming that I think fanfic is evil or that nobody should produce fanfic, which is not at all what I’m saying. Fanfic is in a pretty grey area of intellectual property law; but on a practical level, when it’s not sold and doesn’t come back to bite the original author (“I’m suing you because you stole from my fanfic of your book!”) then it’s harmless, most creators are fine with it, and it doesn’t harm the creator’s rights.
Where I am disagreeing with you is that your arguments make no sense. “But I bought all the DVDs” is an ends-justify-the-means argument, and I think you can see pretty quickly where that leads. If I steal a copy of Hereville off Barry’s table at ComicCon, read it, and like it so much that I then buy limited-edition copies for all my friends, is what I did not “theft” because Barry made a net profit off me that he wouldn’t have if I’d walked on by?
You’re also arguing, bizarrely, that fanfic is okay if and only if it results in a net profit to the creator. Plenty of fans don’t rush out and buy all the DVDs, or books, or whatever. Are they any less entitled to make fanfic than you? Are they bad fans?
I don’t know what the “ten percent rule” you’re referring to is, although I assume it’s a reference to sampling.
I think Ellie is referring to the theory that having a large, active fandom promotes interest in your books and therefore ultimately leads to profits. So it’s not just harmless, but potentially beneficial.
Of course, some say that does extend to tangible theft–that piracy can help generate interest in one’s work.
Anyway, I’m sure you know all that. It is interesting, though, how far apart I am (as a copyright liberal) from where Barry is (as a copyright radical?).
http://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4
I think it’s in a gray area. I’m not comfortable with the idea of people just grabbing whatever they want and distributing unchanged copies. But I do think there’s a real and practical difference between making a copy of “Hereville” and stealing a copy off my con table.
OTOH, I’m perfectly okay with people taking my ideas and changing them to make new works of art. I think punishing people for doing that is a form of censorship, frankly.
I think it’s in a gray area.
Which is really all I’m saying. I’m actually very pro-fanfic, especially since most people who do fanfic respect the original work enough to be responsible (don’t sell it, don’t send it to the author, don’t post your Snape/Moaning Myrtle BSDM porn on a blog meant for underage fans, if the author objects to fanfic it’s polite to keep it on a low profile, don’t be so obnoxious that the author has to actually do something that will mess up the community for everyone, etc.).
But the arguments that it’s not THEFT theft, because you’re not taking a physical thing like a car, strike me as both wrong and overly pedantic. If I get a ticket for having expired plates, I’m still breaking the law; it’s not going to get me very far to say “But that was a civil infraction! It’s not a crime so I shouldn’t get a ticket at all!” Similarly, as Mandolin observes, saying fanfic leads to more money for the author can be used to justify other behavior we don’t approve of (piracy); it’s an end-justifies-the-means argument.
@ampersand#27: I do think there’s a real and practical difference between making a copy of “Hereville” and stealing a copy off my con table.
An unauthorized reproduction of copyright material that has been published is a “pirate” copy, and it’s illegal under current law. An unauthorized reproduction of copyright material that hasn’t yet been published (such as a draft comic page on an artist’s drawing board) is “bootlegging,” also illegal under current law. Period. There’s no debate on what the law says about this.
If the artist doesn’t mind the theft and chooses not to pursue legal action (or even encourages it), that’s the artist’s call. But his/her decision doesn’t change the actual law.
Sometimes major studios (Walt Disney, for ex.) will deliberately overlook sales of pirated material (in Disney’s case the old classic non-PC movie “Song of the South”) that the studio is reluctant to officially re-release. The same studio will take instant legal action if one of its current movies is pirated.
Robert,
I am intrigued by your email address and wish to know more. Why did we have no idea that you have a thing for Don Johnson? How has this affected your politics? Is it particular to Johnson in a bad 80s action show or does it extend to his other works such as A Dog and His Boy? Most importantly, in what sense do you wish to “do” the character?
