Copying a parody of a movie using a fan&#39;s 3D model I really like a board game. This game includes artistic references (as parody) to a well-known movie. I wanted to improve the pieces of the board game (which were 2-dimensional) to augment my own experience playing it. This led me to create a 3D printable model of a ship from the movie that modeled the parody's artwork (which has significant differences from the movie, but is still recognizable as a ship from the movie, as its intent is parody). In order to accomplish this, I started with a fan-made model of the ship from the original movie that I found on Thingiverse. I altered it significantly in order to match the parody's artistic style and to work as a printable game piece. The fan's model has an Attribution-NonCommercial license on it. I played the board game with some of my friends. Some of my friends want to pay me to make them their own copies of the game pieces, which includes (among many things) this ship. My four questions: (1) Is my creation of this game piece considered parody because I am very explicitly copying parody? If so it might allow me to be able to sell these pieces under the &quot;fair use&quot; clause. http://lemoinefirm.com/parody-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement (2) What about if I get permission to sell? Who's permission would I need: the parody game maker's? The fan's, who modeled the spaceship? Or the makers of the movie themselves? (3) Does the fan have the right to put a copyright license on his model of the ship in the first place because he is explicitly copying someone else? Or is his work considered art? (4) Has my work been altered enough (now that it distinctly resembles the parody and not the model I used) that it is considered new artwork that has my copyright, not the fan's? https://www.wildlifeartstore.com/can-you-copy-art/
Copyright is hard. The movie has a copyright, and so has its ship model. This is the original copyright. The boardgame has a token. That thing has its own copyright, no matter if it's a parody of another thing or not. The copyright holder might not be the boardgame maker, but it is under copyright. In any way, parody is fair use, so no harm here. The model has a copyright, but also infringes on the film's copyright as it is a derivative of the film. If the film copyright holder wants, they can have it taken down and sue the maker. In any way, this model is available under a specific license. The model license is clearly Non Commercial. The CC-A-NC license can't be changed to one that is commercial. You can only add more No categories. The questions: 1 - No. Your work is a derivative work of both the model AND the boardgame. You don't parody the boardgame. 2 - You need a license from not one but at least two sources: the model author and the boardgame copyright holder. You might even need a license from the original film company. 3 - YES. He made the model, he can license it as he wants, but the license might be ineffective: He might have coverage under an explicit fan license with the movie company to make the model (allowing sharing under such other license) or not (when it might be silent acceptance of fan works, am implicit license or just plain lack of knowledge of the infringing model) - determining if the company wants to pursue is not your legal battle. Your battle is more likely with the copyright holder (of movie and boardgame) anyway because you lack a valid license from them. &quot;I used this infringing model and breached the license I got it under&quot; is... a very precarious point in court. 4 - No. You used the other work, you can't get out of the CC-A-NC license by altering the item. It'll always be a derivative work of the model you put in. You only get copyright in the changes. The resulting item has shared copyright with the original model maker. He gave you a license to do that, but the unbreakable condition unless you get a different license is: You can't ever sell this, you HAVE to tell them that I was part of this design.
