From: conty@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Conty 1/2)
Subject: Re: Copyrights and etc.
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:12:34 GMT

In article <14j6gnINN7p6@agate.berkeley.edu>, ph111-dz@violet.berkeley.edu (david mou) writes:
> I know this is a rather touchy issue which can very likely turn into a flame
> war, but I must have it cleared before going on with my other projects.

I'll answer the following in terms of US Copyright Law.  I don't know how
Japanese law deals with these specific cases.

> So what about the next step up?  I assume if I would take a art piece, 
> photocopy it, and reprint it as a poster and sell it for profit, I would 
> still be violating the law.

Yes.

> What if an artist decides to create an original
> art piece by hand copying the image on a canvas, down to the smallest detail
> and color matching, and turn around and sell that piece?  This sounds like
> he's doing something wrong, but is he breaking any law?

Yes, if the original work has a copyright.

> Of course, the good artists don't have to copy; they can create original 
> poses for their favorite characters.  Are they still violating any law by 
> borrowing the likeness of other people's characters?

The danger is if you try to sell that piece of art.  Try this experiment:
- Write (and draw) a comic book using Disney characters (say, Mickey and
  Donald).  Publish it.  Place bets as to how many hours will pass before
  Walt Disney Productions will slam you with a million-dollar lawsuit.

> And now we're talking about mass production.  If the artist decides to make
> reprints of his art (hand copy or original) and sell them off to the public,
> is he or she breaking anymore laws?

Apart from the ones described above?  I don't think so.

[re: the 3x3 shirts sold at Anime Expo]
> I'm sure everyone is having so much fun at the Con to care, and I'm not
> going to rub this idea in to everybody because there's no chance in hell
> anyone will sue shirt makers.

I don't know.  From what I've been told Toren Smith and Carl Macek weren't
too happy about it.  (Studio Proteus owns the manga translations rights
to 3x3 EYES, and Streamline Pictures owns the 3X3 OVA distribution rights
in the US.  But you already know this, ne?  ^_^)

> Now, finally, we just take one step further.  We borrow character likeness,
> make "original" drawings and situations, mass produce them, and sell them 
> under the name dojinshi.  We're doing this for the money (although I might 
> offend the pure dojin artists who do this just for the H of it) and indeed
> we make tons.  Does the original artist or his publisher have any ground for
> a lawsuit because of this dojinshi?

HELL YES.  You're using his/her characters and his ideas for your profit.
You not only can be sued, you DESERVE to be sued.

Of course, I use "you" in a generic sense.  I would hope Mr. Mou is cool
enough to realize that doing such a ripoff is a no-no.

> .... and what about text reprints or translations of manga?

It would be illegal in theory.

> Synopsis should be alright legally,

Yes, but that's because of the US "fair use" laws.  I don't think there's
a similar law in Japan.

> but what about translations disguised as synopsis (takes time but it
> can be done)?

Gray area.  I don't know.

> Lastly, while we all should respect copyrights (heh heh) we can also think 
> in terms of end results.  Isn't it to the publisher's advantage that we create
> awareness of manga in America in whichever way we can?  The laws may be 
> exact, but moderate violations may be for the better of everyone's interest.

That's why I said "in theory" when I spoke of translations above.

> Hmmm... "Benign Violator", sounds like a cool title for a Rapeman sequel.

I can't believe you used "cool" and "Rapeman" in the same sentence.  :-P
-- 
			    E n r i q u e  C o n t y
			The Incredible Man-with-no-Life
			      jester@ihlpl.att.com
		    Disclaimer: You're not dealing with AT&T