DakonBlackblade said:
Nuvendil said:
Wrong. Copyright Laws protect intelectual property, not physical property. This is an old misconception. If I sit down and hand copy with only a handful of small, meaningless edits the entirety of a novel and distributed it for free or for profit, the author of that novel could take me to court and win. Easily. Copyrights don't give them ownership of the tracer model, it gives them control of the tracer character. Also, the character designs are also undoubtedly trademarked, especially Tracer. Unless the porn in question is of a character vaguely reminiscent of Tracer with non of her distinct characteristics, it will not be sufficiently transformative to pass the fair use test.
|
If the model is original, is is suficiently different (they usualy are) and it is not being used for profit (they usualy aren't) it is not an infringement because the creators are using those models in scenarios they create themselves completly unrelated to the games/movies whatever they come from. In your novel example you'd be simply copying the novel, it'd be the same as creating a custom character and using it on a game that is basicaly a copy of Overwatch, the porn case is entirely different from your example.
|
You missed my point: copyright protects copying of distinguishable parts, not just the whole. You can't just copy characters' designs yourself and use that fact that you are modeling it yourself to dodge a copyright infringement case. If you copy, to be more on point, a chapter from a novel wholesale and put it in your own work, it would get you in trouble. If you copy Tracer exactlyor close to exactly, it doesn't matter if you did it yourself. Her design, manner of speech, mannerisms, all these aspects are part of the intelectual property and protected. now if you changed her design significantly you could get away with it but then again, that's not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with porn intentionally resembling the characters in question as much as humanly possible. That's the whole point. Therefore, it IS copyright infringement. Tracer's design is also trademarked most likely. And this would be a disparaging of the mark, also a form of intelectual property infringement. Also, use for profit is not a prerequisit to copyright infringement. If it were, any absolute jerk with time on his hands could torpedo any author's career by shamelessly giving away his book for free en masse digitally and physically. It can be a mitigating factor in a strong Fair Use case but it does not absolve one of infringement.
Again, watch the video. It is far, far more informative than I can be and deals with the sort of thing directly.