Waiting on pins & needles,
Jake
Much <3 to the contest
Since we’re talking about fanfic/derivative works, anyone who hasn’t seen this, should find it very entertaining:
Three Minutes
mythago, the framing I was objecting to was “fanworks = intellectual property violations”. You say you’re pro-fanfic, so clearly I misread you. Shake hands?
Uh, no, I’m arguing nothing of the sort. I’m arguing that fanwork producers and consumers en masse result in a net profit to the creator; case in point.
I’m not sure of the definition of ‘sampling’ in this context. My understanding is that if one makes use of less than ten percent of a work in a transformative work (unless it’s a rather small work to begin with), the transformative work is fair use.
How?
Creating a fanwork != pirating/bootlegging a work.
Ellie, sure, but please understand this isn’t about my ‘framing’; this is about intellectual property law as it stands now (at least in the US), and what you or I think it should be is not necessarily the same as what it is. As such, blanket statements like “fanworks != intellectual property violations” are not correct.
Fanfic and fanvids and so forth are very much in a legal gray area. That’s because “fair use” and “transformative works” are very fact-specific and whether a particular work violates the original creator’s rights depends on the work itself, and how it fits or does not fit the “fair use” factors. If you charge for your fanfic, it’s very unlikely to be “fair use” – although giving it away doesn’t put you in the clear, either. How much of the work you use is also relevant (the “10% rule” is not true, though). If your fanfic is entirely parody, you’re probably fine as parody is explicitly protected as a transformative work, but throwing in few jokes or renaming your female protagonist “Permione Stranger” isn’t likely to make a difference.
When you say that fanfic/fanvids are not an intellectual property violation because they result in net benefit to the creator, that is in fact an ends-justifies-the-means argument. If all you’re saying is that fanfic is a good thing, then I’m not disagreeing with you. But “fanfic is good” is different than “fanfic doesn’t step on any IP rights”. No law can forbid you from writing in the privacy of your own home, of course, but if a creator really really disliked fanfic at all, it is not wise to assume that they can’t make you take it off your blog because Fair Use!!!!ONE!!! On the other hand, most creators see fanfic/fanvids that are exchanged for free within fandom as a net benefit.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi
http://www.scrivenerserror.com/weft/fanfic.shtml#2
@EllieMurasaki#33: “Creating a fanwork != pirating/bootlegging a work.”
I agree with this statement. My response #29 referred to directly copying portions of a work (such as “Hereville”) without authorization.
However, published fanwork is still copyright infringement unless it either meets “fair use” laws (which are subject to individual court interpretations) or has the authorization of the copyright holder (which can be tacit).
Try publishing a “fanwork” novel featuring Capt. Kirk and Dr. Spock, and see how long it takes to get a phone call from Paramount’s lawyers.
It’s worth pointing out that in US law, at least, there is no specified threshold for how much (or how little) percent of a work counts as fair use. All the law says is that the relative “amount and substantiality” of work that was used is a factor that must be considered, but it doesn’t give specific numbers. US law also considers whether a work is transformative to be a separate criterion, and while a court may decide to combine the two, the law does not suggest that there is any difference in what counts as too much for a transformative vs. a non transformative use.
Sure, it’s a crime. I don’t know if anyone disputes that (maybe someone does). But I not only agree that it’s not theft, I think it’s important. People make moral distinctions that the law doesn’t make; theft (and the other commonly used word, “piracy”) are used to try to make something seem immoral when in fact it’s only illegal. If someone were to accuse you of stealing a car when you only got a ticket, you wouldn’t say you shouldn’t get a ticket, but you’d probably protest that it wasn’t theft because theft is a lot worse; everyone understands that tickets are simply an attempt to regulate, not a moral principle. If someone says you stole a copyrighted work, that sounds very different than if they (more accurately) say you violated a government-issued monopoly. Even if, yes, the later is a crime (or a civil infraction or something — IANAL).
Copying isn’t theft. It’s true, and it’s important.
