[ SECRET POST #5308 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5308 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #760.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

Hmm, I'm on the legal side of things, and know a fair bit about US copyright, so I'm not sure this is a matter of shorthand. I'm actually having trouble parsing when you're talking about ideas (which yes, no copyright) and when you're talking about actual reproduction of expression, i.e. a work. like this And then most people don't also get copyright even if they're authors. is incorrect for reproduction of an expression, and I'm not entirely sure of the context you're using it in (copying actual words or swaggerjacking ideas). So I guess I'm clarifying?

Plagiarism is not necessarily a violation of copyright. There's a good deal of plagiarism that doesn't violate copyright at all. OP is just wrong in thinking that plagiarism has a legal sense in the West, and I do think there's a question of whether plagiarism occurs with these "inspired" stories. I think it does, it just doesn't have any legal effect. Will you get sued reasonably, no, unless you're actually reproducing expressions it's just an idea or concept, and nobody legal actually cares whether it was inspired. Will you face social consequences? That's quite possible and also affects your professional rep and therefore further opportunities and getting shunned for plagiarism is also quite legal.

Things posted on twitter may absolutely fall under the rules of (US) copyright. Copyright rules affect all intellectual property in fixed format involving reproduction. The TOS is completely irrelevant as to whether you own your work's reproduction (you do). What the TOS will say is that by posting you have licensed your words to the company for specific purposes, usually the ability of the platform or its users to reproduce the expression on that platform. And ONLY on that platform. That's all they can contract with you. They can't say that a third party not mentioned also has ownership over your work's reproduction off the platform, even if that third party is another user.

The question of whether you are protected by copyright is not where you did it, the question is whether what you did is unique enough for you to own for legal policy purposes but that's regardless of where you've written it. The question of whether someone else can reproduce your work is ALSO not about where you originally produced it, but about whether they can claim independent production or fair use or policy reasons for leaving certain expressions unprotected (50 words is very specific to define the "short phrase" that exempts certain expressions. I'd like to see the case or statute that mentions it. I agree the short phrases exemptions will necessarily exclude titles and people are being a little ignorant if they're fighting over titles and blurbs, lmao. actual poetry is actually probably easier to decide the phrase is "long" enough if form is also copied because the form itself might be unique, but yes also a hard sell. but if there's a character exhibited in a short phrase and a third party tries to commercialize it...well that's less likely going to be part of the exception. eta: I forgot that yes some short phrases are so unique or creative that they absolutely can be copyrights, but again hard sell and lbr courts prefer if commercialism is at risk here.). And if you want legal damages and not just statutory damages, you're going to need to register your copyright. The reason nobody is suing all the time is that most of the time it's economically unfeasible (both registration for legal damages and filing a case at all), and evidentiary pretty hard to prove that someone had access to your work before they produced theirs. Not legally unfeasible.

that's how I see it anyway. If you don't mind linking your video, I'd love to see it, because maybe I'm just missing your meaning because commenting is a little informal.

[(Anonymous)]

(Cozy Werewolf Anon)

I'll give you the link to my video. I don't honestly think the parsing is the problem. I think our audience is. You work in legal. Okay, if I was LegalEagle (and I'm not) I'd be probably saying things in a different way. I'm an author and I try to make it so other lay people (like me) have a general understanding of how copyright works. Do I err on the side of caution? Yes. B/C I don't want people to end up in civil court. Do I make it clear ideas aren't copyrightable and the expression of them is. I hope so. I think I did. (I was trying to cover a lot of ground. And I can't remember now what exactly I said in this video versus my narrative game design ideas process video. I know I said something about expression in both of them.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XpJKLfq1jM

I'm not jackswaggering when I say in general authors do not understand copyright or trademarks. If they did, there wouldn't be at least one "scandal" a year in the book community involving it. I've literally had arguments with other authors over how they can't copyright an idea. The amount of "scandals" in the bookish community over copyright and own voices on twitter is literally why I had to leave it. It is too toxic. Yes, they argue over if they "own" their tweets. No. Twitter won't get involved. That's why I say it's better to go with "they aren't copyrighted." Even if they may technically be so legally. (The courts aren't going to try it. There are better things to do.)

I'm willing to bet you understand trademarks and copyright better than I do. Like I said, I don't work in legal. I ended up doing my video after having close to a two or three hour conversation with a young author over the whole MZB affair and why authors don't really read fanfic. And I'm going to bet there are parts of my video that you're going to go "well, that would never happen!" And in general, I'd agree with you. Except, a whole lot of shit is happening otherwise that I didn't think would happen here in America.

I just find it interesting in my long comment that was more about situational ethics than copyright, you honed in on the copyright.

[meadowphoenix]

I just find it interesting in my long comment that was more about situational ethics than copyright, you honed in on the copyright.
I don't know why that's interesting. That's a) where I think you were incorrect and b) where I have enough knowledge to correct it. The rest of your comment I didn't materially disagree or agree with enough to comment. Did you want me to acknowledge that?

I think you don't understand why I'm harping on this. It's because I think it's pretty important to be clear about what actually stops and comprises legal cases. Erring on the side of caution would be to say: talk to a lawyer in a consult and listen to them about your chances, but even if you're right you will waste your life trying to get something for it. Erring on the side of caution is not making claims about copyright that aren't accurate (and you did in the first 3 minutes of that video) because you know authors have more emotion than sense, and you think telling them something incorrect will shortcut them to good decision-making.