# data[].attributes.body
I know the task was to "Find and analyse an example case where an illustrator has had a lawsuit filed against them by either Marvel or DC comics", but I couldn't find any case like this. So, instead, I researched several cases similar to the proposal and picked one to analyse.

# data[].attributes.body
Paintings: 159

Men: 143 (16 female nudes)

Women: 7 (1 female nude)

Unknown: 9 (1 female nude)

Obs.: the one female nude by an unknown artist is attributed to a man, so it's picture will be grouped with the ones made by men.

Statues: 27

Unknown artists: 20 (9 female nudes)

Men: 7 (2 female nudes)

Obs.: 17 of the statues by unknown artists (including the 9 female nudes) belong to a single collection of religious african symbols. I don’t known enough about the culture or the religion, so none of my opinions apply to them (and, therefore, I didn’t upload the pictures).

Installations: 3

Women: 2

Men: 1

Obs.: I'm counting the Guerrilla Girls poster as an installation here

Photography: 2

Women: 1

Men: 1

Collages: 2

Women: 1

Men: 1

Urns: 4

Unknown: 4

# data[].attributes.body
Serif: a small line attached to the end of a stroke in a letter or symbol
Sans Serif: a typeface without serif
Ligature: when two or more graphemes (the smallest unit of a writing system of any given language) or letters are joined as a single glyph (an elemental symbol within an agreed set of symbols, intended to represent a readable character for the purposes of writing)
x-height: the height of a lower-case x, considered characteristic of a given typeface or script
Cap Height: the height of a capital letter above the baseline for a particular typeface
Bowl: the curved part of the character that encloses the circular or curved parts (counter) of some letters
Ascender: the part of a lower-case letter that is taller than the font's x-height
Leading: the distance between the baselines of successive lines of type
Kerning: the process of adjusting the spacing between characters in a proportional font, usually to achieve a visually pleasing result
Picas: typographic unit of measure corresponding to approximately ​1⁄6 of an inch
Points: the smallest unit of measure in typography. It's used for measuring font size, leading, and other items on a printed page
Em dash: perhaps the most versatile punctuation mark, it can , depending on the context, take the place of commas, parentheses, or colons — in each case to slightly different effect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marian Bantjes: Intricate beauty by design

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In graphic design, Marian Bantjes says, throwing your individuality into a project is heresy. She explains how she built her career doing just that, bringing her signature delicate illustrations to storefronts, valentines and even genetic diagrams.

# data[].attributes.body
Guerrilla Girls (link)
Barbara Kruger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guerrilla Girls featured on Art21 episode Bodies of Knowledge CHECK IT OUT >

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Go into a very dark room on a bright day. Make a small hole in a window cover and look at the opposite wall. What do you see? Magic! There in full color and movement will be the world outside the window - upside down!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The zoetrope is an optical toy that produces an illusion of motion from a rapid succession of static images.

The zoetrope was invented in the early 19th century. Pierre Desvignes, a French inventor, brought the concept to France and gave the device its name - formed from the Greek words "zoe," meaning life, and "tropos," meaning turning. The word zoetrope therefore can be taken to mean "wheel of life" or "living wheel."

The traditional zoetrope consists of a cylinder with slits cut vertically in its sides and a series of sequenced images on its inner surface. As the cylinder is spun, the viewer looks through the slits to the opposite side of the interior. When viewed in this way, the images are seen by the eye in such rapid succession that they produce the illusion of motion.

This illusion is created by an optical phenomenon called "persistence of vision" and something called "beta movement."

"Persistence of vision" refers to the fraction of a second that the eye's retina retains an image after it has disappeared from view. The retina perceives a flash of light for a full tenth of a second after it has ended, so if a light flashes every tenth of a second or less, the retina will perceive the light as shining continuously.

"Persistence of vision" is a stroboscopic effect meaning the images you are viewing must be separated by moments of darkness. The slits function in this manner, simulating flashes of light and creating a kind of strobe effect. In fact, modern zoetropes often use strobe lights to create the same illusion.

But because the eye is not identical to a camera, and vision is not as simple as light passing through a lens, the brain needs more than "persistence of vision" to be convinced that the images are in motion.

Beta movement, one of the phi phenomena, is the extra piece of the puzzle. Beta movement is a perceptual illusion in which the brain creates a relationship between two or more still images viewed in succession. The brain makes the assumption that they are one image which has changed positions, rather than the truth, which is that they are completely separate images. Beta movement is the result of our brain's desire to see relationships between consecutive images, regardless of their differences, and make sense of the data provided by the eye in order to construct a coherent understanding of reality.

The concept of the zoetrope is related to other optical devices like the flip book, the thaumatrope, the praxinoscope, the phenakistoscope, and the electrotachyscope, amongst others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The zoetrope is an optical toy that produces an illusion of motion from a rapid succession of static images. The zoetrope was invented in the early 19th century. Pierre Desvignes, a French inventor, brought the concept to France and gave the device its name - formed from the Greek words "zoe," meaning life, and "tropos,"...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This early optical toy is in the Wileman Collection of the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics in Durham.

# data[].attributes.body
I swear this was the only good link I found, everything else was about camera functions, some secret society or Naruto (seriously)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The magic lantern, also known by its Latin name lanterna magica, is an early type of image projector that used pictures-paintings, prints, or photographs-on transparent plates (usually made of glass), one or more lenses, and a light source. It was mostly developed in the 17th century and commonly used for entertainment purposes. It was increasingly used for education during the 19th century. Since the late 19th century, smaller versions were also mass-produced as toys. The magic lantern was in wide use from the 18th century until the mid-20th century when it was superseded by a compact version that could hold many 35 mm photographic slides: the slide projector.

The magic lantern used a concave mirror in back of a light source to direct the light through a small rectangular sheet of glass-a "lantern slide" that bore the image-and onward into a lens at the front of the apparatus. The lens adjusted to focus the plane of the slide at the distance of the projection screen, which could be simply a white wall, and it therefore formed an enlarged image of the slide on the screen. Some lanterns, including those of Christiaan Huygens and Jan van Musschenbroek, used 3 lenses for the objective.

Biunial lanterns, with two objectives, became common during the 19th century and enabled a smooth and easy change of pictures. Stereopticons added more powerful light sources to optimize the projection of photographic slides.

Originally the pictures were hand painted on glass slides. Initially, figures were rendered with black paint but soon transparent colors were also used. Sometimes the painting was done on oiled paper. Usually black paint was used as a background to block superfluous light, so the figures could be projected without distracting borders or frames. Many slides were finished with a layer of transparent lacquer, but in a later period cover glasses were also used to protect the painted layer. Most handmade slides were mounted in wood frames with a round or square opening for the picture.

The first photographic lantern slides, called hyalotypes, were invented by the German-born brothers Ernst Wilhelm (William) and Friedrich (Frederick) Langenheim in 1848 in Philadelphia and patented in 1850.

Apart from sunlight, the only light sources available at the time of invention in the 17th century were candles and oil lamps, which were very inefficient and produced very dim projected images. The invention of the Argand lamp in the 1790s helped to make the images brighter. The invention of limelight in the 1820s made them very much brighter. The invention of the intensely bright electric arc lamp in the 1860s eliminated the need for combustible gases or hazardous chemicals, and eventually the incandescent electric lamp further improved safety and convenience, although not brightness.

Several types of projection systems existed before the invention of the magic lantern. Giovanni Fontana, Leonardo Da Vinci and Cornelis Drebbel described or drew image projectors that had similarities to the magic lantern.