Incidentally, I agree artists need to be paid for their work — and would support some fair copyright laws — e.g. a limited time (such as the 54 years that all works produced before 1976 (IMS) had, genuinely respected fair use, and compulsory licensing such as Amp proposes (written so as to make fanfic legit, by e.g. making the license dependent on number sold or having an exception for works distributed for free or something like that.) But I’m increasingly convinced that copyright isn’t the ideal way to go about it. Not that it’s likely in this political climate, but I think some sort of tax-and-redistribution-to-those-whose-works-are-popular scheme — in which distributions were logged but not charged for — would work better. But who knows. At any rate, copyright needs to be reformed — and I think Amp is spot-on about this particular one.
(It seems like this is an argument that could be made libertarian friendly for what that’s worth (at least to the extent that libertarians actually care about liberty and not just property): after all, why should a command-control monopoly get to decide who makes Fantastic Four comics, and what the plots can be, and who can do them? Wouldn’t it be better if there were a free market in Fantastic Four comics, in which the creators would be paid a fee for use of the idea, but those who made comics people wanted to read could do so?)
I did not say that. I said fanworks are not an IP violation, and I said fanworks are good things, and I said fanworks result in net benefit to the creator. These are three separate and distinct things.
Well, yeah, if you try to get money out of your fanwork without explicit permission from the creator, you’re a moron who deserves everything you get. But I am a hundred percent confident that novel-length Kirk/Spock fanfics (1) exist, (2) have been published at no profit to the fanwork creator, and (3) are fair use. Can’t name any, because Star Trek is not my fandom, but I’m certain they’re out there.
@38 – I really think you need to brush up on your fair use law. Whether or not someone makes money of a copy is just one of several criteria, and is not really that important. Sure, if you write a fan novel involving Kirk and Spock and only make it available on your website, you may not get noticed, but that doesn’t mean it’s fair use – specifically, because Kirk and Spock are so iconic in the Star Trek world, any work that involves the two of them that is not clearly parody probably fails the substantiality criteria, regardless of whether it is distributed free or for pay.
The fact of the matter is that the way the law in the US is written, it is impossible to determine whether something is fair use or not unless it is for one of the uses specifically named in the law (of which fan fiction is not one), or if a judge ruled that it is or is not fair use. And fan fiction cases tend to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not based on any single criteria like whether they are for profit or how much of the original work was borrowed.
Copying isn’t theft. It’s true, and it’s important.
Ah, so pirating and bootlegging are okay, and stealing the profits of somebody else’s labor aren’t really “theft” because you are not stealing a thing like a car? I can’t believe that’s actually what you meant to say, but “copying makes more, yay” (which is the point of the song) is exactly that. Are you truly arguing that if I copy Hereville and post it on my blog, saying “Don’t pay Amp – get a copy free here!” that I’ve done nothing wrong, whatever silly label the monopolistic government puts on it? If Amp objects is he just a selfish rent-seeker who doesn’t get that information wants to be free?
But I am a hundred percent confident that novel-length Kirk/Spock fanfics (1) exist, (2) have been published at no profit to the fanwork creator, and (3) are fair use.
Respectfully, as to #3, you are a hundred percent wrong. Sure, we can say that if you sell those fanfics then it’s probably not fair use, and that if you only distribute it to a couple of your friends and not the whole world it’s more likely to be fair use, but Eytan is right; “fair use” is a test the courts apply, and whether something is or isn’t fair use is very fact-specific. (If Fan A is selling her Kirk epic, the fact that she sells it at cost doesn’t make it fair use, for example.)
I would find you doing what you describe objectionable, not so much for the piracy itself as for the malicious attitude towards me (“Don’t pay Amp!”).
If I were the only person deciding, all of Hereville would be available for free reading on the web; I chose to give that up for the opportunity to work with an excellent but old-fashioned mainstream book publisher. I know a bunch of cartoonists who give their content away for free on the web AND sell their books.
(There are literally dozens of graphic novels on my shelves that I read for free online, or from a library, or from borrowing a friend’s, before I bought them.)
