Guys, FYI: I invented saying "lol" on the internet. I have the copyright, but I'm a generous person, so I let it slide when people use my creation. I just wish I could get a little attribution.
You can't copyright terms and words, that's what trademarks are for. Trademarks and copyright all have built in exceptions for them that, in the case of something like "yo-yo" (in the case Duncan the original inventor of the term) or in your fictitious example. It's become too generic a term to protect.
Same thing goes with Disney and the Darth Vader copyright: they don't want to crack down on an enthusiastic fan for promoting their character. CC is not cutting into Disney's profit margin, so they don't care.
It's probably more likely that they don't know considering how niche the product is. Try contacting Disney about it and see if they'll care then.
Also, CC may have an argument that what he's doing is a "parody", which is okay under copyright law, especially the red Vaders.
That's not a parody. Recoloring something isn't parody, or recreating it in a different medium doesn't automatically make it a parody.
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.
Definition from
Stanford university.
However, even though I'm sure Disney doesn't give a rat's @ss about CC and his Vader caps, they are worried about losing their copyright, and if they let too many people use it for free, the copyright can actually become part of the public domain, which would hurt their profit margin quite a bit. So they have to walk a fine line between and losing their copyright protection, but still allowing avid Star Wars (c) fans to continue to be enthusiastic about the Star Wars (c) franchise, which means that they have to allow a certain amount of fan-created items, and even fan fiction. This in the end helps Disney make even more money by selling more licensed Star Wars (c) merchandise and selling more tickets to the movies. Lego recently had a similar internal debate, and has recently decided to embrace their fans and their fan-created items, rather than suing them, as they did in the past.
There's a difference between fan works and fan works for sale. A lot of companies are fine with fan works and have opened it. It's a completely different story when money enters the equation like CC selling his vader/darkside/whatever you want to call them caps.
It doesn't matter what Lego believes or claims, their patents and copyrights have all fallen into the public domain. Lego always blusters about trying to pretend as if it still holds anything other than a trademark on the name Lego and a few patents on newer bricks they've invented. They've lost a couple pretty high profile cases in relation to that, and it's not like they have any other choice.
As for CC making Vaders, like I said before, he would probably argue that he made them for his friends as a "parody", which is perfectly legal.
No he's not, see above link.
As for CC trying to protect his own copyright, that is also perfectly understandable and totally correct. CC's caps are distinctive and well-known, which is exactly the type of thing copyright law was invented to protect.
Yeah, but if we're to take the behavior of CC in this situation then it it's a bit odd to see CC suddenly a huge vanguard of copyright and keeping his ideas safe. The copy cats are essentially just following his example, and he's not in any place to criticize them until he either admits he made a mistake in producing those caps.
And finally, please don't feel sorry for Disney or George Lucas. Please remember that Walt Disney was a virulent anti-semite, a racist, and a Nazi sympathizer before WWII (this is all true, look it up). And as for George Lucas, he stole the idea for his original 1977 Star Wars IV: A New Hope from an Akira Kurosawa samurai movie called: The Hidden Fortress. Lucas did not steal the entire Kurosawa movie, but he did lift a lot of material including the two comedic servants which became the droids. Other parts of his movie were lifted from other movies, he was like the original Quentin Tarantino.
This is all completely irrelevant, I don't feel sorry for anyone in this situation. I really don't care. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in being up in arms about one thief, but being ok with another. The Star Wars films are hardly original in their plot structures and themes, it's a pretty standard western type film so of course themes will match up but it doesn't make it anymore right what the copy clacks or CC have done.
-----
But if we're doing that; I believe CF has never called the keycap 'vader'. For the record I dont really care about what Bro and CF did (bbv1 & 'vader'), as the product/character never existed before in keycap form.
It doesn't matter what they're called, they're clearly stealing someone else's product/idea/concept. You don't have an understanding of what copyright is if you believe not referring to them as Vaders matters. If you're OK with what CF and Brobot did, then you should be fine with what the copycats are doing here.
P3TCOCK, I realize the term 'unrelated product' means near nothing in terms of copyright. But it does mean something in relation to outright copying an existing product, using the existing product as an aid in creation, and selling to the same demographic or market.
That's irrelevant to the discussion. I'm talking about how it's hypocritical to support IP theft (regardless of how big it is) of one thing and then turn around and criticize someone who is essentially doing the same thing. The people making those fake clacks don't market them or label them as real clacks, so it would be perfectly fine if the name is your only concern.
Theres also the possibility this guy is so accustomed to 'asian counterfeiting' , he believes he is doing nothing wrong as hes said "i just like keycap, i could not buy, so i create for myself". This would probably be fine if it was only for himself, but he is SELLING them. Idiot possibly doesn't have the conscious to know how wrong this is. Especially replacing the signature underneath the keycap.
Or hes just playing dumb.
There's nothing right about what he's doing and I've said it isn't, but it's not any different than what CC is doing right now, except it has no 'measurable' damage for everyone who chooses to turn a blind eye to it.
Exactly. Obviously im wasting my time trying to explain morals and having a conscious to copyright law enthusiasts.
There's no reason to use ad hominems, you simply don't understand how copyright works. Others do, and I have gone and pointed it out. I personally don't really care if they're copied or punished or that BB and CC have done so in the past, but I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting one act of copyright infringement regardless of its effect on the parties involved.
