Forum - View topicWhat you can and can't do with unlicensed anime?
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Squirtle2000
Posts: 9 |
|
|||||
|
Hi,
I'm not too good with the technical details about unlicensed anime, but can someone tell me what you can and can't do with it? Is it really legal to download and upload it? If I create video clips or use images of unlicensed anime and put it online do I need to make some kind of statement to use it? Any other things you can and can't do with it? Hope I can get some info. Thanks. 
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zalis116
Moderator
 Posts: 6902 Location: Kazune City |
|
|||||
|
Technically all anime is "licensed," because the Japanese creators hold internationally enforceable copyrights. So any laws that apply to anime licensed by non-Japanese companies apply to any anime not licensed by non-Japanese companies.
|
||||||
|
||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
|
Technically it is no different from licensed anime. It is still copyrighted material. It is not distributed here but that does not in some way mean the copyright doesn't apply here.
It is illegal to upload it or download it. I'm not entirely sure about clips or images but whatever the case, it is no different from licensed anime. However, because it is not licensed here the already tiny chance of the copyright being enforced is greatly decreased. It is hard enough to enforce this stuff from this country, and even harder from another country. Also, while moral views on this range, with unlicensed anime people definitely tend to lean more towards it being okay. So to sum up: Technically, you can't do anything with it just like any other copyrighted material. However, as I assume we're referring to the internet odds are you can do whatever you want with it and nobody will stop you. This is even more true if it is unlicensed. Also, people are more likely to think it is morally okay if it is unlicensed. |
||||||
|
||||||
Kruszer
 Posts: 7994 Location: Minnesota, USA |
|
|||||
Clips and images could fall under the fair use clause and be overlooked by the copyright holder if you were using them to promote said series so that other people would watch it. A lot of companies like to horde their copyrights and ask that they be removed though. |
||||||
|
||||||
marie-antoinette
 Posts: 4136 Location: Ottawa, Canada |
|
|||||
|
Any fair use would most likely depend on what is allowed under Japanese copyright law. I don't know much about it, other than that doujinshi are usually able to be sold without issue, though this is not always the case.
Also, of course, at some point copyright does expire. In the US, I believe it is currently life plus 75 (so 76 years after someone has died anything they made is public domain). So after that happens, uploading and such things would be completely legal. I'm not 100% however what happens in the case where the copyright holder would be a company rather than an individual. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
FUNiRepBlue (disabled)
Company Representative
 Posts: 66 |
|
|||||
|
Keep in mind too, sometimes a show is licensed but may not have been officially announced by the US Studio that they own the rights as well.
|
||||||
|
||||||
daxomni
 Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||
Actually, every time copyrights for hired projects (such as those held by corporations) are about to expire our boot licking congress just votes to extend them yet again. I don't think any hired work since the 1920's has passed into the public domain and thanks to our unquestioned loyalty to corporate protection of properties like our ancient Mickey Mouse they probably never will. But, to be honest, neither side of the copyright debate seems to follow a logical position. Both sides abuse the concept of copyrights and fair use and refuse to budge an inch. One side wants total control and the other side wants total anarchy. There are no heroes in this battle, just a bunch of poorly treated consumers who can't do what they want with their own products they purchase legally and who have no option but to shrug their shoulders when their favorite publishers bite the dust amid lackluster revenue. The whole system is broken in my view, but that just seems to go with the territory these days. |
||||||
|
||||||
Porcupine
 Posts: 1033 |
|
|||||
|
What Zalis and ikillchicken said is correct.
marie, daxomni: About the lifetime of a copyright, that's something I've often wondered about too. I think that the lifetime matters on what kind of material is being copyrighted. For video games I think the copyright is quite short, like 20 or 30 years. I think a lot of the super old PC games are now public domain and can be easily downloaded online without any need for subterfuge or bittorrent. Either that or I've been tricked by said websites claiming that it's legal to download these games free. Similarly, for certain types of broad technological patents the lifetime is very short, like 20 years. That is to prevent abuse of standards or an intellectual idea I think. But for other copyrighted or patented material the lifetime might be very long as you said. I'm not an expert, I don't really know and would be interested to learn more. And in some cases copyrights can be renewed like was mentioned. In other cases they cannot. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
daxomni
Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||
You appear to be confusing a lack of enforcement with lack of ownership.
Patents and copyrights are rather different beasts, even though they may serve a similar purpose. It’s amazing how some of the most fraudulent and ill-conceived patents have been awarded without requiring any substantial clarification, but as with so many government agencies the patent office appears to suffer from intentional and calculated financial constrictions.