I don’t think it’s accurate to describe unauthorized copying as “theft,” as if it’s the same thing as grabbing some of my stock from my con table and walking away with it. But making a distinction between theft and distributing unauthorized copies isn’t the same as saying that it can never be wrong to distribute unauthorized copies.
No, because “not theft” =/= “okay”. As I said (at some length!) in my earlier comment, there are implications to “theft” which don’t apply in this case.
(I’m presuming by “pirating” you mean “copying” — although using the term is rather begging the question in this context.)
Now, I’m not saying — I very much explicitly said to the contrary — that all copying is ok. I’m saying it’s not theft. And that it is not *in general* immoral. (As Amp notes, the “don’t pay Amp” makes your example different.) And there may be a good purpose to government issued monopolies — but it depends on the specifics.
stealing the profits of somebody else’s labor aren’t really “theft” because you are not stealing a thing like a car?
Well, obviously “stealing the profits of somebody else’s labor” is stealing, but copying something isn’t (necessarily) stealing the profits of somebody else’s labor.
The song is just a song. I think it makes the point about the difference fairly well… given the limitation of the short, humorous ditty.
As I said, explicitly, I think that copyright is probably defensible, with limitations. I think violating it *is* very much like getting a parking ticket: you need to pay it, but you’re not a *thief* for having occasioned it. And I also don’t think it’s the best means to accomplishing it’s stated (in the U.S., explicitly — “To promote the progress of science and useful arts”) goals.
…Precisely.
Stephen: It’s a little disingenuous to link to the song as backup for “Copying isn’t theft” and then to backpedal off the lyrics when it undercuts your argument.
You and Amp are presenting an almost Luddite view of property: it can only be a physical thing, like a rock or a car or a piece of candy, that can’t be “copied”, and so the only way to deprive somebody of property is by physically taking it from them so you are holding it and they are not. Anything else, apparently, is a vaguely sinister and unfair “monopoly” on people’s natural rights. You’re also mashing this up with perfectly legitimate concerns about overlong copyright periods and draconian punishment by corporate rights-holders. I’ll try to unpick this.
“Property”, as every law student has hammered into their pointy little head, is not a rock; it’s a bundle of rights. If I rent a house, I am not buying the building; I am buying a specific set of rights to the property, which don’t include ownership. The landlord is selling away her right to live in the house, or to invite all her friends over for a big party in the living room whenever she likes; but she is not selling me the ownership of the house, or the right to sell it. If you buy my car, I transfer all of the rights to you: you own the car, I don’t, and I have no rights to use it or sell it at all.
Similarly, if I write a short story or a comic book I could, if I wanted, sell “all rights” to the publisher. Just as if it were a car, they own the whole bundle, and they can publish it, make movies based on it….and keep all of the profits, because that is a right the owner has. On the other hand, if I sell only part of those rights (first publication, or licensing the movie rights) then I am not giving up my ownership, or my ability to do things with my work other than the rights to do those things that I’ve sold.
So, Hereville: Amp sold me one physical copy of the book. That means I have the right to own that physical copy. I can resell that copy; I can burn it; I can lend it to friends, because I bought the rights to do those things. I didn’t buy the rights to scan copies and email to all my friends, or to print copies and hand them out in front of Amp’s ComicCon booth, or reproduce it and sell it in Italy. I didn’t buy those things, any more than renting a house means I bought the right to sell the house to somebody else.
So I’m not understanding the “that’s not theft”. I took something that did not belong to me without permission for my own benefit (whether that be money, or striking a blow for the freedom of information, or whatever). Why do you think it only counts as stealing if you can hold it in your hands? If you’re going to tell me “because it doesn’t cost money – that’s like saying it’s perfectly OK for me to take your car whenever I like as long as you’re not using it and I pay the mileage. (“Dude, you were on a business trip. It was just sitting in your garage, and I needed a ride. What’s your beef?”)
