17 replies to this topic

[Luther Varone]

I hope this is the best place to ask, as Google hadn't been very helpful believe it or not.

I'm writing a novel that borrows basic elements of the MechWarrior universe, that is, the presence of "MECHs" on a fictional planet in a nation's military. It is strictly an influence, but could still be called fan fiction. In the actual writing there is no mention of the MECHs' names (I've given my own names for MECHs that correspond to some 'Mechs in the games), and absolutely no other part of the MW universe is included.

I'm more quizzical about the actual images of said machines. For example, if my book features the original illustration of a certain existing 'Mech on the front cover, absent of any symbols or text, is that infringement for when I self-publish to sell the book online? I also plan on having basic black-and-white outlines of MECHs within the first few pages. Among them is the Mad Cat, though I've renamed it, it does have that iconic outline most people would instantly identify with MechWarrior, but it is not featured on the cover and thus I figure wouldn't act as a selling point.

Thanks in advance for any helpful feedback.

Edited by Luther Varone, 04 June 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

All art is copyrighted, so if you use them without permission you will be in big trouble. The US courts have put down a standard of 75% for art meaning that the art must be 75% of differentiation ie the artwork must have a 75% difference between the existing art and new art. Symbols etc... do not count towards the differentiation. Your best bet is to hire an artist to draw up mechs that are unique to your universe and give them a rough idea of what you want.

[Luther Varone]

James The Fox Dixon, on 04 June 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

All art is copyrighted, so if you use them without permission you will be in big trouble. The US courts have put down a standard of 75% for art meaning that the art must be 75% of differentiation ie the artwork must have a 75% difference between the existing art and new art. Symbols etc... do not count towards the differentiation. Your best bet is to hire an artist to draw up mechs that are unique to your universe and give them a rough idea of what you want.

when you say "art" do you mean an original 'Mech piece of artwork or, as I'd mentioned, the actual 'Mech itself?
I'm paying a professional artist to do an illustration of an existing 'Mech model but in a certain pose, with unique colors/skin. Sorry if I misunderstood your response, just want to be as clear as possible with this. My idea for the cover that I've hired her to draw will be done regardless because of my enthusiasm for it, but if I cannot use it on my book due to these reasons I'll be very dustraught about it. Worse case scenario: I'll put the book up for free. That's not infringing anything, right?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Luther Varone, on 04 June 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

when you say "art" do you mean an original 'Mech piece of artwork or, as I'd mentioned, the actual 'Mech itself?
I'm paying a professional artist to do an illustration of an existing 'Mech model but in a certain pose, with unique colors/skin. Sorry if I misunderstood your response, just want to be as clear as possible with this. My idea for the cover that I've hired her to draw will be done regardless because of my enthusiasm for it, but if I cannot use it on my book due to these reasons I'll be very dustraught about it. Worse case scenario: I'll put the book up for free. That's not infringing anything, right?

The art means the actual mech representation in art. A good example of differentiation between two similar types of art using the 75% rule is this:

Original

http://cdn.obsidianp...phoenixhawk.jpg

New Version

http://brianscache.c...o-phoenix2c.jpg

There is a 75% difference in the design of the mech. The overall feel of the mech is the same, but the exact look is different.

Even if you put the book up for free you are infringing upon someone's copyright. Commercial reasons does not factor in for the basic charge of infringement, but does factor in when it comes to how much money you have to pay for infringing upon someone else's copyrights.

[Luther Varone]

Well, now I'm depressed.

Thank you for answering nonetheless.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

If you want new art on the cheap I reccomend your local college. The students want the work for their portfolio and need the money.

[Luther Varone]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 04 June 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

If you want new art on the cheap I reccomend your local college. The students want the work for their portfolio and need the money.

I've already hired somebody who illustrated very well two of my previous book covers, but thanks for the advice. I'm still getting my original idea done for a price, if not just for me to own and gloat about. As for the actual cover, the particular MECH that would've been featured was necessary to its design traits, so as per the replies in this thread I'll have to drastically change the concept. I figure feature the same environmental background but alter the POV of the MECH to something like a leg or arm cannon.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Luther Varone, on 05 June 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

I've already hired somebody who illustrated very well two of my previous book covers, but thanks for the advice. I'm still getting my original idea done for a price, if not just for me to own and gloat about. As for the actual cover, the particular MECH that would've been featured was necessary to its design traits, so as per the replies in this thread I'll have to drastically change the concept. I figure feature the same environmental background but alter the POV of the MECH to something like a leg or arm cannon.

Even then you would still have to alter the details of the leg or arm cannon to be 75% different than the original.

[Luther Varone]

James The Fox Dixon, on 05 June 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Even then you would still have to alter the details of the leg or arm cannon to be 75% different than the original.

That seems absurd. A leg is a leg.



So if I were to simplify this leg (i.e., smooth/remove the ankle gap and crevasses in the toes) then have my protagonist leaning on it, that should be good?

I swear if you say no, I'm gonna flip...

I'm half-joking, but seriously, this is becoming more of a meticulous absurdity than I'd originally thought. This doesn't go to say I don't appreciate your answers, which I do, so thank you.

[Thomas Covenant]

The death of copyright will be the birth of a creative people.