In the 17th century, there was an immense interest in optics. The telescope and microscope were invented (in 1608 and the 1620s respectively) and apart from being useful to some scientists, such instruments were especially popular as entertaining curiosities to people who could afford them. The magic lantern would prove a perfect successor.

The magic lantern can be seen as a further development of camera obscura. This is a natural phenomenon that occurs when an image of a scene at the other side of a screen (for instance a wall) is projected through a small hole in that screen as an inverted image (left to right and upside down) on a surface opposite to the opening. It was known at least since the 5th century BC and experimented with in darkened rooms at least since circa 1000 AD. The use of a lens in the hole has been traced back to circa 1550. The portable camera obscura box with a lens was developed in the 17th century. Dutch inventor Cornelis Drebbel is thought to have sold one to Dutch poet, composer and diplomat Constantijn Huygens in 1622, while the oldest known clear description of a box-type camera is in German Jesuit scientist Gaspar Schott's 1657 book Magia universalis naturæ et artis.

The 1645 first edition of German Jesuit scholar Athanasius Kircher's book Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae included a description of his invention, the "Steganographic Mirror": a primitive projection system with a focusing lens and text or pictures painted on a concave mirror reflecting sunlight, mostly intended for long-distance communication. He saw limitations in the increase of size and diminished clarity over a long distance and expressed his hope that someone would find a method to improve on this.

In 1654, Belgian Jesuit mathematician André Tacquet used Kircher's technique to show the journey from China to Belgium of Italian Jesuit missionary Martino Martini. Some reports say that Martini lectured throughout Europe with a magic lantern, which he might have imported from China, but there's no evidence that it used anything other than Kircher's technique. However, Tacquet was a correspondent and friend of Christiaan Huygens and may thus have been a very early adapter of the magic lantern technique that Huygens developed around this period.

Prominent Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, is nowadays widely accepted as the true inventor of the magic lantern. He knew Athanasius Kircher's 1645 edition of Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae which described a primitive projection system with a focusing lens and text or pictures painted on a concave mirror reflecting sunlight. Christiaan's father Constantijn had been acquainted with Cornelis Drebbel who used some unidentified optical techniques to transform himself and to summon wonderful appearances in magical performances. Constantijn Huygens wrote very enthusiastically about a camera obscura device that he got from Drebbel in 1622.

The oldest known document concerning the magic lantern is a page on which Christiaan Huygens made ten small sketches of a skeleton taking off its skull, above which he wrote "for representations by means of convex glasses with the lamp" (translated from French). As this page was found between documents dated in 1659, it is believed to have been made in the same year. Huygens soon seemed to regret this invention, as he thought it was too frivolous. In a 1662 letter to his brother Lodewijk he claimed he thought of it as some old "bagatelle" and seemed convinced that it would harm the family's reputation if people found out the lantern came from him. Christiaan had reluctantly sent a lantern to their father, but when he realized that Constantijn intended to show the lantern to the court of King Louis XIV of France at the Louvre, Christiaan asked Lodewijk to sabotage the lantern.

Christiaan initially referred to the magic lantern as "la lampe" and "la lanterne", but in the last years of his life he used the then common term "laterna magica" in some notes. In 1694, he drew the principle of a "laterna magica" with two lenses.

Walgensten, the Dane

Thomas Rasmussen Walgensten (c. 1627 - 1681), a mathematician from Gotland, studied at the university of Leyden in 1657-58. He possibly met Christiaan Huygens during this time (and/or on several other occasions) and may have learned about the magic lantern from him. Correspondence between them is known from 1667. At least from 1664 until 1670, Walgensten demonstrated the magic lantern in Paris (1664), Lyon (1665), Rome (1665-66), and Copenhagen (1670). He "sold such lanterns to different Italian princes in such an amount that they now are almost everyday items in Rome" according to Athanasius Kircher in 1671. In 1670, Walgensten projected an image of Death at the court of King Frederick III of Denmark. This scared some courtiers, but the king dismissed their cowardice and requested to repeat the figure three times. The king died a few days later. After Walgensten died, his widow sold his lanterns to the Danish Royal collection, but they have not been preserved. Walgensten is credited with coining the term "Laterna Magica", assuming he communicated this name to Claude Dechales who, in 1674, published about the machine of the "erudite Dane" that he had seen in 1665 in Lyon.

There are many gaps and uncertainties in the magic lantern's recorded history. A separate early magic lantern tradition seems to have been developed in southern Germany and includes lanterns with horizontal cylindrical bodies, while Walgensten's lantern and probably Huygens' both had vertical bodies. This tradition dates at least to 1671, with the arrival of instrument maker Johann Franz Griendel in the city of Nürnberg, which Johann Zahn identified as one of the centers of magic lantern production in 1686. Griendel was indicated as the inventor of the magic lantern by Johann Christoph Kohlhans in a 1677 publication. It has been suggested that this tradition is older and that instrument maker Johann Wiesel (1583-1662) from Augsburg may have been making magic lanterns earlier on and possibly inspired Griendel and even Huygens. Huygens is known to have studied samples of Wiesel's lens-making and instruments since 1653. Wiesel did make a ship's lantern around 1640 that has much in common with the magic lantern design that Griendel would later apply: a horizontal cylindrical body with a rosette chimney on top, a concave mirror behind a fixture for a candle or lamp inside and a biconvex lens at the front. There is no evidence that Wiesel actually ever made a magic lantern, but in 1674, his successor offered a variety of magic lanterns from the same workshop. This successor is thought to have only continued producing Wiesel's designs after his death in 1662, without adding anything new.

Before 1671, only a small circle of people seemed to have knowledge of the magic lantern, and almost every known report of the device from this period had to do with people that were more or less directly connected to Christiaan Huygens. Despite the rejection expressed in his letters to his brother, Huygens must have familiarized several people with the lantern.

Starting in 1661, Huygens corresponded with London optical instrument-maker Richard Reeve. Reeve was soon selling magic lanterns, demonstrated one in his shop on 17 May 1663 to Balthasar de Monconys, and sold one to Samuel Pepys in August 1666.

One of Christiaan Huygens' contacts imagined how Athanasius Kircher would use the magic lantern: "If he would know about the invention of the Lantern he would surely frighten the cardinals with specters." Kircher would eventually learn about the existence of the magic lantern via Thomas Walgensten and introduced it as "Lucerna Magica" in the widespread 1671 second edition of his book Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae. Kircher claimed that Thomas Walgensten reworked his ideas from the previous edition of this book into a better lantern. Kircher described this improved lantern, but it was illustrated in a confusing manner: the pictures seem technically incorrect-with both the projected image and the transparencies (H) shown upright (while the text states that they should be inverted), the hollow mirror is too high in one picture and absent in the other, and the lens (I) is at the wrong side of the slide. However, experiments with a construction as illustrated in Kircher's book proved that it could work as a point light-source projection system. The projected image in one of the illustrations shows a person in purgatory or hellfire and the other depicts Death with a scythe and an hourglass. According to legend Kircher secretly used the lantern at night to project the image of Death on windows of apostates to scare them back into church. Kircher did suggest in his book that an audience would be more astonished by the sudden appearance of images if the lantern would be hidden in a separate room, so the audience would be ignorant of the cause of their appearance.