You guys also seem to be very fixated on “Don’t buy from Amp”. I don’t see why that matters; if I steal your car because I believe all property is theft, is that better or not-theft compared to “I needed wheels”? If I’m telling people not to buy from Amp not because I hate Amp but because I believe he is acting immorally by selling his work instead of using some kind of voluntary pay-as-you-go scheme? What if I am instead telling people “Don’t buy from Amp – but if you read this and like it, please go give him money, as much as you think this was worth”?
If you want to argue that copyright is too long and the RIAA is evil and the definition of fair use should be wider, I’m right there with you. But I don’t have a lot of patience for “it’s not THEFT theft if you can’t put your hands on it”.
I sense the conversation has drifted somewhat, but what would a system of compulsory licensing mean for, say, your Bill Wattersons, those artists who jealously guard their own intellectual property against licensing to preserve its integrity?
Sam L: I think MisterMephisto has some good thoughts on that in #3. Of course, people doing fanworks are going to come up with things that horrify the creator – but there is a difference between “I drew this humorous Calvin image for my Facebook page” and selling Calvin & Hobbes decals for people’s trucks.
(That said, I’m also compelled to note that “fanfic” is one of those “transcends genre” things that the literari like to ignore when it’s convenient. Wicked is nothing more than Wizard of Oz fanfic, after all.)
Mythago,
I wasn’t linking to the song “Copying Isn’t Theft” for support, but for amusement; and I’m not backing off the lyrics, I’m saying there’s a limit to the amount of nuance one can get in a one-minute ditty.
I can’t speak for Amp. But I feel like *you* are missing — or at least have not at all addressed — *my* point about the fact that different types of crimes and misdemeanor have different names, that those names have different valences, and that this matters. Theft has implications that “violating copyright” does not; and this matters.
Perhaps it’s clearer if you think about “piracy”. If you set aside the fact that pirates are often seen as cool (a fact lamented recently by some pro-copyright bigwig who worried he thought the term wasn’t negative *enough*), it is clearly meant to link people who copy copyrighted material to those who murder people on the high seas and take their ships. But copying, right or wrong, just isn’t anything like piracy. The use of the term is purely emotional.
As for a “Luddite view” of property… well, the term itself is tendentious. But setting that aside, I think the point is less about property’s physicality than it is about the nature of theft. (Although I will note that the physicality of property does underlie a lot of our basic mental models of it, and this is important, and that extensions of the concept often carry along implications from the physical image which don’t work or oughtn’t to be made made to work.) Theft *takes* something from someone; copying does not. (If a landlord enters a tenant’s dwelling without permission, I don’t think that’s right either — it’s a violation of privacy and personal space and so forth — but it’s not *theft*.)
Now, presumably you’ll argue that it takes away a potential sale from those who make the copy. But this is not at all clear. A great many people who make or receive a copy wouldn’t otherwise buy a copy; many others (as Amp noted) are inspired to buy them. (I myself have done this frequently — bought works I’d previously read unliscenced electronic copies of.) It’s not at all clear if making a copy does cancel a sale — in many, probably most, individual cases it does not, and it most likely does not in aggregate, either.
Why does this matter? (Since I agree with you that overly aggressive copyright enforcement, over-long terms, etc, are the main thing.) Well, because it colors the conversation. The notion that copying is theft makes it presumptively wrong; I think it ought to be presumptively right, and only restricted with good reason. It affects the moral tenor of the debate.
And it matters to what you think the default is. You say that in buying a copy of Hereville you didn’t buy a right to make copies. But — to bring the conversation back to compulsory licensing — I would claim that, to the contrary, *everyone* has, to begin with, an absolute free-speech right to tell any stories they want to tell. Including Mirka stories, or Fantastic Four stories, or whatever. And that all limitations on that have to be justified.
Of course, the justification for copyright (again, in the U.S.) is that it “promote[s] the progress of science and useful arts”. But it’s not at all clear that it does this — particularly restrictions on making derivative works seem pretty arguably to impinge the progress of art these days rather than to encourage it.