[Ghostsuit]

Luther Varone, on 05 June 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

That seems absurd. A leg is a leg.



So if I were to simplify this leg (i.e., smooth/remove the ankle gap and crevasses in the toes) then have my protagonist leaning on it, that should be good?

I swear if you say no, I'm gonna flip...

I'm half-joking, but seriously, this is becoming more of a meticulous absurdity than I'd originally thought. This doesn't go to say I don't appreciate your answers, which I do, so thank you.

While you might think it's absurd and a joke think of it this way, how would you like someone to copy 100% of your book then change a couple of paragraphs and then sell it? This is essential what your doing, someone has created something and your copying it.

Now any artist worth their salt should be able to come up with a image of a robot leg that's different enough from the above model to pass. Oh and yes a leg is a leg so long as he hasn't traced the image and rubbed out a few bits/smoothed a bit here and there it should be fine. Give him this image as reference and ask him to design something similar but unique.

Other option is contact the license holder of the image and ask if they wish to license it to you.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Luther Varone, on 05 June 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

That seems absurd. A leg is a leg.



So if I were to simplify this leg (i.e., smooth/remove the ankle gap and crevasses in the toes) then have my protagonist leaning on it, that should be good?

I swear if you say no, I'm gonna flip...

I'm half-joking, but seriously, this is becoming more of a meticulous absurdity than I'd originally thought. This doesn't go to say I don't appreciate your answers, which I do, so thank you.

No, a leg is not a leg as there literally millions of different legs that have been created with more being created.

Thomas Covenant, on 06 June 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

The death of copyright will be the birth of a creative people.

The current copyright laws last for too long and that time needs to be shortened. A lot of works from the 1900s-1930s should be in the public domain, so others can use those ideas as a basis for new works. Copyright laws aren't the problem in itself. It's the length of the copyright and the DCMA restrictions that make creating anything new very difficult.

[Pht]

Yes, the images are protected.

Catalyst does indeed have protectible trade dress on them.

[Melcyna]

Thomas Covenant, on 06 June 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

The death of copyright will be the birth of a creative people.

The opposite actually as then ppl would just mass copy existing idea and design by the bucket load.

simple rule one can guarantee ppl will do:
if there is an easier way out? They'll take it..

why be creative and design something, when you can just take someone's design that does it?

[Thomas Covenant]

Melcyna, on 15 June 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

The opposite actually as then ppl would just mass copy existing idea and design by the bucket load.

simple rule one can guarantee ppl will do:
if there is an easier way out? They'll take it..

why be creative and design something, when you can just take someone's design that does it?

We went to space that wasn't easy or atleast that isn't why we went.

Recognize you have a very limiting view of motivation for humans. We have the power to unite and passion takes us far.
Fairness is a natural concept.

[Melcyna]

We went to space because there is something to be gained there (back then the focus was the massive potential for space control both militarily and commercially, the entire saga was a FAR more interesting story than you think) and cold war gave a real damn good incentive for it (going to space was a matter of national pride as well to be the first and both USSR and USA cannot stomach the idea of the other being the first at it).

Fairness? Fairness only applies as long as it can be actually enforced...

Under the best possible intention and theory, mankind would recognize the benefit of fairness and all etc...
Enter the reality where the majority of human population aren't even educated well, or for that matter think anywhere beyond shortest term consideration.

Nice in theory, fatally flawed in reality.

Not that copyright is an ideal solution of course in a hypothetical ideal world with copyright war and ludicrous claim being significant in our own world, but the existing alternative gives an even worse path where no one would ever want to invest resource or effort to research, develop, or make anything new since they will never gain anything out of it.

Perhaps an ideal world to China (where they never respect copyright anyway and duplicate things flat out, sometimes creating knock offs with the very intention to be sold masquerading as the original one).

[Steven Dixon]

As just an interesting aside, clothing isn't copyrightable (the courts long ago ruled against it). But you can copyright* a brand, such as Levi. So you can legally copy a $100,000 Versace dress and sell it for $100 you just can't call it a Versace, even it it is otherwise completely identical. As a result companies like Gucci and Versace can charge huge premiums for just their label because it developed into a status symbol. It would be interesting to see what would happen if all intellectual property followed the same rule. Would it work out like fashion or lead to nothing but ripoffs with no innovation? Personally I agree with James Dixon (no association to myself) that copyright laws themselves aren't really the problem but they last too long; blame Disney for that

The courts have long held up copyrights because they believe that it serves the 'public good' (and they very well may be right) but they do allow 'fair use' exceptions. So you can use something that is copyrighted if its part of a parody, your just quoting it for analysis, ect. But when in doubt its better to err on the side of caution unless you have a really good lawyer

*Note: I'm using the term 'copyright' to refer to trademark and other similar concepts, because although they are legally different people tend to use them colloquially to mean the same thing.

[Luther Varone]

Thanks for all your feedback, though I am rather disappointed that my original idea for the cover cannot be exhibited due to copyright infringement, my last resort option will have to fare. I was just hoping to somehow portray very evidently on the cover that the story is mecha-based, even if it says so in the product description. Not being a visual artist myself, making completely original a leg or arm is incredibly mind-blowing to me, much less a machine in its entirety.