Forum

Given that the product basically amounts to a big box of pulp covered in art ripped from the Japanese digital colorized version of the manga, I don't really see how he's got any legal ground to stand on. It's no different from selling bootleg apparel or wall scrolls or whatever else, and claiming it's an art piece sort of ceases to work when you're selling it for around $2000.

FilthyCasual wrote:

Tempest wrote:

Actually, it's a very legitimate piece of a fair-use response to a copyright complaint. The impact on the commercial exploitation of the original work is taken into consideration when determining fair use. Ie: "Can the derivative be used as a replacement for the original?" In this case, the publisher is claiming that the derivative can't be used as a replacement for the original, and therefore there is no negative impact on the financial exploitation of the original.

-t

So if your fandub/sub is shitty enough, you can't get sued?

Nah. It could be argued that plenty of people watch ubsubbed, raw japanese anime, even if they don't understand it. So the dub/sub being too shitty wouldn't be enough, because people would still be able to watch the images.

FilthyCasual wrote:

So if your fandub/sub is shitty enough, you can't get sued?

Nope, at least, not based on that alone. Because you're missing a basic requirement to make something fair use. The effect on the original's commercial exploitation is taken into consideration, but it's not what makes it fair use in the first place.

Now, if your shitty fandub was a parody of the original, that would be a start.

-t

Blanchimont wrote:

samuelp wrote:

Here's a thought experiment: what if after they made it they coated the entire thing in clear epoxy or glue so that it really, _really_ couldn't be read ever.
Would then it maybe just be considered an art display piece in your mind? Does that make it "better"? Oddly it kind of does when I think about it.

Don't think it matters. If we take Disney as a measuring stick, and the many murals featuring some Disney character popular with kids at the many schools, day cares etc, and what happened each and every time Disney got wind of it...

Sure, to someone who doesn't know anything about copyright law this sounds egregious and stupid. Otherwise you'd know that Disney legally HAS TO do this shit in order to keep the copyright for their original characters. It's the same thing with Nintendo and why they don't allow fanmade games.
It's not that they hate their fans, it's that they don't want to lose the ownership of their characters.

mlgfx wrote:

Sure, to someone who doesn't know anything about copyright law this sounds egregious and stupid. Otherwise you'd know that Disney legally HAS TO do this shit in order to keep the copyright for their original characters. It's the same thing with Nintendo and why they don't allow fanmade games.

You have it backwards. TRADEMARK is the one you have to use/defend, lest you lose it. Copyright is for keeps, at least until it falls into public domain(typically 70 years after author's death, not counting future Disney extensions...)...

Blanchimont wrote:

Sure, to someone who doesn't know anything about copyright law this sounds egregious and stupid. Otherwise you'd know that Disney legally HAS TO do this shit in order to keep the copyright for their original characters. It's the same thing with Nintendo and why they don't allow fanmade games.
It's not that they hate their fans, it's that they don't want to lose the ownership of their characters.

And do you know about any cases of corporations losing their rights over IP's because they didn't C&D a fangame or some fanart on the internet? Plenty of Star Wars mods out there for other games, like Thrawn's Revenge for Sins of a Solar Empire, does that mean Disney no longer has a right to Star Wars?

mlgfx wrote:

Otherwise you'd know that Disney legally HAS TO do this shit in order to keep the copyright for their original characters.

Blanchimont wrote:

You have it backwards. TRADEMARK is the one you have to use/defend, lest you lose it. Copyright is for keeps, at least until it falls into public domain(typically 70 years after author's death, not counting future Disney extensions...)...

Just confirming that Blanchimont is correct.

Nintendo and Disney do not enforce their copyrights for fear of losing them. They enforce them for a variety of other reasons.

Copyrights are not lost or lessened due to lack of enforcement.

Blanchimont wrote:

Don't think it matters. If we take Disney as a measuring stick, and the many murals featuring some Disney character popular with kids at the many schools, day cares etc, and what happened each and every time Disney got wind of it...