Why do we put up with them? Because, in part, of the baseline assumption that the Fantastic Four *BELONGS* to Marvel, and that to use the characters without permission is *theft*. But if it’s just a government restriction, then it needs to be justified. ‘Hey, why can’t I draw a Fantastic Four story? Who says?’
“Violating government monopolies” sounds a lot weaker than “theft”: it sounds technical, not immoral. A breaking of possibly-justified regulations. Which is what copyright violations, in my view, are. Again, they’re not all right — I *don’t* assume that all government monopolies are wrong. Some may be necessary and justifiable. But people *do* assume that *all* theft is justifiable. So pointing out that copying isn’t theft does some positive good.
To say nothing of Jean Rhys’s fanfic Wide Sargasso Sea. Or the fact that all the Athenian playwrights were doing fanfic on preexisting myths. Or the fact that the Jewish tradition of midrash is most easily explainable to newbies by describing it as fanfic on the bible. Or the fact that in some interpretations of the documentary hypothesis the E writer of the Torah was what MisterMephisto might call “introducing numerous elements into the “customer-base” canon that actively work against [the J writer]’s plan for the stories”.
We can debate what words like “theft” and “piracy” should mean in a perfect world for the next 100 comments, but these are legal terms found in current U.S. laws addressing unauthorized copying / usage of intellectual property.
You may not think it’s just or right, but it is the law.
[Deleted – double post.]
Not at all. “Theft” of the sort you would agree is stealing has all kinds of names – larceny, embezzling, etc. – and I think we would all agree there are different levels of moral culpability. Where I part ways is with the idea that it can’t be theft unless you are taking a physical object away from somebody. Property is a bundle of rights.
By the way, it is a little strange to simultaneously argue that pirates are “cool” and that pirates are scurrilous so that the term is slanderous. “Piracy” sounds a lot nicer than “theft”, doesn’t it? I’m pretty sure there’s no “Talk Like a Thief Day”.
Re government monopolies – that’s what all property rights are, aren’t they? You have a monopoly on the use of your car. You own it – meaning that you get to decide who can drive it and who can’t, and the government will back you up. Why is this kind of ownership OK, but ownership of a story I write down is not OK? Why should you get to say “I own my car, you can’t use it without my permission”, but Amp can’t say “I own Hereville, mythago can’t make copies and hand them out to people without my permission”?
You also really don’t seem to understand that the law does recognize fair use. That is the exception to copyright. No law prohibits you from doodling a Fantastic Four picture in your sketchbook. It is not illegal for you to sit around and tell your friends stories about an imaginary GRRM story where Jon Snow marries Brienne of Tarth.
Of course, the justification for copyright (again, in the U.S.) is that it “promote[s] the progress of science and useful arts”. But it’s not at all clear that it does this — particularly restrictions on making derivative works seem pretty arguably to impinge the progress of art these days rather than to encourage it.
“Arguably” my big white ass. Sorry, but I have zero patience for the wishful belief that intellectual property “arguably” puts a big frowny limit on the wonderful creative world where information wants to be free. The point of allowing a creator a monopoly on their property is that they fucking created it.
“A great many people otherwise wouldn’t buy a copy” – well, hell, I wasn’t going to buy your car anyway, so it’s perfectly OK for me to take it for a joyride, right? Besides, maybe if I liked driving your car I’ll actually ask you next time, and I’ll pay for the gas! The argument that piracy magically leads to more sales, or doesn’t count because you wouldn’t have bought the book anyway, is ends-justifies-the-means.
I think everyone understands that, Mythago. But I think that what’s covered by “fair use” should be significantly expanded.
With all due respect to your big white ass, no matter how much contempt you display for ideas you disagree with, it doesn’t amount to an argument. If Joan Examplelass could earn a full-time living writing Draco novels, except that it’s illegal, that’s putting a limit on creative output; and it means that fewer consumers will have access to art they’d like to purchase. How on earth isn’t that a limitation?
