The Order of the Stick goes Anime!

[Meinos Kaen]

This is a little something I did in three days circa.

I asked myself, what if TOOTS was an anime? How would its opening be? And this is what came out.

Cancelled

Enjoy!

[Thormag]

It looks pretty good, but The Giant might not like to have his characters used without his consent (unless he gave you consent, then forget I said that).

[Meinos Kaen]

It looks pretty good, but The Giant might not like to have his characters used without his consent (unless he gave you consent, then forget I said that).

Woooops... That could be a problem... I usually just get away with giving credit and my devotion and submission to the ones I borrow sprites from... I hope he doesn't get angry...

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

I'm pretty sure The Giant is okay with this kind of thing if you draw the characters yourself. You didn't, though, so this is illegal.

[Charles Phipps]

;3557964']I'm pretty sure The Giant is okay with this kind of thing if you draw the characters yourself. You didn't, though, so this is illegal.

Yes, though I don't think of it as a major deal either. If he wants respect though, I think he should pull it down and ask permission.

Saying "IT'S ILLEGAL" for a clear labor of love by a person for a comic is also a pretty asshat thing to say.

At least compliment the guys efforts.

[TheDarkOne]

;3557964']I'm pretty sure The Giant is okay with this kind of thing if you draw the characters yourself. You didn't, though, so this is illegal.

Saying it's illegal is probably a little bit of a strong word. "Questionable legality" is better, I'm not a lawyer, but I've never seen anything that convinced me that using original art in a parody isn't ok. It's possible it is actually breaking a law, but then again, look at things like the PA vs. Squidi, or how at least one huge web comic that uses spites from a video game(8-bit theater) has gone unmolested for years. When there have been cases of other people using other square-enix ip getting shut down, for instance, I know of a group who were trying to make a fan-sequel to a final fantasy game who got shut down.


But in any case, unless I'm mistake, there are rules against that sort of thing on this forum, so....yeah...

[Nerd-o-rama]

Neat stuff. Against Teh Rulez, but I applaud the effort nonetheless.

Of course, my sig has my take on what comes of crossing OotS and anime.

[Kreistor]

Saying it's illegal is probably a little bit of a strong word. "Questionable legality" is better, I'm not a lawyer, but I've never seen anything that convinced me that using original art in a parody isn't ok. It's possible it is actually breaking a law, but then again, look at things like the PA vs. Squidi, or how at least one huge web comic that uses spites from a video game(8-bit theater) has gone unmolested for years. When there have been cases of other people using other square-enix ip getting shut down, for instance, I know of a group who were trying to make a fan-sequel to a final fantasy game who got shut down.

But in any case, unless I'm mistake, there are rules against that sort of thing on this forum, so....yeah...

Actually, it's a homage, not a parody. he'd have to make fun of the Giant to be a parody, and this is respectful. Either way, there aren't any criminal charges here, so it's not illegal. You might get sued.

8-bit Theatre is definitely a parody, so that gets a pass. Same goes for Looking for Group (http://www.lfgcomic.com/)'s use of a Beholder falls under the same, probably. (I'm a little doubtful on that one, but Sohmer's confident.)

The Giant has asked people not take images directly from the strip, so at best you've done something the Giant doesn't want you to do. How much a violation of teh copyright law this use is, I can't say for certain. I can't find any information on the use of images in this way. So you're safest to dump it.

[David Argall]

It's not illegal since it amounts to advertising for the strip, among other points.

However, the fact the question needs to be asked tells us our copyright laws are completely out of whack.

[Axl_Rose]

Saying it's illegal is probably a little bit of a strong word.

Something is either legal or it's not. It may depend on the jurisdiction but there's no such thing as "Well it's kind-of legal"

[Nerd-o-rama]

Something is either legal or it's not. It may depend on the jurisdiction but there's no such thing as "Well it's kind-of legal"
Okay, so it's legal, but he could still be sued for it and probably lose. Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

[yoshi927]

@ the copyright issue;

Who's suing him? I doubt anyone will be willing to press charges for something like this.

@ Rich not wanting people to use his images;

This seems like a spirit of the law situation. I don't think Rich would have a problem with this, it's obviously just an homage to the comic. And another thing I think is that we should be talking about the awesome movie from the link, rather than copyright issues. We aren't seven, let's stay on topic here.