The earliest reports and illustrations of lantern projections suggest that they were all intended to scare the audience. Pierre Petit called the apparatus "lanterne de peur" (lantern of fear) in his 1664 letter to Huygens. Surviving lantern plates and descriptions from the next decades prove that the new medium was not just used for horror shows, but that many kinds of subjects were projected. Griendel didn't mention scary pictures when he described the magic lantern to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in December 1671: "An optical lantern which presents everything that one desires, figures, paintings, portraits, faces, hunts, even an entire comedy with all its lively colours." In 1675, Leibniz saw an important role for the magic lantern in his plan for a kind of world exhibition with projections of "attempts at flight, artistic meteors, optical effects, representations of the sky with the star and comets, and a model of the earth (...), fireworks, water fountains, and ships in rare forms; then mandrakes and other rare plants and exotic animals." In 1685-1686, Johannes Zahn was an early advocate for use of the device for educational purposes: detailed anatomical illustrations were difficult to draw on a chalkboard, but could easily be copied onto glass or mica.

In France in the 1770s François Dominique Séraphin used magic lanterns to perform his "Ombres Chinoises" (Chinese shadows), a form of shadow play.[citation needed ]

Magic lanterns had also become a staple of science lecturing and museum events since Scottish lecturer Henry Moyes's tour of America in 1785-86, when he recommended that all college laboratories procure one. French writer and educator Stéphanie Félicité, comtesse de Genlis popularized the use of magic lanterns as an educational tool in the late 1700s when using projected images of plants to teach botany. Her educational methods were published in America in English translation during the early 1820s. A type of lantern was constructed by Moses Holden between 1814 and 1815 for illustrating his astronomical lectures.

In 1821, Philip Carpenter's London company, which became Carpenter and Westley after his death, started manufacturing a sturdy but lightweight and transportable "Phantasmagoria lantern" with an Argand style lamp. It produced high quality projections and was suitable for classrooms. Carpenter also developed a "secret" copper plate printing/burning process to mass-produce glass lantern slides with printed outlines, which were then easily and quickly hand painted ready for sale. These "copper-plate sliders" contained three or four very detailed 4" circular images mounted in thin hardwood frames. The first known set The Elements of Zoology became available in 1823, with over 200 images in 56 frames of zoological figures, classified according to the system of the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus. The same year many other slides appeared in the company's catalogue: "The Kings and Queens of England" (9 sliders taken from David Hume's History of England), "Astronomical Diagrams and Constellations" (9 sliders taken from Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel's textbooks), "Views and Buildings", Ancient and Modern Costume (62 sliders from various sources). Fifteen sliders of the category "Humorous" provided some entertainment, but the focus on education was obvious and very successful.

Mass production of slides also made the magic lantern affordable to the masses, opening a market for smaller lanterns with smaller glass sliders, which instead of wooden frames usually had colorful strips of paper glued around their edges.

The popularity of magic lanterns waned after the introduction of movies in the 1890s, but they remained a common medium until slide projectors became widespread during the 1950s.

The magic lantern was not only a direct ancestor of the motion picture projector as a means for visual storytelling, but it could itself be used to project moving images.

Some suggestion of movement could be achieved by alternating between pictures of different phases of a motion, but most magic lantern "animations" used two glass slides projected together - one with the stationary part of the picture and the other with the part that could be set in motion by hand or by a simple mechanism.

Motion in animated slides was mostly limited to either two phases of a movement or transformation, or a more gradual singular movement (e.g. a train passing through a landscape). These limitations made subjects with repetitive movements popular, like the sails on a windmill turning around or children on a seesaw. Movements could be repeated over and over and could be performed at different speeds.

A common technique that is comparable to the effect of a panning camera makes use of a long slide that is simply pulled slowly through the lantern and usually shows a landscape, sometimes with several phases of a story within the continuous backdrop.

Movement of projected images was also possible by moving the magic lantern itself. This became a staple technique in phantasmagoria shows in the late 18th century, often with the lantern sliding on rails or riding on small wheels and hidden from the view of the audience behind the projection screen.

In 1645, Kircher had already suggested projecting live insects and shadow puppets from the surface of the mirror in his Steganographic system to perform dramatic scenes.

In 1675, German polymath and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz proposed a kind of world exhibition that would show all types of new inventions and spectacles. In a handwritten document he supposed it should open and close with magic lantern shows, including subjects "which can be dismembered, to represent quite extraordinary and grotesque movements, which men would not be capable of making" (translated from French).

Several reports of early magic lantern screenings possibly described moving pictures, but are not clear enough to conclude whether the viewers saw animated slides or motion depicted in still images.

Several types of mechanical slides were described and illustrated in Dutch professor of mathematics, physics, philosophy, medicine, and astronomy Pieter van Musschenbroek's second edition (1739) of Beginsels Der Natuurkunde (see illustration below). Pieter was the brother of Jan van Musschenbroek, the maker of an outstanding magic lantern with excellent lenses and a diaphragm (see illustration above).

In 1770, Edmé-Gilles Guyot described a method of using two slides for the depiction of a storm at sea, with waves on one slide and ships and a few clouds on another. Lanternists could project the illusion of mild waves turning into a wild sea tossing the ships around by increasing the movement of the separate slides. Guyot also detailed how projection on smoke could be used to create the illusion of ghosts hovering in the air, which would become a technique commonly used in phantasmagoria.

An especially intricate multiple rackwork mechanism was developed to show the movements of the planets (sometimes accompanied by revolving satellites) revolving around the sun. In 1795, one M. Dicas offered an early magic lantern system, the Lucernal or Portable Eidouranian, that showed the orbiting planets. From around the 1820s mechanical astronomical slides became quite common.

Various types of mechanisms were commonly used to add movement to the projected image:

slipping slides: a movable glass plate with one or more figures (or any part of a picture for which movement was desired) was slipped over a stationary one, directly by hand or with a small drawbar (see: Fig. 7 on the illustration by Petrus van Musschenbroek: a tightrope walker sliding across the rope). A common example showed a creature that could move the pupils in its eyes, as if looking in all directions. A long piece of glass could show a procession of figures, or a train with several wagons. Quite convincing illusions of moving waves on a sea or lake have also been achieved with this method.

slipping slides with masking: black paint on portions of the moving plate would mask parts of the underlying image - with a black background - on the stationary glass. This made it possible to hide and then reveal the previous position of a part, for instance a limb, to suggest repetitious movement. The suggested movement would be rather jerky and usually operated quickly. Masking in slides was also often used to create change rather than movement (see: Fig. 6 on the illustration by Petrus van Musschenbroek: a man, his wig and his hat): for instance a person's head could be replaced with that of an animal. More gradual and natural movement was also possible; for instance to make a nose grow very long by slowly moving a masking glass.

lever slides: the moving part was operated by a lever. These could show a more natural movement than slipping slides and were mostly used for repetitive movements, for instance a woodcutter raising and lowering his axe, or a girl on a swing. (see: Fig. 5 on the illustration by Petrus van Musschenbroek: a drinking man raising and lowering his glass + Fig. 8: a lady curtsying)

pulley slides: a pulley rotates the moving part and could for instance be used to turn the sails on a windmill (see: fig. 4 on illustration by Van Musschenbroek)

rack and pinion slides: turning the handle of a rackwork would rotate or lift the moving part and could for instance be used to turn the sails on a windmill or for having a hot air balloon take off and descend. A more complex astronomical rackwork slide showed the planets and their satellites orbiting around the sun.

fantoccini slides: jointed figures set in motion by levers, thin rods, or cams and worm wheels. A popular version had a somersaulting monkey with arms attached to mechanism that made it tumble with dangling feet. Named after the Italian word for animated puppets, like marionettes or jumping jacks. Two different British patents for slides with moving jointed figures were granted in 1891.

a snow effect slide can add snow to another slide (preferably of a winter scene) by moving a flexible loop of material pierced with tiny holes in front of one of the lenses of a double or triple lantern.