If that’s the point — and I don’t think it is, since as you know the Constitution mentions ““promote[ing] the progress of science and useful arts” but doesn’t say a word about “because they fucking created it” — then it’s hard to justify keeping laws in place that allow major corporations to use their vastly superior bargaining positions to buy ownership away from creators permanently.
In the sentence before the sentence you quote, Stephen specified that he was responding to the claim that “it takes away a potential sale from those who make the copy.” Yes, the argument that the availability of free copies can sometimes increase sales isn’t an on-point answer to every anti-piracy argument; but it is an on-point answer to the specific argument Stephen was rebutting.
I really dislike the way you’re using the word “magically” here, Mythago. As I already pointed out, I personally know people who earn a living by selling books (and merchandise, but books are the big seller) collecting comics that they give away for free on the internet — comics that would never have had a shot in the traditional publishing system. It’s not “magical,” it’s just a business model, and one that works in the real world. (Admittedly, it works for only a small portion of the people who try — but that’s true of all the ways artists earn a living.)
The argument that we should have copyright because it’s the only way artists can earn a living (which I hear an awful lot, although not from you as far as I recall) is likewise an end-justifies-the-means argument. If what we’re discussing is the best way to structure intellectual property laws so that artists can make a living, I think some degree of ends/means arguments are not only inevitable, but legitimate.
Is this true? I’m not being disingenuous — I don’t know if it’s true or not. Are you talking about the titles of the acts of congress, or the actual text of laws? Can you provide a link?
I wonder about you putting “Bill Watterson” in plural form. As far as I know, Bill Watterson — an artist who, when he was young and hungry, sold off the copyright of his creation for a pittance, and then successfully got the corporation that owned the copyright to give it back to him once it was worth millions — is a completely unique example in all of cartooning history, and perhaps in the entire history of work-for-hire laws.
I don’t think his case is a good argument for maintaining status quo. He represents the miraculous time that the current system worked out well, not the norm of how the system typically works. Typically, Watterson would have been screwed and would have quit drawing Calvin and Hobbes in disgust years earlier, after which the copyright owners would have pumped out merchandise like crazy.
I agree, Watterson would hate the system I described. But he also hates the status quo. The problem is, when a creation becomes as popular as Calvin and Hobbes was, there is no way to preserve its “integrity”; there is no way of stopping people from creating their own versions. The copyright laws we have didn’t prevent hundreds of thousands of that stupid “Calvin peeing” car sticker from being sold everywhere.
I don’t claim that opening up copyright would make everything perfect. Just that it would be better than our current system.
That’s definitely a huge part of the problem, and there’s an interrelated problem of how you tell what’s copying and what isn’t. Two authors or artists can certainly create very similar works without ever being influenced by the other. But the more grey area you include to avoid penalizing “having similar ideas,” the more loopholes you create for Calvin peeing on everything. Though, I’m actually amazed that stickers that are sold as “Calvin peeing on [the Yankees, Obama, whatever]” with a spiky-haired kid drawn in similar style to Bill Watterson’s manage to escape copyright lawsuits, as blatant as they are. Are they considered a parody or what?
I don’t claim that opening up copyright would make everything perfect. Just that it would be better than our current system.
False dilemma. The other option is to reform the current system, limiting work-for-hire and, on a more practical level, restricting the ability of companies to impose work-for-hire on creators. It’s no accident that the comics industry uses those contracts routinely while, say, fiction publishers don’t.
As for “magically”, you’re moving the goalposts. The issue is not that people can and do make money on a freemium or try-now-pay-later model; the issue is with the pretense that because this model works for some creators who choose to use it, that it’s appropriate to impose that model on everyone because “arguably” they might make a net profit in the end.
Yes, it’s a terrible shame that the law forbids me to make a living selling Draco Malfoy novels without JK Rowling’s permission. The law also forbids me to make a living doing all kinds of other things, like running off thousands of copies of Hereville, changing three or four lines of dialogue, and reselling them for half what you charge, all without asking you first. Is that fair, I ask you? Does that fulfill the purpose of intellectual-property protection? Or is it just THE MAN keeping us down?!