united-states Copyright First of all, copyright infringement is not, in the usual sense &quot;illegal&quot;. That is, it is not normally a crime. (It can be in extreme cases, but not the sort of thing described in the question.) What infringement is is a tort, that is, it provides grounds for the copyright owner to sue the infringer, and perhaps collect money damages and/or get an injunction (court order) preventing the infringer from continuing to infringe. Beyond that, let's consider what is meant by &quot;contains the intellectual property (IP) of the company&quot;, and what the consequences might be. Some of this will differ depending on the country. Since no country is stated in the question, I will mostly use US law in this answer, with mentions of where it is likely to be different in other countries. Damages The image of Deadpool, or any other comic character, will be protected by copyright. If a fan artist copies this image (or any of the many such images published by Marvel) or closely imitates it, that will be copyright infringement. Marvel could sue and likely win. Damages can be sizable. In the US statutory damages can be as high as $150,000 per work infringed (or as low as $750, as the court thinks just). See 17 USC 504(c) Or the owner can instead get actual damages plus any profits that the infringer made. (17 USC 504(b)). The owner might also get an injunction under 17 USC 502, seizure or deconstruction of infringing works under 17 USC 503, and possibly costs and legal fees as well under 17 USC 505. Derivative work If the fan art is not a close copy, but is clearly based on the original art, then it may well constitute a derivative work US copyright law defines this in 17 USC 101 as: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. The more &quot;distinctive elements and details&quot; of the original that are used, the more clearly the fan art would be a derivative work. Creating a derivative work without permission is infringement, an the same remedies (damages, injunction, etc.) are available as for a direct copy under 17 USC 502 thru 505. Fair Use However, there is a possible exception to copyright available, namely fair use. See Is this copyright infringement? Is it fair use? What if I don&#39;t make any money off it?. If a use is found to be a fair use, it is not an infringement. Fair use is defined in 17 USC 107](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107) which provides in pertinent part: ... In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Let's consider the fact pattern in the question in terms of these four factors: The allegedly infringing work is commercial in that it is being sold, almost suely for significant profit. Beyond that, the use does not seem to be transformative. Rather it seems to be used for much the same purpose as the original, so that the purchaser can enjoy the image of the character. If the fan art were making a criticism of or a comment on the original that would be different. As it is, factor 1 leans toward infringement, not fair use. The copyrighted work is creative and expressive, notr factual. This leans away from fair use. The fan art is probably taking a whole image, even if not a whole comic. This probably leans away from fair use, but more details might be needed. Selling individual images of the character is a market that the owner might well exploit, if it is not doing so already. The fan art might serve as a substitute or such an authorized image. Factor 4 leans away from fair use. There doesn't seem much chance of this fan art being held to be a fair use of the original, so that defense will not work. Note that when a work is a parody, it is often found to be a fair use. But in US copyright lay, a parody is a work that comments on or criticizes another work by means of retelling or reworking the source. A work that reworks or modifies a source merely for comic effect, or to criticize something other than the source work, such as to comment on society as a whole, or some social tend, is not ma parody in this sense. Such a work is sometimes described in copyright cases as a &quot;satire&quot;. A satire in this sense will not normally be found to be a fair sue because of its satiric qualities, although in some cases it may be found to be a fair use for other reasons. Consider the case of Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. 268 F.3d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 2001). This case dealt with a novel called The Wind Done Gone. TWDG retold Gone With the Wind from the PoV of the enslaved characters. It reused many characters and plot incidents from the source work. It was clearly derivative. But the 11th circuit court held that a major purpose of TWDG was to comment on GWTW by retelling it in altered form, and thus it was held to be a fair use (after considering the other fair-use factors.) Note that the fact that the fan use is perceived to be comedic does not, in and of itself, make the use a fair use. It might contribute to the fan art being found to be somewhat *transformative, but quite possibly, which in turn possibly helps tip factor 1 toward fair use, but quite likely not enough. And it doesn't really affect the other factors at all.Again teh details will matter. Composite Works This commetn asks: ... Let's say the exception is that it's a parody that mixes two different studios' IP to make one blended character, an amalgam. And would be perceived as a humorous caricature to many upon seeing it. Does this make it a fair use parody derivative work that is non-infringing? Such a composite would be a derivative of two or more sources. If the was a suit for alleged infringement of any of these sources, there would need to be a fair use analysis in regard to the elements of the source work that it is claimed to infringe in that suit. How much of that source was used would be relevant, as would the effect on the market for that source. Only if it in some way commented on that source would it be considered to be a parody of that source. The mere fact that such an allegedly infringing wok drew on two or more different sources would not, on its own, make it a fair use. Of course, if it drew on mny different sources it might not use enough of any one to be considered derivative.. Non-US Law The major current international copyright agreements are the Berne Copyright Conventionand the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Article 2, paragraph 3 of Berne provides: Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work. Article 9, paragraph 1 of TRIPS states: Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto. However, Members shall not have rights or obligations under this Agreement in respect of the rights conferred under Article 6bis of that Convention or of the rights derived therefrom. Thus the protection of derivative works under Berne and TRIPS is similar to that under US law. Fair Dealing In the UK and many members of the Commonwealth of nations, the key ewxception to copyright is known as Fair Dealing. The details vary by country, but the key areas covered are: Research and study For this defense to apply, the infringer must show that the dealing was for non-commercial research or private study, private study excludes any study directly or indirectly for any commercial purpose. Criticism or review For this to apply, the infringer must be able to show that the dealing was for criticism or review, that the infringed work was previously made available to the public, that the dealing was fair, and that the dealing was accompanied by an acknowledgement Reporting of current events Parody, caricature and pastiche This seems to be rather broader than the US treatment of parody under a fair use analysis. None of these seem to apply to the situation describes in the question. &quot;Parody, caricature or pastiche&quot; might apply, but nothing in the question clearly indicates this.
