i also agree with WoR. a trademark is for names of products.

Correction: trademark law can only cover the use of character names and likenesses in particular contexts. If I use the likeness of Jesus as a logo for my game company I can prevent you from using Jesus as a logo for your own game company. This does not mean I can prevent you from using Jesus in your own stories.

yea, tons of people have used "harry potthead" as parodies of the original. This guy looks exactly like harry potter (except for the blood shot eyes and bong) but they use his image freely.

Copyright issues are very difficult. And they also vary from country to country! There is a lot of info available on the web, but when push comes to shove, you either have to consult a professional, or convince yourself that you are right.

It''s easy enough if your works are different enough (i.e. the original is Harry Potter and you created a pyramid with three arms and one eye) - then you don''t need a lawyer.

However, as you get closer to the original, the question becomes more difficult.

From your description I would suspect you have nothing to worry about, but of course I can not guarantee it (lawyers can''t even guarantee it). Even with the advice from a lawyer all you can do is proceed (or not) and hope they won''t sue you.

Even if you are right doesn''t mean they won''t. They might have a lawyer who disagrees with yours and recommends them they should sue. Then it''s up to the judge to decide...

Hope I didn''t scare you. It''s not as bad as it might look. Just read up enough info on the matter, and then make up your mind or consult a lawyer for more details...

quote: Original post by neonzero2
yea, tons of people have used "harry potthead" as parodies of the original. This guy looks exactly like harry potter (except for the blood shot eyes and bong) but they use his image freely.

Parodies are a separate issue and are allowed.

I am 99% sure that your picture is fine as long as it contains no copyrighted text or trademarked imagery.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

"[In 1982] a federal court of appeals heard a complaint by Groucho Marx Productions Incorporated against a dramatic production company that had used likenesses of the Marx Brothers in a Broadway play called A Day In Hollywood/A Night in Ukraine. Claiming that the deceased Marx Brothers had assigned the rights to their likenesses to the company, Groucho Marx Productions tried to enforce a perpetual monopoly on the characteristics of its namesake: the painted mustache, elongated gait, slick hair, cigar, and glasses. The court ruled against Groucho Marx Productions, but the case remains an example of how valuable the Marx Brothers are as commodities long after they have ceased being creators-- or borrowers." (From Copyrights and Copywrongs by Siva Vaidhyanathan).

I recently read on another forum that it is illegal in the US to use the © symbol on a site\ product without registering it first, costing about $60. The same posts stated that you can freely do so without registration in Austrailia. This leaves me wondering how such a law is governed in a system like the internet. Do you use the copyright laws of the country the file is written in or the country it is hosted in? Or is there seperate international legislation, and if so, what is it?

If at first you don''t succeed, call it version 1.0

SketchSoft | SketchNews

Please, it''s just doodle... bloody taken username =P

It''s legal to use the circle-C without registration in the US.

Maybe your ''other forum'' was thinking of the circle-R registered trademark.

Just to add fuel to the fire, it''s easy enough to claim that your image is derivative enough not to infringe upon the Harry Potter likeness - which I''d be amazed if it isn''t copyrighted, btw.

However, if your painting has a boy with black-rimmed glasses and a lightning-bolt scar across his forehead playing a Quidditch match, or riding whatever model of broom he''s using these days with a Gryffindor flag in the background, then yes - you have infringed, damn your soul to hell and all that jazz.

There is a difference between Potter-inspired work and an "original" scene using copyrighted images. Even if you ditched the Harry Potter character, if you have a Snitch (? been a while) being chased by a broomstick-riding teenager in green robes...you''re on shaky ground, my friend.

You can create the works, but your real problem is selling them. Fan fiction/art abounds, as long as it''s not being sold as "original" work.

Tread lightly.

quote: Original post by neonzero2
yea, tons of people have used "harry potthead" as parodies of the original. This guy looks exactly like harry potter (except for the blood shot eyes and bong) but they use his image freely.

Satire is one of the areas of "fair use" under copyright law. So although it may look similar it''s satire, and therefore doesn''t have to apply to the same constructs as other non satire based images.