Amp, the contempt you’re hearing is not a contempt for other arguments about the extent of fair use, or what should constitute fair use, or changing copyright to make it more expansive. It’s contempt for the view that the only value a creator’s work has is the lowest price one can get away with paying, and that lowest price can and should include zero.
And it’s baffling me that nobody is considering how large, exploitative corporations could abuse looser copyright and fair-use rules.
As you say in your own post, you, the creator, made a choice to go with a publisher rather than offer Hereville on a tip-jar model. I don’t think that it’s appropriate for me or any other reader to decide for you that your choice was wrong, or to scold you that Cory Doctorow makes a living giving his books away for free, so you should be OK with me pirating Hereville because, arguably, you’ll make more money someday.
The Calvin peeing stickers look to me like a mediocre cartoonist drew it while looking at panel four of this strip. From Wikipedia:
So it may be too many small, fly-by-night companies are making the stickers for them to be effectively halted?
It’s like Whack-A-Mole, as I understand it.
What creeps me out are the “Calvin praying” stickers. I mean, the “Calvin peeing” stickers are crude and infringing and so forth, but the idea of Calvin praying? (I mean, this is the kid whose strongest pro-deist statement is “Well, SOMEONE’s out to get me.”) Talk about people unclear on the concept….
Mythago, I’m going to bow out of this conversation now. I too am hearing a lot of contempt in your replies — and not only for the idea that “the only value a creator’s work has is the lowest price one can get away with paying, and that lowest price can and should include zero”. I also don’t feel that you’re responding to my actual arguments. Perhaps you feel the same — I don’t know. But either way I think that the value of the conversation has dropped to the point where it’s not worth continuing.
FWIW, I think your point about property in general just being a bundle of rights, and thus the applicability of the word “theft”, is an interesting one, and a better counter-argument than I’ve seen elsewhere. I still disagree, for the reasons that I’ve tried to explain above. But I do want to note that I do hear the value (or some value) in what you’re saying, even if I continue to disagree.
Peace.
SF
Stephen, I’m sorry you feel that way, and I do believe that on many issues (such as the ridiculous pro-Hollywood extension of copyright and fair use) we actually are very not far apart.
@Ampersand#52 “Are you talking about the titles of the acts of congress, or the actual text of laws? Can you provide a link?”
Here are several links concerning U.S. laws. (For some reason I can’t activate the links in this comment, but you can copy and paste them if you want to look them up.)
http://jessefeder.com/copyright/copyright_laws.aspx (This webpage shows an overview of all current U.S. copyright laws, including the specific ones listed below with the terms “piracy” and “theft” in the law’s title.)
http://jessefeder.com/copyright/docs/pl97-180.pdf (This law is titled “Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act of 1982.”)
http://jessefeder.com/copyright/docs/pl106-160.pdf (This law is titled “Digital Theft Deterrence and Copytight Damages Improvement Act of 1999.)”
http://jessefeder.com/copyright/docs/pl109-9-I.pdf (This law is titled “Artists Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005.)”
The U.S. Esponage Act of 1996 (don’t have a link) specificially refers in the text of the law to “the theft of proprietary information” and to “the theft of trade secrets” (obvoulsy not fictional works, but nonetheless intellectual property).
My mistake — looks like the links in my comment #60 went active automatically when I clicked on the “Post Comment” button, so they work after all.
Amp @ 56 & Mythago at 57, that makes sense. I’ve also seen stickers with a generic kid in a ballcap peeing on stuff, and these were labeled as “Calvin peeing” on Amazon. So that might be one that changed the design, but didn’t actually change the label.
The “Calvin praying” ones are bizarre and out of character, although I do find the “Please forgive me for peeing on everything” ones kind of funny. Is a parody of a rip-off still a rip-off?