Mechanical slides with abstract special effects include:

the Chromatrope: a slide that produces dazzling colorful geometrical patterns by rotating two painted glass discs in opposite directions, originally with a double pulley mechanism but later usually with a rackwork mechanism. It was possibly invented around 1844 by English glass painter and showman Henry Langdon Childe and soon added as a novelty to the program of the Royal Polytechnic Institution.

the Astrometeoroscope or Astrometroscope: a large slide that projected a lacework of dots forming constantly changing geometrical line patterns, compared with stars and meteors. It was invented in or before 1858 by the Hungarian engineer S. Pilcher and used a very ingenious mechanism with two metal plates obliquely crossed with slits that moved to and fro in contrary directions. Except for when the only known example was used in a performance, it was kept locked away at the Polytechnic so no one could discover the secret technique. When the Polytechnic auctioned the device, Picher eventually paid an extravagant price for his own invention to keep is workings secret.

the Eidotrope: counter-rotating discs of perforated metal or card (or wire gauze or lace), producing swirling Moiré patterns of bright white dots. It was invented by English scientist Charles Wheatstone in 1866.

the Kaleidotrope: a slide with a single perforated metal or cardboard disc suspended on a spiral spring. The holes can be tinted with colored pieces of gelatin. When struck the disc's vibration and rotation sends the colored dots of light swirling around in all sorts of shapes and patterns. The device was demonstrated at the Royal Polytechnic Institution around 1870 and dubbed "Kaleidotrope" when commercial versions were marketed.

the Cycloidotrope (circa 1865): a slide with an adjustable stylus bar for drawing geometric patterns on sooty glass when hand cranked during projection. The patterns are similar to that produced with a Spirograph.

a Newton colour wheel slide that, when spinning fast enough, blends seven colours into a white circle

The effect of a gradual transition from one image to another, known as a dissolve in modern filmmaking, became the basis of a popular type of magic lantern show in England in the 19th century. Typical dissolving views showed landscapes dissolving from day to night or from summer to winter. This was achieved by aligning the projection of two matching images and slowly diminishing the first image while introducing the second image. The subject and the effect of magic lantern dissolving views is similar to the popular Diorama theatre paintings that originated in Paris in 1822. 19th century magic lantern broadsides often used the terms dissolving view, dioramic view, or simply diorama interchangeably.

The effect was reportedly invented by phantasmagoria pioneer Paul de Philipsthal while in Ireland in 1803 or 1804. He thought of using two lanterns to make the spirit of Samuel appear out of a mist in his representation of the Witch of Endor. While working out the desired effect, he got the idea of using the technique with landscapes. An 1812 newspaper about a London performance indicates that De Philipsthal presented what was possibly a relatively early incarnation of a dissolving views show, describing it as a "a series of landscapes (in imitation of moonlight), which insensibly change to various scenes producing a very magical effect."

Another possible inventor is Henry Langdon Childe, who purportedly once worked for De Philipsthal. He is said to have invented the dissolving views in 1807, and to have improved and completed the technique in 1818. The oldest known use of the term "dissolving views" occurs on playbills for Childe's shows at the Adelphi Theatre in London in 1837. Childe further popularized the dissolving views at the Royal Polytechnic Institution in the early 1840s.

Despite later reports about the early invention, and apart from De Philipsthal's 1812 performance, no reports of dissolving view shows before the 1820s are known. Some cases may involve confusion with the Diorama or similar media. In 1826, Scottish magician and ventriloquist M. Henry introduced what he described as "beautiful dissolvent scenes," "imperceptibly changing views," "dissolvent views," and "Magic Views"-created "by Machinery invented by M. Henry." In 1827, Henry Langdon Childe presented "Scenic Views, showing the various effects of light and shade," with a series of subjects that became classics for the dissolving views. In December 1827, De Philipsthal returned with a show that included "various splendid views (...) transforming themselves imperceptibly (as if it were by Magic) from one form into another."

Biunial lanterns, with two projecting optical sets in one apparatus, were produced to more easily project dissolving views. Possibly the first horizontal biunial lantern, dubbed the "Biscenascope" was made by the optician Mr. Clarke and presented at the Royal Adelaide Gallery in London on December 5, 1840. The earliest known illustration of a vertical biunial lantern, probably provided by E.G. Wood, appeared in the Horne & Thornthwaite catalogue in 1857. Later on triple lanterns enabled additional effects, for instance the effect of snow falling while a green landscape dissolves into a snowy winter version.

A mechanical device could be fitted on the magic lantern, which locked up a diaphragm on the first slide slowly whilst a diaphragm on a second slide opened simultaneously.

Philip Carpenter's copper-plate printing process, introduced in 1823, may have made it much easier to create duplicate slides with printed outlines that could then be colored differently to create dissolving view slides. However, all early dissolving view slides seem to have been hand-painted.

There have been many different experiments involving sorts of movement with the magic lantern. These include:

galvanometer slide: a flattened coil with a magnetized needle moving from side to side when a battery is connected.

projection of moving frog legs, with the nerves and muscles of severed frog legs connected to electric wires.

hour-glass projection: the projection of a flattened hourglass showed the sand flowing upwards. Extreme magnification made the effect extra impressive, with the grains of sand forming a wave-like pattern.

cohesion figure projection of liquids: different oils and fats create many kinds of moving patterns when manipulated between clear glass plates or a narrow glass box.

The Choreutoscope was invented around 1866 by the Greenwich engineer J. Beale and demonstrated at the Royal Polytechnic. It projected six pictures from a long slide and used a hand-cranked mechanism for intermittent movement of the slide and synchronized shutter action. The mechanism became a key to the development of the movie camera and projector. The Choreutoscope was used at the first professional public demonstration of the Kinetoscope to explain its principles.

An "Optical Instrument" was patented in the U.S. in 1869 by O.B. Brown, using a phenakistiscope-like disc with a technique very close to the later cinematograph; with Maltese Cross motion; a star-wheel and pin being used for intermittent motion, and a two-sector shutter.

Phantasmagoria was a form of horror theater that used one or more magic lanterns to project frightening images, especially of ghosts. Showmen used rear projection, mobile or portable projectors and a variety of effects to produce convincing necromantic experiences. It was very popular in Europe from the late 18th century to well into the 19th century.

It is thought that optical devices like concave mirrors and the camera obscura have been used since antiquity to fool spectators into believing they saw real gods and spirits, but it was the magician "physicist" Phylidor who created what must have been the first true phantasmagoria show. He probably used mobile magic lanterns with the recently invented Argand lamp to create his successful Schröpferischen, und Cagliostoischen Geister-Erscheinungen (Schröpfer-esque and Cagiostro-esque Ghost Apparitions) in Vienna from 1790 to 1792. Phylidor stated that his show of perfected apparitions revealed how charlatans like Johann Georg Schröpfer and Cagliostro had fooled their audiences. As "Paul Filidort" he presented his Phantasmagorie in Paris From December 1792 to July 1793, probably using the term for the first time. As "Paul de Philipsthal" he performed Phantasmagoria shows in Britain beginning in 1801 with great success.

One of many showmen who were inspired by Phylidor, Etienne-Gaspard Robert became very famous with his own Fantasmagorie show in Paris from 1798 to 1803 (later performing throughout Europe and returning to Paris for a triumphant comeback in Paris in 1814). He patented a mobile "Fantascope" lantern in 1798.

