[ 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

[(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.