Typically they will extend copyrights across the board to make it seem as though they’re somehow benefiting the original authors of self-created works as well as multi-national corporations. Of course at this point the length has been extended so far out that they're really only benefiting the spoiled undeserving children whom the original author has instinctively spawned to replace him. And, because international copyright agreements promote propagation of the most restrictive laws, these extensions tend to be duplicated worldwide within a few years of their domestic ratification. Last edited by daxomni on Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
indrik
 Posts: 365 Location: yonder |
|
|||||
|
All US copyrights are currently life of the author (ie, creator), plus 70 years, regardless of the medium. Under the most current treaties, patents are "at least 20 years". This is one of my major annoyances with current intellectual property laws, that somehow "creative works" are more worthy of protection than "technological advances". As was said, we've had a couple of spots in the US where copyrights (notably on Mickey Mouse) could have expired, and were extended.
Old games are not necessarily public domain, they're orphaned works. There is a law in Canada that effectively makes SOME of those games public domain, if, for example, the company that made them went out of business, or just doesn't want to pursue their copyright. There was a law in the US that would have done the same thing, but it has not passed. As an example, though, Microsoft has been picky about maintaining their claim to things like old Windows versions, or old versions of Office, to make sure that they're not i the public domain. Orphaned works drive me a little nuts, in that there is a ton of music out there that's not published any more, and if you've got a nearly complete set of parts, you can't get new ones. But it's illegal for me to call up the band down the street and say hey, I'll let you copy second oboe if I can copy first cornet. We'd both have to keep buying partial copies until we had a complete set, while in no way does this help the original publisher or composer, since no new copies are being printed and royalties are not being paid.
Saying "could" is critical, and I just wanted to expand on that point. There is no official definition for fair use, only a series of criteria, meaning that fair use is not defined until somebody sues, and somebody decides to fight the lawsuit under the basis that their use is covered by fair use. So if somebody used a clip, and somebody sued, and the people using the clip lost, using clips would no longer be fair use. I am not aware of anybody doing something like that. I've heard of a lot of DMCA takedowns that weren't contested, but no actual lawsuits. I've heard arguments lining up on both sides, pretty much exactly as you would expect them to line up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Squirtle2000
Posts: 9 |
|
|||||
|
I see. So technically any fan sites (including non profit ones?) are illegal? I do remember a long time ago many Simpsons fan sites being shut down.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Porcupine
Posts: 1033 |
|
|||||
|
Squirtle, fan sites would only technically be illegal if they were offering copyrighted material for download, such as anime fansubs.
indrik, thanks for clearing up the issue/difference between copyright expiration and orphaned works. That perfectly explains why old computer games become "abandonware" in a relatively shorter time period. But the thought also occured to me, couldn't animes also become orphaned works? It seems to me that something like manga, with a definitive author, would be able to take advantage of a copyright for the full extent of its lifetime. But an anime, made by an animation studio which probably no longer exists after 20-30 years, could more easily become an orphaned work. |
||||||
|
||||||
blind_assassin
 Posts: 755 |
|
|||||
|
Unlicensed anime is like a rent-a-car. Someone does own it even when you're using it but if you break something in it and no one knows then the only person that loses out is the rent-a-car service.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
indrik
Posts: 365 Location: yonder |
|
|||||
There is an argument that any use of any copyrighted material is infringement. Meaning that all your anime avatars, unless they were sold and bundled with the board software or something like that, would be infringing. I really, really doubt that anybody would prosecute that. But there have been cases, like the Simpsons sites, where somebody claimed that they owned copyright on something on a website, and got it taken down. I don't know of anybody fighting back and claiming fair use, but I have to believe that if they did, the average fan site with pictures and plot summaries (and no full episode downloads) would be perfectly legal. But I don't believe the argument has been made, and there have been some no-brainer, common sense type copyright cases in the last ten years that have gone completely the opposite way that I thought they would.
Absolutely. The argument for orphaned works is that, sometimes even during the copyright period, if a copyright holder chooses not to pursue their right, a work goes to the public domain. It isn't (theoretically) necessary for the company to not exist, just that they wouldn't want to pursue their right. With the sheet music I was talking about, it's normal for most pieces to see one printing, and then never get printed again. The argument is then that if the company chooses not to print again, probably because they don't feel they can sell enough copies to recoup their costs, it should be legal for me to make photocopies. It could certainly be the same with anime- if ADV decides that Daisuke Mop DX is a bust and they won't print a second run of dvds, then they've effectively said the property has no value to them, and people would be free to copy it. Most of the proposed (again, hypothetical) structures would require a copyright holder to do something (make a declaration, pay a continuance fee, or make a print run, something like that) to maintain their copyright in cases where they would potentially lose their rights. Just as a final clarification, that's hypothetical in the US, and orphaned works are still under copyright here. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
daxomni
Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||
Are you sure you're not confusing copyright with trademarks and servicemarks? "Orphaned" works and "abondonware" sound more like casual descriptions than anything resembling a legal term. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group