When it opened in 1838, The Royal Polytechnic Institution in London became a very popular and influential venue with many kinds of magic lantern shows as an important part of its program. At the main theatre, with 500 seats, lanternists would make good use of a battery of six large lanterns running on tracked tables to project the finely detailed images of extra large slides on the 648 square feet screen. The magic lantern was used to illustrate lectures, concerts, pantomimes and other forms of theatre. Popular magic lantern presentations included Henry Langon Childe's dissolving views, his chromatrope, phantasmagoria, and mechanical slides.

Utushi-e is a type of magic lantern show that became popular in Japan in the 19th century. The Dutch probably introduced the magic lantern in Japan before the 1760s. A new style for magic lantern shows was introduced by Kameya Toraku I, who first performed in 1803 in Edo. Possibly the phantasmagoria shows (popular in the west at that moment) inspired the rear projection technique, moving images and ghost stories. Japanese showmen developed lightweight wooden projectors (furo) that were handheld so that several performers could make the projections of different colourful figures move around the screen at the same time. The Western techniques of mechanical slides were combined with traditional Japanese skills-especially from Karakuri puppets -to further animate the figures and for special effects.

Some enthusiasts claim that the brilliant quality of color in lantern slides is unsurpassed by successive projection media. The magic lantern and lantern slides are still popular with collectors and can be found in many museums. However, of the original lanterns from the first 150 years after its invention only 28 are known to still exist (as of 2009). Museums usually prefer not to use their slides for projections, but often provide video representations of the slides.

A collaborative research project of several European universities called A Million Pictures started in June 2015 and lasted until May 2018. It addresses the sustainable preservation of the massive, untapped heritage resource of the tens of thousands of lantern slides in the collections of libraries and museums across Europe.

Genuine public lantern shows are relatively rare. Several regular performers claim they are the only one of their kind in their part of the world. These include Pierre Albanese and glass harmonica player Thomas Bloch live Magic Lantern/Phantasmagoria shows since 2008 in Europe and The American Magic-Lantern Theater. The Magic Lantern Society maintains a list of active lanternists, which contains more than 20 performers in the U.K. and circa eight performers in other parts of the world (Europe, U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

Dutch theatre group Lichtbende produces contemporary magical light spectacles and workshops with magic lanterns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The magic lantern, also known by its Latin name lanterna magica , is an early type of image projector that used pictures-paintings, prints, or photographs-on transparent plates (usually made of glass), one or more lenses, and a light source. It was mostly developed in the 17th century and commonly used for entertainment purposes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ISZ - The Development of the Shadow Theatre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Beginning There is no doubt whatsoever that shadow theatre has its roots in the Far East - in China, India and Indonesia. Exactly when and where it began is, however, still unclear but it probably goes back to prehistoric times.

# data[].attributes.headline
Comics Company v Non-comics Company over copyright infringement

# data[].attributes.subject
Comics Company v Non-comics Company over copyright infringement

# data[].attributes.body
For this exercise, I planned on going to MASP and analysing the female nudes on their collection, as my zine was about the sexualization of women. To my surprise, one of the works exposed there was the Guerrilla Girls print about how 60% of the nudes in the museum are female, but only 6% of the artists are women. I knew about this work, but I definitely didn’t expect it to be exposed there, amongst the others, calling attention to the problem.

I was already planning on taking notes about this, and what I saw definitely confirmed the poster. Out of the 159 paintings I counted, 143 of them were made by men (16 having women – or representations of women – in at least some state of nudity) and only 7 were made by women. There were 9 paintings by unknown or uncertain artists, one of them showing partial female nudity, and one thing that called my attention is that a lot of them were assumed to be made by men. The female nude was attributed to Agostino Brunias and two anonymous artists (Maestro di San Martino alla Palma and Maestro del Bigallo, as they’re called by italian art historians) are referred to as male. I understand that most known painters in history are men (in part because women were discouraged from learning to paint, or do anything that didn’t involve marriage, house and children, but I digress), but this kind of attitude is what made a number of Artemisia Gentileschi’s works be attributed to her father, Orazio, for decades, just because she signed them with her last name.

Another thing I noticed is that, in all the paintings by female artists exhibited, the subject is women (including one sole nude). This doesn’t really necessarily reflects society, where most women have at least some form of internalised misogyny, and this often leads them to put down other women in the name of men, and value men as the subject of art a lot more (specially straight women), so it’s a piece of information I’m honestly not sure how to interpret.

# data[].attributes.body
I used this reference for my placard, drawing Michael (course coordinator) dressed as Ygritte and replacing "Jon" with "students", as if to show we were being looked down and treated as if, because we're not teachers, we can't have a voice. I then scratched "know" on the placard and wrote "say" above it, to suggest that our suggestions can't be taken seriously if we don't voice them.
I used this quote because I wanted to do something fun on my placard, and I thought it'd be ok to use it because most people our age know it, whether they watch the show or not (I, for one, don't).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About

"You Know Nothing, Jon Snow" is a memorable quote attributed to the Wildling character Ygritte from George R. R. Martin's epic fantasy novel series A Song of Ice and Fire. Due to its repeated appearance throughout A Storm of Swords and the HBO TV series Game of Thrones, the quote has been regarded by some fans as obnoxious and celebrated by others in the form of fan art illustrations and image macros.

Origin

The quote was originally said by Ygritte in Chapter 15 of A Storm of Swords (page 213, U.S. paperback edition). In the chapter, Ygritte says the line to Jon Snow in anger. This happens because Jon asks why she was crying because of a song about "the last of the giants" when he had just seen hundreds of them.

There were tears on Ygritte's cheeks when the song ended. "Why are you weeping?" Jon asked. "It was only a song. There are hundreds of giants, I've just seen them." "Oh, hundreds," she said furiously. " You know nothing, Jon Snow ...

In HBO's Game of Thrones, Ygritte (played by Rose Leslie) delivers the line once in "A Man Without Honor" (Season 2, Episode 7) that aired in May 2012 and made several additional appearances throughout Season 3 in accordance with the novel series.

Spread

Similar to Ned Stark's "Winter is Coming", the quote soon evolved into a popular catchphrase among the fans of A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones. On May 23rd, 2010, the Facebook fan page titled "You Know Nothing, Jon Snow" was launched. In addition, the quote has inspired a notable collection of fan art illustrations on Deviantart and Tumblr, as well as some image macros on Quickmeme.

Notable Examples

Search Interest

External References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"You Know Nothing, Jon Snow" is a memorable quote attributed to the Wildling character Ygritte from George R. R. Martin's epic fantasy novel series A Song of Ice and Fire.

# data[].attributes.body
For the "addition" part of the "destroy the image" project, I wanted to draw a lot of mermaids on a photo of the sea, and the mermaids scene of Peter Pan is what came to mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mermaid Lagoon

Visitors

Peter Pan, Tinker Bell, Wendy Darling, Jane, Captain Hook, Mr. Smee, Jake, Izzy, Cubby, Skully, Terra, Ventus, Aqua, Sharky and Bones, Lucille the Seal, Sandy the Starfish, Mama Hook, Pirate Princess, Gilly the Goldfish

Mermaid Lagoon is a location on the mystical island of Neverland. It appeared in Disney's 1953 classic animated film , which is based upon J.M Barrie's 1911 novel of the same name. It is the favorite resting place of the legendary mermaids who live within the depths of the sea surrounding the island.