The "Crabs" game can be legal if it is seen as a form of parody. That is one of the forms of "fair use" that allows copying (within limits). This is to allow the use of limited amounts of copying for critical or "mocking" pieces, which are considered a form of free speech. Two other issues come into play under "fair use." The first is whether or not this is "commercial" (yes) or non-commercial (e.g educational) use. That is mildly negative for "Crabs" but by no means dispositive. The second is the likely market impact, whether the new use tends to compete with the old use in its "home" market, or whether it is likely to open a new market of a very different, perhaps "opposite" audience that might later buy the original as a "crossover." The "Crabs" game seems to address the "green" or at least "pro animal" (PETA) market. If the defendant can show that the "Cards" market addresses e..g., your "inner Nazi," making it "opposite," that would be ideal. It would be less convincing if "Cards" were addressing e.g. human rights, because that might be seen to overlap with the green market in terms of social conscience.
Ideas are not protected by copyright, only arrangements of words are protected. If you &quot;rephrase&quot; by only a minor change of wording, leaving much of the wording intact, that is still a copyright infringement unless an exception such as fair use or fair dealing applies (and that seems a bit doubtful in this case). If you &quot;rephrase&quot; so that the wording is quite different, even though the idea is the same, there is probably no infringement. Copying elements of computer code or other IT commands that are essential to making an example work is not infringement. Where there is only one or a very small number of ways to naturally express a fact, copying such expression is not infringement, as facts are not protected by copyright. Adding examples but keeping significant wording unchanged is still likely to be infringement.
It is not per se necessary to license objects depicted in a video game. A 2020 court case has decided that the same rules apply to video games as to other forms of art. Just like you don't need to license every car on the road every time you take a picture of said road. Most court cases that are brought against non-licensed use of vehicles claim something other than simple use of the design, such as false implication of license or use of a trademark. Military vehicles enjoy less protection than civilian ones. The works of the US Federal Government, for one, are not copyrightable. The design of military vehicles is also a lot more functional rather than artistic. To claim copyright protection for a vehicle design, one would have to prove that the design wasn't driven by function - which is something military contractors for large projects definitely aren't hired to do. A carrier's or SSBN's shape, for instance, isn't copyrighted at all, because it's necessary for their performance. However, there are elements of real-world objects that would be protected by copyright against depiction in games. An accurate and detailed depiction of non-functional elements can be a copyright violation. Cases have been brought against artist tattoos on human models. A complex vinyl decal on a car can also be copyright-protected against depictions, but only to the extent that its depiction isn't necessary to keep the vehicle recognizable. For a big studio, licensing the vehicles can be simpler and cheaper than risking a need for a potential legal defense. It can also provide help from the manufacturer in recreating a detailed design, such as drawings and 3D models. But it is not strictly necessary.
This would be infringement. It generally doesn't matter that you're giving things away for free. Keep in mind that the point of these laws is not only to prevent third parties from making money off the creator's ideas, but also to protect the creator's ability to make money. If you're providing free knock-off Winnie the Pooh products, that cuts into the market for the creator's legitimate products.
