It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pepe the Frog's Creator Goes Legally Nuclear - Avatar Issues?

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Haven't followed the story and don't know how long he has been fighting for his rights but from what I know of copyright law and admittedly it isn't vast is that he needs to set out to protect it from the get go. It's been around for a while and has become almost used by a high number of people and if he hasn't been fighting for the IP in all that time then a judge will likely ask why and he is fighting now and he says "Oh it's because I don't want the alt right using it" the judge will most likely laugh at him or at least throw it out.

Again I'm not an expert and I'm sure someone will be able to put it in better and clearer sentences but basically if he hasn't been fighting to keep his copyright all this time then the law states that he cannot suddenly demand copyright ownership although trademark might be different, that's a whole other kettle of fish.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

LINK


107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


The whole thing seems pretty gray to me beyond what I bolded above.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85

He has been fighting a legal battle for quite a while and didn't win it until sometime in August 2017, so it took that long to have precedent to be able to go after others using it. That was what I read.

His copyright was established at the beginning - he owns the image of Pepe.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
But kek looks so much prettier than hildog why else wud ppl use it furie Is raging coz he didn't think to profit from it himself now he wants to sue bahahhaa is all I can say to that sue me all he wants il start making loads of them







posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: AboveBoard

Haven't followed the story and don't know how long he has been fighting for his rights but from what I know of copyright law and admittedly it isn't vast is that he needs to set out to protect it from the get go. It's been around for a while and has become almost used by a high number of people and if he hasn't been fighting for the IP in all that time then a judge will likely ask why and he is fighting now and he says "Oh it's because I don't want the alt right using it" the judge will most likely laugh at him or at least throw it out.

Again I'm not an expert and I'm sure someone will be able to put it in better and clearer sentences but basically if he hasn't been fighting to keep his copyright all this time then the law states that he cannot suddenly demand copyright ownership although trademark might be different, that's a whole other kettle of fish.


You're thinking of trademarks, they have to be enforced at all times. Copyrights only have to be selectively enforced. However, that's not even at play in this case, because the owner of Pepe has been in legal battles for nearly 2 years now trying to establish legal standing to broadly go after people stealing his IP. It was only a couple weeks ago where he settled with someone (I forget the case details), which got him enough money to go after others.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
There might be an argument for Fair Use here. Hillary did make direct references to Pepe in a few of her speeches, so the use of the character's image to criticize and parody her arguably qualifies as Fair Use, particularly in the context of political satire. My prediction is that, as always, the real winners will be the lawyers.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: AboveBoard

LINK


107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


The whole thing seems pretty gray to me beyond what I bolded above.


Not really gray.

If the owner can make the argument that his property has been used without permission for ANY reason other than:

1) a critique (say by an art critic in an article or something, not as a "critique on culture" or something else)
2) news reporting (i.e. articles about the alt-right using Pepe, or an article about a gallery opening, etc.)
3) appropriate use by teachers in school classroom, or for scholarship, or research (i.e. using Pepe on a teacher's coloring sheet or for a lesson plan discussion about popular art influences in political culture - often this only works as an exception if you are in an academic institution or have that kind of credibility, but the nature of the work - i.e. is it 'intellectual' or 'academic' is the ultimate question.)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

On contraire
KEK is the bringer of Truth and Light. He is a very good spirit/God. He just forgot.

But you’re right, all credit should in fact go to his better half --- KEKUIT. KEK represents primordial darkness, while KEKUIT represents primordial light. Chaos rules when they are apart.

The good news is, now that KEK's back, KEKUIT has returned as well. They are twin flames, yin and yang, light and dark. And she likes to redecorate. Earth is about to get a make over.


This is humanity's new script, please pass this around to all your friends, if you'd be so kind.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard



(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


By gray, I mean anything that could be interpreted differently depending on the authority making the decision. Two courts could easily rule the opposite of each other.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
the guys an idiot and i bet he has people pushing him to do this. Believe me, people like Clinton and her ilk are not too petty to put the screws to this guy.


that being said has the use of pepe been shown to have negatively impacted this mans ability to profit from his creation?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I understand his concerns, but memeable one time images are not like equations. Unless someone has been rifling through your files and trying to actually steal your property, once you place an image without clearly associating it with you, yourself, the owner, it goes pretty much anywhere. He should be aware of this...it's an image with no artist signature, and it doesn't have a community. It was used by everyone and his mother before this situation even if I personally have no feeling whatsoever. It's like a skateboard, put ur name on..marketing 101. I don't want to disclose how far to the right I am, but I pretty much stopped at Paul Revere. Tea partiers dont "kek," theyre all like 70 yrs old. The frog thing is a frog, righties. Let it go plz. Or maybe they can go at it elsewhere. I mean. Frogs. Kek. I don't care at this point where it's headed. I want the freedom to not have people try to figure out how I stand personally on a message board I only give a cursory #$^ about.



edit on 19-9-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
This will only fuel the hardcore Pepe userbase.. or whatever.


Too late

1.bp.blogspot.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Some dude made a frog. Some dudes get off on frogs. Somehow, politicks. I turn 1003 next year.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
the guys an idiot and i bet he has people pushing him to do this. Believe me, people like Clinton and her ilk are not too petty to put the screws to this guy.


that being said has the use of pepe been shown to have negatively impacted this mans ability to profit from his creation?


It's popular and used by a niche that uses it to represent themselves, that makes it marketable. It has value and it was used without permission from the copyright holder. Theft is theft.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
If people don't know where the thing came from, he obviously didn't market it well.
edit on 19-9-2017 by mericks74 because: I won't delete



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
that being said has the use of pepe been shown to have negatively impacted this mans ability to profit from his creation?


It's not an image he wants associated with his creation.

If you sold some animated porn with Mickey Mouse in it, Disney would go after you for copyright infringement eventually. It could only profit them by increasing interest in their products, but they're still within their rights to want to shut you down.

It's his character, he can choose how it's portrayed, or he should be able to.

Actually, the Mickey Mouse test is good in general. Would it be ok if a group stole Mickey Mouse and made it their own, outside of the wishes of those who own it? Then why is it ok to do so here?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Marketing..the thing had Disney's name all over it...



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: mericks74
I understand his concerns, but memeable one time images are not like equations. Unless someone has been rifling through your files and trying to actually steal your property, once you place an image without clearly associating it with you, yourself, the owner, it goes pretty much anywhere. He should be aware of this...it's an image with no artist signature, and it doesn't have a community. It was used by everyone and his mother before this situation even if I personally have no feeling whatsoever. It's like a skateboard, put ur name on..marketing 101. I don't want to disclose how far to the right I am, but I pretty much stopped at Paul Revere. Tea partiers dont "kek," theyre all like 70 yrs old. The frog thing is a frog, righties. Let it go plz. Or maybe they can go at it elsewhere. I mean. Frogs. Kek. I don't care at this point where it's headed. I want the freedom to not have people try to figure out how I stand personally on a message board I only give a cursory #$^ about.




That may be your opinion but it runs completely counter to our laws. In my previous post I used Mickey Mouse for a good reason, it's an actual legal test that has been used to set precedent regarding copyright in many cases. If a bunch of Greenpeace activists stole Mickey Mouse to use as their new beacon of pushing an environmental message... would it be wrong? The answer according to the courts is that yes, it would be wrong. The owner of a character has the right to choose how it's portrayed. It's the same for Pepe.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
My opinion, yes. Thanks!..

edit on 19-9-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

edit on 19-9-2017 by mericks74 because: You can't starwhore in this comment section
...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join