Wait, I'm under the impression HS's videos were only being used in-house by the dub team. Where's the violation in font licensing come from?
Wait, I'm under the impression HS's videos were only being used in-house by the dub team. Where's the violation in font licensing come from?
I don`t think there`s any violation, is just an hypocrisy thing going on.
A sample of copyright licensing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraco
If no license is given then 3b. is obviously invalid and thus the non-licensee would only own the work put into it. They don't have a license thus they don't "own" their own product.Quote:
3. Licensee's Rights and Obligations.
a. Licensee shall be solely responsible for providing all funding and technical expertise for the development and marketing of the Work.
b. Licensee shall be the sole owner of the Work and all proprietary rights in and to the Work; except, such ownership shall not include ownership of the copyright in and to the Material or any other rights to the Material not specifically granted in Section 1 above.
I didn't mean that that IP rightsholder can just seize and use the product for themselves, what I meant is they own all the rights to the contents(aside from previously established copyrights) of said product and thus "own" it. So aside from forbidding it's use, they can also order the product to be destroyed.
Now about the fonts, it seems the US doesn't recognise fonts as having copyright, other countries do though (like the UK). So the only way HS' could own the font is if the person who made it lives in one of the countries that does copyright fonts.
Ignoring some rippers inputting no effort that could be considered artistic, I was only considering (illegal) derivations that do include original work within. I was trying to give a more general opinion, after all, which might have made it seem like it clashed with your earlier post that I quoted. I'm not alone to blame, though, because your post wasn't that unambiguous either.
"the license holder owns every single thing anyone creates with their IP if no license to do so had been given"
This is clearly wrong as a general statement, no matter how you look at it. As you said, they can pursue to get the offending material removed but they can't simply claim it as their own if it's not 100% their material.
I don't think you're correct about that Kraco.
Take for example Bittersweet Symphony. The flute track from that song is from a Rolling Stones song and they used it without permission.
Rolling Stones basically sued them for ownership and now that song BELONGS to the Stones. Even thought the Stones didn't create anything else about that song, they now have ownership of the entire thing.
I'm not going to argue about individual cases. And if the ownership of something is to be decided in a court, it will necessarily lead to a decision. What they decide, it's up to the senile idiots wearing the wigs and how thick your pocketbook is when you are hiring a lawyer, and whether you see it till the end through all the levels of the justice system.
For all I know, you could be correct in the sense that courts would rather dictate a sole owner, if the original copyrighted material can be considered the only significant part of the work, than say the thing must be buried never to be seen again. I haven't really studied any such cases in statistically significant numbers.
lol @ ANN just now having an article about it.
News: Downloaded Sora no Otoshimono Copy Shown at Funimation StudioQuote:
Funimation had not offered an official comment at press time. However, a source at the company who wished to remain anonymous said that the company occasionally uses "unofficial" copies during the dubbing process if the acquisition of the original source material is delayed. The source said that Funimation's license makes the use of the content legal, even with a third party's unauthorized changes.
So are they still suing Defendant #1?
If so, that person chose the wrong time to be 1st!Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalobiian
Funimation and ANN are ridiculous. Sure... they hold the license. Can't deny it. But its just very hypocrite of them to use the fansubs when they file those lawsuits, which ironically didn't proceed because they filed them wrong.
BTW... I love how ANN practically tried to ignore the usage of the fansub until they could no longer ignore it.
Now you beleive me when I say Funi sucks Marik?
Be careful dude. I suggest uploading to an underground page or one that isn't located on the US.
It's too fell they go after Marik. Lots of my manga downloads come from his links...
if they're going to play that way:
-pad something into the rar/zip so the hash is changed from a group's release file.
-upload through some non-US proxy server
Toei sued 869 people over One Piece episode 515. The file hash was 5683D0EFD0C703237918E2A626D8DAD89D02046D, which is HorribleSubs' release.
CrunchyRoll: Toei Files Lawsuit Against 869 Internet Pirates of "One Piece"Quote:
The breakdown of the defendants IPs by state is approximately as follows:
PA: 24
TX: 85
CA: 185
FL: 75
MA: 31
MI: 20
TN: 6
NY: 78
MD: 29NJ: 25
WA: 30
VA: 23
MN: 8
OH: 20
LA: 9
IN: 12
GA: 18
AL: 7OK: 8
OR: 18
AZ: 10
NV: 10
RI: 2
UT: 11
CT: 13
NH: 2
IL: 27AR: 3
NC: 15
WI: 5
MO: 9
HI: 13
CO: 11
SC: 4
ME: 1
DE: 2VT: 2
KY: 1
IA: 3
WV: 2
MS: 1
NM: 2
DC: 3
NE: 3
AK: 1
KS: 2
I haven't torrented One Piece for a long time now, though I suppose they'd only go after American downloaders, not foreign. Maybe I should reconsider my habit of torrenting other HS releases as well. Especially since the idiot, traitorous government unfortunately in charge of my doomed home country will inevitably ratify ACTA.
The site didn't publish which trackers they got the releases from, just to make you more fearful. Come one darknet clients!
I'm scared of that too.. No idea where you're from, but I think a lot of countries nowadays are US lapdogs..Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraco
You can get the document with all the IP's here if you have a PACER account (free to get but $.08 per document page you look at). I would attach the PDF but I'm not sure of the legality of freely posting court documents even if they are open to the public. They are again seeking $150000 plus costs so probably around $200-250 per person.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/dis...v01746/150391/
edit: forgot link