Arguably not (or, the example terms are not restricted by copyright, but not for the reasons given, which means this protection may not extend past the examples given in all cases). The protection for &quot;stock characters&quot; comes from the &quot;Scènes à faire&quot; doctrine, which protects elements that are elementary and near-required to be part of a genre. For example, a fairy tale is &quot;obligated&quot; to start with &quot;Once upon a time&quot; and end with &quot;And they lived happily ever after&quot;. Character classes, by virtue of being character classes, do not qualify under this doctrine to me, simply by virtue of being &quot;character classes&quot;. What matters are: a) the terms used for the classes are generic b) there is prior art to any claimed copyright, with uses of such terms in fantasy fiction stretching back at least hundreds of years and predating, for example, modern English. Note that the above is not universal to all character classes. For example, if you had classes whose names that directly related to various other copyrighted works IP (e.g. &quot;Jedi Councilor&quot;, &quot;Yogo Wardmaster&quot;, &quot;Grey Warden&quot;, &quot;Aes Sedai&quot;, &quot;Asha'man&quot; &quot;Eversor Assassin&quot;), those could still be infringing copyright.
If one is writing about a work of fiction, one may describe the work, and use terms from the work in doing so. One might write, for example: In Spaceman Sam the characters use &quot;blasters&quot; as weapons, while in Jack of the Galaxy &quot;contragravity&quot; is used to propel &quot;aircars&quot; These are facts, and copyright may never be used to protect facts. Moreover, such uses as reviews and criticism are particularly likely to constitute fair use under US law, or another exception to copyright under the law of some other country, even if some otherwise protected content is quoted. If something appeared in that sci-fi universe prior to me re-iterating it; does that mean it's fair game for me to use? If the &quot;something&quot; that appeared earlier is an &quot;idea&quot; or a name, it is indeed fair game. This is true whether it is obscure or well-known. In any case describing the facts of the fiction, even in detail, is generally not an infringement. If &quot;re-iterating&quot; something from an existing work in a new fiction involves an extensive quotation, or a detailed, point-by-point reuse of a fictional element, that might constitute infringement, unless fair use or another exception to copyright applies. Does intellectual law protect very specific plot concepts? No, it doesn't. A plot concept is an idea. In the US, 17 USV 103(b) reads: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Laws in other countries are similar on this point. This is sometimes known as the idea/expression distinction. This means that while the expression used to embody a concept is often protected by copyright, the concept itself never is. Are you allowed to borrow names of different generic sci-fi inventions that aren't super-important to the story. Yes. In fact even the names of fictional technological devices that are very important to a story may be, and often are, reused in different works by different authors. For example Ursula LeGuin used &quot;ansible&quot; as the name of a faster-then-light communicator, in fact an instantaneous communication device, in her &quot;Hanish&quot; series, particularly in The Left Hand of Darkness, The Dispossessed, and The Word for World is Forest. (She wrote that the term was derived from the word &quot;answerable&quot;.) The term and concept were reused by Vernor Vinge in &quot;The Blabber&quot; and A Fire Upon the Deep, and by Elizabeth Moon in the &quot;Sassanek&quot; series and more centrally in the &quot;Vatta's war&quot; series starting with Trading in Danger. Moreover, the names of fictional characters are not protected. An author might introduce characters with names borrowed from Tolkien, Heinlein, or other well-known (or obscure) fictional works. US Copyright Office circular #33 &quot;Works not protected by Copyright&quot; says that &quot;names, titles, and short phrases&quot; may not be protected by copyright, and will not be separably registered. However, if a character has not only the name of a previous character, but a detailed, point-by-point similarity in distinctive elements to a character in a protected work, that may be enough to make the newer work a derivative work, and thus be infringing if permission is not obtained from the copyright holder on the source work. The same is true of the detailed reproduction of a distinctive setting from a source work. But a mere name and broad, general description is not enough tom make a later work derivative. The more details are reproduced, and the more distinctive and specific those details are, the more likely the newer work is to be found distinctive.