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

People are reacting to my post a little more strongly than I anticipated.

I like the video. I think it's great. I'm just warning the OP that he's not supposed to do this.

^ The Giant has specifically said not to repost the art (I believe it was in the FAQ, which was removed when the site format changed). I doubt the OP will be sued, but I think he should still be warned that he's not actually allowed to do this.

[kabbor]

Legally, you are probably within the bounds of fair use. Infringement of someone's copyright is not 'Illegal' anyway - But the copyright owner does have the right to compensation or damages.
Giantmentally, however, the Giant has stated his standards, and this does not comply.
Artistically, - well, maybe I just have not taste for manga.

[monty]

^ The Giant has specifically said not to repost the art (I believe it was in the FAQ, which was removed when the site format changed). I doubt the OP will be sued, but I think he should still be warned that he's not actually allowed to do this.

FAQ's right here (http://www.giantitp.com/FAQ.html). And for those too lazy to go to the link:

"Q: Can I repost one of the comic strips to another site? Can I alter the image and repost it?

A: Definitely not. The digital image of each strip is protected under copyright law, and reposting it or altering it without permission is going to almost always be a copyright violation. I need to be very careful with my intellectual property in order that I might be able to earn profit from my work.which in turn will allow me to create more of it. If I discover a site that is reusing my art, I will ask them to remove it, and I won.t feel bad about doing so."

I don't know how this would apply to a homage, though.

[expirement10K14]

I think someone else made a OOTS movie, and drew their own chracters, that looked exactly the same as the regular OOTS with the same name and the giant asked them to take down the movies.
Also, how did that get a mature rating...

Edit: Found Aforementioned Topic-
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51594

[Spiky]

It's not illegal since it amounts to advertising for the strip, among other points.

That is completely wrong. You can't claim, "I was helping you" when you have no legal permission. Advertising is something the owner can do, not someone else.



Saying "IT'S ILLEGAL" for a clear labor of love by a person for a comic is also a pretty asshat thing to say.

This is even worse. It's illegal, it breaks copyright laws, plain and simple. Just because the guy likes the comic doesn't allow for him stealing artwork. Geez, I like the M5, but if I take one off the BMW lot tomorrow, I think I'm going to be in trouble.

And I am not ripping on the guy who made this, but it does happen to be the wrong way to pay homage, or whatever, to Rich.

Title 17, look it up. And for those who say it's civil court not criminal, I think you may be confused by the lack of jail time in the penalties. It is still illegal, check Chapter 5. The penalties are all money and reversal of whatever action was taken. (like deletion from your website) It's still illegal.

[the300]

well the clip would be good if it wasn't for that crappy music

[Spiky]

Oh, and to those discussing serious parodies like movies or something, you will find permission given every single time if it uses any words or images from the original. Just ask Weird Al.

[the_tick_rules]

i liked it.

[Icewalker]

I'd say it's quite a good video homage, and I liked it, but yeah, the Giant has expressed his views on use of his art often.

[Semah G Noj]

That was fun.

[hanzo66]

I like the idea of an OotS AMV. Liked the use of the clips and the pages.

[Kreistor]

From http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3144377&postcount=37


The use of OOTS characters is not freely permitted, because to allow anyone to do so can cause me to lose the characters' trademark status, and thus my ability to support myself using them. It doesn't make a difference whether the animation is for profit or not; now that someone has pointed this thread out to me, I must ask that it stop.

Okay, it's not copyright, it's Trademark. And in this he is absolutely correct. To retain a Trademark you MUST protect it at every infringement. If the Giant lets even one instance go, he loses the Trademark.

So, to the OP, you need to remove this. You are in violation of Trademark rights. The Giant has no choice but to come ater you for it. Let's not make him do that.

[Dave Rapp]

This... kind of sucked. You took Rich's comics, made them spin and dance and whatnot, and put some music in the background. Not very impressive, flash-wise. And, as everybody has pointed out, Rich won't allow this.