Appearances

Mermaid Lagoon is a tropical and nearly hidden rock pool of dark blue water. It contains a little waterfall where the mermaids bathe under and a large rock in the middle of the pool where the mermaids recline and pamper themselves. Peter Pan seemingly visits the lagoon often to flirt with the mermaids and entertain them with all his adventure stories.

Mermaid Lagoon makes a cameo appearance when Peter gives Jane a tour of Neverland.

As some mermaids do Jane's hair, a blonde one sneaks behind her with a giant clamshell full of water. As she attempts to soak her, Peter takes her away and the others are soaked themselves. It appears again in the end credits in the map of Neverland.

In Jake and the Never Land Pirates, Mermaid Lagoon is home to Marina and her sister, Stormy.

It first appeared in the episode " Surfin Turf". Jake, Izzy, Cubby and Skully were getting surf lessons from Marina. After Izzy's lesson, the surfboard is stolen by Captain Hook and Mr. Smee. Jake and his crew, accompanied by Marina, set off to take back their treasure.

It reappears in the episode " Captain Hook's Parrot". Hook and his crew made their way pass it with a captured Skully on their way back to the Jolly Roger with the sea pups in pursuit.

It is visited again in the episode" The Mermaid's Song". Jake and his crew help Marina and Stormy prepare for the Treasure of the Tides ceremony. But Stormy would rather be surfing when she came up with the idea to use the power of the mermaid's song to hypnotize Hook, Smee, and Cubby to do all the work for her. Snappy the Hermit Crab would later rush off to warn them was abusing the power of the song.

It appears again in the episode" Treasure of the Tides". Izzy, Marina, Stormy, and the other mermaids before they set off to find the "Treasure of the Tides". Hook orders Sharky and Bones to block the lagoon using the Jolly Roger, but they were no match for the slippery Lucille the Seal who was able slip past them and recruit the help of two blue whales to force the Jolly Roger out the way so Izzy and the mermaids could catch up to Hook and Smee.

It reappears in the Halloween episode " Tricks, Treats and Treasure!" as the sea pups first stop there while trick-or-treating. The pirates were greeted by Stormy who plans to give her friends a helping of "coconut corn" but Hook and Smee try to swipe the bowl from her causing it to fall into the lagoon. Fortunately Jake use his quick wit to make a lasso out of seaweed to rescue it and return it to Stormy and they continue trick-or-treating on Neverland.

It makes appearance in the special Jake and the Never Land Pirates: Jake Saves Bucky as one of the stops in the great race between Bucky and the Jolly Roger. It reappears in the episode " Seahorse Saddle-Up!" as the starting and finish line in the seahorse Never Sea race.

It reappears in the episode " Sandy and the Clams" when Sandy the Starfish and his singing clam trio put on a show for Marina, Stormy, Jake, and his crew there before the clams are accidentally taken by Smee as decorations peace for Hook's date with Red Jessica.

It reappears in the episode " Trading Treasures" when Queen Coralie held her Fin and Frolic dance party there.

In the episode " The Mermaid Queen's Voice", Queen Coralie was set to host and perform a concert them but comes down with laryngitis right before it begins. Jake and his crew know that the magical waters of Fa la la Falls would restore her voice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mermaid Lagoon is a location on the mystical island of Neverland. It appeared in Disney's 1953 classic animated film Peter Pan, which is based upon J.M Barrie's 1911 novel of the same name. It is the favorite resting place of the legendary mermaids who live within the depths of the sea surrounding the island.

# data[].attributes.body
My zine is about the absurdity of some superheroines' uniforms, and how a lot of them are designed only to look sexy. I'm doing satire drawings, a famous project that uses the same "technique" to criticise sexism in comics is "The Hawkeye Initiative".
From their website: "The Hawkeye Initiative uses Hawkeye and other male comic characters to illustrate how deformed, hyper-sexualized, and impossibly contorted women are commonly illustrated in comics, books, and video games."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"How to fix every Strong Female Character pose in superhero comics: replace the character with Hawkeye doing the same thing." -Gingerhaze

# data[].attributes.body
The style of the drawings I plan to do reminds me of Frank Cho's "cheesecake art". But, while the purpose of my drawings is to criticise the "skimpy" uniforms in a sarcastic way, his explore this style of clothing to sexualize the female form as much as possible, and make money off of it. Basically, he is the essence of what I'm trying to criticise.
I actually really like his art style, but unfortunately he chose to use his powers for evil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frank Cho draws a pretty superhero picture. And Frank Cho draws a sexy woman. Frank Cho has lately been drawing some pretty sexy superhero women and pissing people off.

This story starts with an infamous cover of Spider-Woman by Milo Manara:

Milo Manara is a gifted Italian comics artist whose work has appeared in Heavy Metal many times. Sometimes his work is adult in nature, other times it's not-but of course, he's best known for the adult stuff. Manara was commissioned to do some variant covers for Marvel comic books, and the one he did of Spider-Woman really set people off. Too sexual, people said, and Marvel spiked the cover. Maybe it was a fair reaction to the cover, maybe Manara's signature on the image is really what did it in. Whatever the case, it was considered inappropriate and Marvel didn't use it. That was August 2014.

Enter Frank Cho. In January 2015, he offered this tribute to the rejected Manara cover:

That sort of pissed people off. He followed it up with this, posted to his site on April 5, which pissed more people off:

You can read a good deal of the saga in this Comics Alliance post.

On April 8, Cho wrote on his blog "Instead of me wasting my breath and precious time over this non-issue ... I've drawn another cover sketch in response which will, hopefully, answer all the questions."

Amazingly, that Harley Quinn image didn't answer all the questions, or any of them. People were still pissed off about Spider-Gwen. On April 15, Cho again went to the well:

There's comedy in the progression here-Spider-Man was effectively giving out a Gomer Pyle "go-o-lly!" on the first two covers and the Joker was cynically telling Harley Quinn it would advance her career on the third. Batman, who has seen it all before, is creeped out by Wonder Woman's attempt to be edgy. She's trying to be scandalous-pulling a Madonna, and Batman's reaction is all Drake.

But the story didn't end there. Yesterday, Cho announced that he was donating the $1000 generated by Spider-Gwen to House of Ruth, a charity for battered women.

But back to the question: What the hell is Frank Cho doing? The answer is: Pretty much what he's always done.

The Spider-Gwen sketch cover was the major fiasco, but it's not like Frank Cho doesn't regularly adult-ify and oversexualize familiar characters. It's one of his favorite hobbies, and while it's not every reader's cup of tea, he hasn't been hiding it, as the examples below demonstrate.

By the way, Frank Cho doesn't just draw superheroes being dangerously sexy. He also draws more typical comics art, and he's masterful. Here's art for a Spider-Man cover that he posted on his blog:

Hmm, maybe he just needs to be publishing his work in Heavy Metal? We're fairly sure he has a few crates of our classic issues in his collection. Let's talk, Frank-just, you know, ixnay on the Ider-Gwenspay.

And this is interesting: A tribute to Cho's tribute to Manara, by Thomas Mason:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frank Cho draws a pretty superhero picture. And Frank Cho draws a sexy woman. Frank Cho has lately been drawing some pretty sexy superhero women and pissing people off. This story starts with an infamous cover of Spider-Woman by Milo Manara: Milo Manara is a gifted Italian comics arti

# data[].attributes.body
I don't really watch horror movies, but the supernatural, the scary, the bizarre... Those are things I find really interesting from an aesthetic point of view. And, for the "subtracting" part of the "destroy the image" project, I decided to scratch the eyes and mouths of a group of people (and the whole face of a single person who was looking at a different direction). The black-and-white aspect of old pictures instantly give off (to me, at least) a mysterious vibe, which I wanted to explore by making them scarier.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
horror movies scratched faces - Google Search

# data[].attributes.body
I didn't really think of it at the time, but while looking at the results later, I realised I must've unintentionally used some of the art concept in Suicide Squad when trying to scratch the photos in a more detailed way (but still on the creepy side).

