Demon license? (copyright myths)

[Greg Barniskis]

Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> 
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Josh Ockert wrote:
> 
>>
>> No I disagree. I'm fairly certain that an independently drawn
>> personified mouse would not be copyright infringement.
>>
>> Calling it "Mickey Mouse" may very well be trademark infringement,  
>> however.
>>
> 
> 
> As long as the "independently drawn personified mouse" didn't look  like 
> Mickey at all you would be ok.  But an independently drawn  personified 
> mouse that bore resemblance to His Mouseness would  probably land you in 
> hot water.  Again, IANAL-AIDPOOTV.

Unless of course you made it clear that the resemblance was 
intentional and your use of the copyrighted image was as part of 
legitimate social commentary (e.g. satire, or critique). You'd get 
in trouble if you tried to pass it off as an independent work. Thus 
the infamous "Beastie F'ing Tux" image is probably not an 
infringement of either the Beastie or the Tux image copyrights, 
because it's a parody. Only a federal judge could tell you for sure.

Copyright is both clear cut and a murky gray area, at the same time. 
The only sure protection for an "infringer" is to have a written 
approval from the copyright holder for use as a "get out of jail 
free" card. IANAL, but IAAL (I am a librarian ;) and have spent more 
than a few hours on the subject.

Anyway, this thread is getting way OT for -questions. The OP's 
question was answered I think. The rest of us should go to -chat, or 
in my case, -lunch.


-- 
Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator
South Central Library System (SCLS)
Library Interchange Network (LINK)
<gregb at scls.lib.wi.us>, (608) 266-6348