There's no way you'll get sued for this (firstly because most sane judges would just throw out a case of an artist he's never heard of suing a guy for making a flash animation on Tom Fulp's website) so you don't need to worry about being sued. But Rich still doesn't allow it, and even it's unlikely that he'll bring actual charges against you, he can still, say, ban you from the forums, ask the NG staff to take the movie down, etc.

Sucks to be you.

[David Argall]

That is completely wrong. You can't claim, "I was helping you" when you have no legal permission. Advertising is something the owner can do, not someone else.
A big part of any lawsuit is damages. So if you can show the use not only didn't hurt the potential income of the copyright holder, but increased it, you are a long way towards being able to laugh at any attempt to sue you.



Something is either legal or it's not. It may depend on the jurisdiction but there's no such thing as "Well it's kind-of legal"
In theory true, and in practice false. There are all sorts of things that are legal or illegal, depending on if you have the better lawyer. And there are even more grey areas in the law where nobody is really sure how an actual judge will rule. And there are....
In net, there are a whole raft of things that are kind of legal.

[Meinos Kaen]

Mmmh... Too bad, then. I'll take it down right now.

Good thing that people liked it, till it lasted! ^^

[Spiky]

A big part of any lawsuit is damages. So if you can show the use not only didn't hurt the potential income of the copyright holder, but increased it, you are a long way towards being able to laugh at any attempt to sue you.


Go to Title 17 Chapter 5. The main penalties are not damages, it is removal and possible injunctions. Like restraining orders.

However, I think you don't have an understanding of damages when it comes to copyrights. Simply using them without permission is damaging. Lyrics, videos, drawings, words, images are copyrighted simply by sticking your name on them after creating them. Here's a quote from 17, 501(b):


(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.
You might also want to specifically check out 504(c)(1).

Kreistor,
It is copyright, he used entire comics and panels. Trademark would be a symbol or simple name, like just the Roy avatar or "Giant in the Playground", if trademarked.

[Spiky]

In theory true, and in practice false. There are all sorts of things that are legal or illegal, depending on if you have the better lawyer. And there are even more grey areas in the law where nobody is really sure how an actual judge will rule. And there are....
In net, there are a whole raft of things that are kind of legal.
This is a semantical issue. You are refering to proof, not legality. There are all sorts of things that are not PROVED to be illegal in court cases, however the law is written and quite black/white.

[Kreistor]

Kreistor,
It is copyright, he used entire comics and panels. Trademark would be a symbol or simple name, like just the Roy avatar or "Giant in the Playground", if trademarked.

Mickey Mouse is Trademarked. As are Goofy, Minnie, Scooby Doo, and everything else you can think of worth a dime.

The Giant uses the word Trademark, not Copyright. That means he has gone through the process of Trademarking the OotS characters. If you don't understand, then check his message for yourself. He says "trademark" not "Copyright".

If he's paying the money to Trademark the characters, then it is Trademark law, not Copyright law, that applies here. You cannot use a Trademark for anything without permission, including fan service like this.

[Chronos]

On copyright law: Many people think that if something's a parody, or if it's non-profit, it's automatically considered Fair Use. It's not. Those are two of the factors that a court may consider in deciding whether something is Fair Use or not, but the only hard-and-fast criterion for Fair Use is that it's Fair Use if a court says it is.

Of course, even if it were Fair Use, that still doesn't necessarily mean that it's allowed. The forum has its own rules, and the Giant and his mods are perfectly free to say that something's not allowed on the forums, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

[Spiky]

Mickey Mouse is Trademarked. As are Goofy, Minnie, Scooby Doo, and everything else you can think of worth a dime.

The Giant uses the word Trademark, not Copyright. That means he has gone through the process of Trademarking the OotS characters. If you don't understand, then check his message for yourself. He says "trademark" not "Copyright".

If he's paying the money to Trademark the characters, then it is Trademark law, not Copyright law, that applies here. You cannot use a Trademark for anything without permission, including fan service like this.

Ok, I hadn't read your link. I have now and see what you are saying. However, that was referencing a different situation, where someone made their own video using his trademarked symbols, the characters. This particular one today used whole comics, which are considered some sort of cross between writing and art. They were simply copied into the video.

It might go into both sections of the law, but it definitely goes to copyright in this case. He had no right to copy the comics. It applies to the entirety of them, the words and images.