# data[].attributes.body
DC Comics v clothing company
(Superman's logo)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By George Marston, Newsarama Contributor

Credit: Mad Engine

In a lawsuit filed Monday in California federal court, DC Comics claims that a shirt sold by clothing manufacturer Mad Engine infringes on the design of Superman's iconic S-shield.

The shirt in question features a logo similar in shape, design and color to Superman's emblem, but with the word "dad" where the "S" would be. DC claims that Mad Engine did not obtain a license to appropriate the logo in this manner, and wants to discontinue sales of the shirt, which was sold in Target stores and on its website. Target is not included in the suit.

The complaint says that DC contacted Mad Engine on June 1 asking that they stop selling the shirt, though Mad Engine did not respond until June 19, which DC Comics claims was "an effort to allow the Infringing T-Shirt to remain available for sale through Father's Day," and has thusfar refused to discontinue sales of the shirt.

While the image on the Mad Engine shirt does not match DC's trademarked logo exactly, the complaint states that the shirt infringes on DC's intellectual property, stating "The shield design on Defendant's Infringing T-Shirt is substantially similar to DC Comics' copyrighted Shield Design. DC Comics' copyrighted Shield Design consists of a bordered five-sided shield in red and yellow, with the text inside the shield sized and positioned according to the proportions and shape of the shield. The shield design on Defendant's Infringing T-Shirt incorporates each of these elements."

DC's lawsuit claims trademark and copyright infringement, dilution, and false advertising and unfair competition under California and federal laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DC COMICS Sues Clothing Company Over SUPERMAN Logo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By George Marston, Newsarama Contributor In a lawsuit filed Monday in California federal court, DC Comics claims that a shirt sold by clothing manufacturer Mad Engine infringes on the design of Superman's iconic S-shield. The shirt in question features a logo similar in shape, design and color to Superman's emblem, but with the word "dad" where the "S" would be.

# data[].attributes.body
I spent over a year looking for colleges in Brazil that offered a course in Illustration, but only found technical ones. I was already considering moving abroad when I discovered EBAC. Then, basically, I moved across the country to live on my own for the first time, with the sole objective of getting into the Illustration B.A. and, eventually, becoming a comic artist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
"bacharelado britânico" "graduação britânica" "diploma internacional" digital skills adobe illustration ilustração photoshop indesign tipografia artes visuais visual arts desenho

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Os graduados do Bacharelado Britânico de Ilustração da EBAC progridem para carreiras em vários setores, como editorial, publicações, publicidade, direção de arte, design gráfico, filme e animação, mídias digitais, ensino e web design; assim como aqueles que seguem para mais estudos em nível de pós-graduação.

# data[].attributes.body
I already loved the "Turma da Mônica" (Monica's Gang) comics before I even knew how to read. Before just buying them anytime I had the chance and reading some other ones on the website, I eventually subscribed to have them delivered home monthly, which still happens, and definitely won't stop anytime soon (and, yes, I keep every single comic).
What I didn't know is that those kid comics would basically define my entire life from my late teens and on.  I remember, at around 5 years old, answering a homework question about what I wanted to be when I grew up as "comic book artist", and gluing a picture from a Turma da Mônica comic on the notebook. Later on, I had a special anniversary edition (40 years of Mônica), in which the characters gave the readers a "tour" at the Mauricio de Sousa Produções (MSP) studio, showing how the comics were made. I loved that story, and thought about it all the time when reading my regular comics. That's when I really became fascinated with the process behind the comics.
Turma da Mônica has always been part of my life, even in forming my own personality (my nickname at school when I was a kid was actually Mônica. I may or may not have hit on the boys with stuffed animals on a regular basis.). It was with them that I fell in love with comics. It's because of them that I started creating my own characters and producing my own comics while still being able to count my age on my fingers. And Mauricio de Sousa - whose interviews I'm always watching, whose history I know by heart and who I literally can't die without meeting - is definitely the main responsible for the fact that, 15 years after that schoolwork, I still want to illustrate comics for a living.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HQ EDIÇÃO ESPECIAL | Maurício de Sousa | O Início

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trecho do EP sobre o cartunista Maurício de Sousa. Série da HBO produzida pela RT Features, dirigida por Angelo Defanti. Trilha sonora de Gustavo Monteiro e Luis Passos.

# data[].attributes.body
(a pretty good explanation of Turma da Mônica/Monica's Gang to and from someone who's not brazilian. this is more of a caption to foreigner tutors, not a proper Research entry)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Tribute to "Monica's Gang" (Turma da Monica)

# data[].attributes.body
I discovered Mike Deodato by accident, while reading a Marvel comic and spotting a reference to brazilian interviewer Jô Soares. Googling the edition's artists I confirmed my suspicions about him being brazilian, but also found out he's from northeast, where I'm also from.
I'd only started reading international comics recently, so it was only then that I discovered how big he was in Marvel, and that he managed to do all that work by e-mail from his house in Paraíba.
He's the one that really made me believe that my professional dreams weren't impossible, because he's literally living them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marvel.com is the source for Marvel comics, digital comics, comic strips, and more featuring Iron Man, Spider-Man, Hulk, X-Men and all your favorite superheroes.

# data[].attributes.body
DC Comics sued a clothing company who was selling a Superman-themed “Dad” shirt on Target. The shirt was blue, with a logo resembling Superman’s (“bordered five-sided shield in red and yellow, with the text inside the shield sized and positioned according to the proportions and shape of the shield”) in the center, only, instead of the famous “S”, the word “DAD” was inside the shield. They sued the clothing manufacturer, Mad Engine, but Target was “not included in the suit”.

Comics companies don’t frequently sue people who sell products based on their characters, probably because it’s not worth their time and/or money to go after a small artist selling mugs with Spider-Man’s face. So, to go forth with suing this company, means the shirt was a big enough threat to their own products (and, considering it was near USA’s father’s day, they probably did have similar things selling), which is backed by the fact that it was selling on Target. The fact that they didn’t sue Target, though, and that initially contected the manufacturer asking them to take down the shirt, shows that they weren’t really after gaining money, but simply not loosing theirs (or be impaired morally, as not going after such a clear copyright infrigement could make it look like anyone could use DC’s copyrights for their own gain).

# data[].attributes.body
Jack Kirby (and heirs) v Marvel
(entire story)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One week ago, Marvel put out a press release announcing something special: a five-day celebration of the life and work of Jack Kirby, the spectacularly talented and influential artist whose work underlies the majority of modern superhero comics. "Jack 'The King' Kirby is one of the founding fathers of the Marvel Universe," the release trumpeted. "From August 22nd to the 28th-what would have been Kirby's 99th birthday-Marvel will pay homage to the incredible and iconic contributions Kirby has made to the House of Ideas, entertainment, and pop-culture." On offer were articles about Kirby's creation of famous Marvel characters, podcast interviews with his son and granddaughter, and retrospective collections of Kirby's art.