I think it does matter.

Keep in mind that fair-use is a very subjective and shades of grey type thing.

But generally personal interpretations such as fan-art and murals are not seen as fair use. Even if they're completely non-commercial, non-competitive in nature. Toss in some parody and social commentary, and (in theory) you can go ahead and sell the hell out of things like this:

Of course, big corporations like Disney aren't that always respectful of fairuse and often have no qualms about launching SLAPP suits, extra jurisdictional suits, or trademark suits to shut that shit down.

TsukasaElkKite wrote:

Hope Oda and Shueisha sue him.

in the same article, stated that they won't

Stay tuned for upcoming modern-art shenanigans, such as:
NONEPIECE -- an empty box previously containing ONEPIECE, with a link to the abridged series
FUNPIECE -- same giant unreadable book, now half the size and wrapped like a candy bar
TWOPIECE -- a fused volume of the rest of One Piece, volumes 103 to ???

It's hard for me to understand buying something like this. Making one of them for an art show or something, sure. But how do you convince 50 people to spend two grand on meter-long glued-together slabs of manga? Is "limited edition" really that enticing?

kotomikun wrote:

It's hard for me to understand buying something like this. Making one of them for an art show or something, sure. But how do you convince 50 people to spend two grand on meter-long glued-together slabs of manga? Is "limited edition" really that enticing?

I suspect they are collectors who are betting this particular artist's work will be worth a lot in the future.
The artist has clearly shown a knack for getting in the news, so maybe these collectors are on to something...

TsukasaElkKite wrote:

Hope Oda and Shueisha sue him.

asanime6 wrote:

in the same article, stated that they won't

I don't think it does.

Tempest wrote:

I don't think it does.

"According to a spokesperson for the publisher, there is no copyright infringement because it is physically impossible to read the book."

I thought this is the publisher for oda or something

asanime6 wrote:

Tempest wrote:

I don't think it does.

"According to a spokesperson for the publisher, there is no copyright infringement because it is physically impossible to read the book."

I thought this is the publisher for oda or something

That's referring to JBE Books

SlamMan wrote:

Tempest wrote:

Quote:

According to a spokesperson for the publisher, there is no copyright infringement because it is physically impossible to read the book.

FilthyCasual wrote:

LMAO what a response.

Actually, it's a very legitimate piece of a fair-use response to a copyright complaint. The impact on the commercial exploitation of the original work is taken into consideration when determining fair use. Ie: "Can the derivative be used as a replacement for the original?" I did a similar thing along with https://essays.edubirdie.com/thesis-writing for a better result. In this case, the publisher is claiming that the derivative can't be used as a replacement for the original, and therefore there is no negative impact on the financial exploitation of the original.

-t

Hmm, based off of the images that show it flopping open I think one could very easily argue that you could read this. It could easily then be used as a replacement for the original, it just wouldn't be portable.

Interesting logic but to me it's more fanservice and if the original publisher had done it would have made good money on all the fans of the franchise.

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: Guardian: Shueisha Confirms French Publisher's "All-in-One" One Piece Book Was U

The ANN Aftershow - Will You Watch Solo Leveling Season 2?

Dark Moon: The Blood Altar Volumes 1-2 Manhwa Review

Interview: Voice Actors Rika Hayashi and Hiroki Tōchi Talk About Their New Golf Anime, Tonbo!

Japanese TV Special Ranks Top Anime Songs, as Chosen by Foreign Fans

This Week in Anime - So, Is Sound Euphonium Queerbaiting or Not?

Wonderful Precure! Episodes 1-12 Anime Review

That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime: The Ways of Monster Nation Manga Ends Due to Artist's Health

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

Forum - View topicINTEREST: Guardian: Shueisha Confirms French Publisher's "All-in-One" One Piece Book Was U

Forum

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: Guardian: Shueisha Confirms French Publisher's "All-in-One" One Piece Book Was U