Born Jacob Kurtzburg in 1917, Kirby was the son of immigrant Jewish parents who settled in the lower east side of Manhattan. Kirby started drawing young, teaching himself the rudiments of the fast, explosive style that became his calling card. He drew monster comics, romance comics (a genre he had a hand in creating), westerns, and science fiction. In 1940, he and his fellow artist Joe Simon created Captain America. In 1961, he and Stan Lee collaborated on Fantastic Four, the first modern Marvel superhero comic. It was the start of a partnership that produced a pantheon of characters: Thor, Ant-Man and the Wasp, The Hulk, Iron Man, Black Panther, The Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom, The Inhumans and the X-Men, and far too many others to name. The Marvel comics universe and its accompanying blockbuster films simply would not exist without the cigar-chomping Jack Kirby. (Indeed, it's possible that Star Wars, which bears a remarkable resemblance to Kirby's Fourth World saga for DC Comics, wouldn't exist either.)

Related Story

The Trouble With Superman
Marvel's "Kirby Week" covers all of this in glowing fashion. But the articles all gloss neatly over the other side of the story: namely, the fact that Marvel fought a decades-long battle to keep Kirby from claiming creative and financial control over his creations, culminating in a legal dustup with his heirs that very nearly landed in front of the Supreme Court. The story of Kirby's struggle with Marvel is also one of the most public examples of the lengths to which even the greatest of creators had to go in order to get credit-and compensation-for his work.

The origin of Kirby's battles with Marvel go all the way back to his collaborations with Stan Lee, who, as part of the "Marvel Method," assigned plot summaries to artists, left while they plotted and penciled the comic, and then wrote dialogue over their work. This was a method born partially of necessity: The overworked Lee wasn't just Marvel's primary writer, he was also the main editor with a stable of books to get out. As a result, though, Kirby was often the driving influence behind many of the stories they worked on. (In one oft cited example, Lee told Kirby simply: "Have the Fantastic Four fight God." Kirby came back with a fully plotted saga of Galactus the World Eater and the Silver Surfer, characters who went on to become major figures in the Marvel Universe.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Marvel Mistreated One of Its Biggest Stars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One week ago, Marvel put out a press release announcing something special: a five-day celebration of the life and work of Jack Kirby, the spectacularly talented and influential artist whose work underlies the majority of modern superhero comics. "Jack 'The King' Kirby is one of the founding fathers of the Marvel Universe," the release trumpeted.

# data[].attributes.body
Jack Kirby's heirs v Marvel
Marvel opts to settle before case goes to trial
(settlement report)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LOS ANGELES - A bitter and long-running legal dispute over the ownership rights to Marvel superheroes like Thor and the X-Men ended on Friday with a settlement between Marvel, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and the heirs of the comic book artist Jack Kirby.

Financial details were not disclosed.

With potentially wide-ranging repercussions for both Disney and Hollywood as a whole, the United States Supreme Court had been prepared to consider whether to hear the case in a private conference on Monday.

Marvel said in a statement: "Marvel and the family of Jack Kirby have amicably resolved their legal disputes and are looking forward to advancing their shared goal of honoring Mr. Kirby's significant role in Marvel's history." Mr. Kirby died in 1994.

Disney directed calls to a Marvel spokesman, who declined to provide additional comment. A lawyer for the Kirby family, Marc Toberoff, and one of the litigants, Neal Kirby, Mr. Kirby's son, did not respond to email queries.

Jack Kirby's four children (Barbara, Lisa, Neal and Susan) had been fighting in court since 2009 - when Disney bought Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion - to reclaim the rights to dozens of characters created or co-created by Mr. Kirby between 1958 and 1963. The characters, which include the Incredible Hulk and Captain America, now underlie valuable movie series, television shows, toy lines and theme park attractions.

Because of long-term licensing agreements made by Marvel before the Disney purchase, a legal victory for the Kirbys would have touched almost every corner of Hollywood, not just Disney. For example, Sony holds long-term movie rights to Spider-Man; 20th Century Fox has the equivalent for the X-Men and Fantastic Four. Universal Studios holds Florida theme park rights to the Hulk and other characters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marvel Settles With Family of Comics Artist Jack Kirby

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LOS ANGELES - A bitter and long-running legal dispute over the ownership rights to Marvel superheroes like Thor and the X-Men ended on Friday with a settlement between Marvel, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and the heirs of the comic book artist Jack Kirby. Financial details were not disclosed.

# data[].attributes.body
Siegel and Shuster (and heirs) v DC Comics
(Superman)
Warner Bros. (DC) wins in court (the latest time, at least)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Warner Bros. has again prevailed in the test-of-endurance battle involving Superman rights. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision that the family of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel transferred rights to Superman in 2001.

As a panel of circuit judges notes, the decision marks the latest in "long-running litigation stemming from the 1938 transfer of the Superman copyright" by Siegel and his colleague Joseph Shuster when they were both struggling comic book creators.

At the turn of the century, the heirs of Siegel and Shuster attempted to exploit the "termination" provision of the 1976 Copyright Act to grab back rights, and what's resulted is a never-ending battle with judicial opinions getting shorter and shorter - probably a sign of legal fatigue.

In 2001, Warner Bros. subsidiary DC Comics believed it had a settlement with Siegel's widow but complications ensued. Two years ago, the 9th Circuit ruled there was an enforceable contract back in 2001.

The case then went back to a district court, where there were further contentions that the settlement agreement hadn't assigned rights, and even if it had, it couldn't have transferred the copyrights to Superboy and early Superman promotions because when the widow accepted an offer via letter, the Siegels hadn't yet terminated those rights.

On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit said it really doesn't matter, that Congress authorized a "re-grant of copyrights by contract in lieu of statutory termination," that the Siegels "bargained with their statutory termination power in hand to negotiate a highly remunerative new agreement."

The appeals court also won't let the Siegels try to rescind the 2001 agreement, noting the argument is now just coming up, the widow has died and there would be too much prejudice to DC to go down that road now. Separately, the 9th Circuit won't go into a decision much earlier in this case that the Superman works were made for hire, and thus, not eligible to be terminated in the first place. Warners, represented by Daniel Petrocelli at O'Melveny & Myers, attempted to revisit that one.

We'd call it over, except this case is never over, and if it's appealed to the Supreme Court, the mighty high court may get a choice this year: Batman v. Superman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Warner Bros.' 'Superman' Rights Confirmed by Appeals Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Warner Bros. has again prevailed in the test-of-endurance battle involving Superman rights. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision that the family of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel transferred rights to Superman in 2001.

# data[].attributes.body
Stan Lee v Marvel
Stan Lee wins in court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a tale filled with greed, envy, unfulfilled promises, and years of legal scheming, Marvel announced a financial settlement on April 28, 2005, with its most famous employee - comic book legend Stan Lee.

Filed under the heading, "Things No One Ever Expected," Lee had sued Marvel three years earlier for not fulfilling the terms of his employment contract. The subsequent legal maneuvering created a tense situation for Lee and a public relations headache for the company he had helped build.

The beguiling battle began in late October 2002, when the popular CBS news program 60 Minutes II aired a segment about the state of comic books and the tremendous popularity of superhero films. The report also examined Lee's potential skirmish with Marvel regarding language in his contract, specifically certain payments Lee justly deserved based on the surging box office returns of Marvel films after decades of mediocre efforts and failed attempts at bringing the company's superheroes to the screen.

The new program painted Marvel in an evil light - a greedy corporation making insane amounts of money off the backs of its writers and artists. Lee's 1998 contract seemed straightforward, but when it was inked no one expected the future to include such wildly successful films - X-Men (2000) earned nearly $300 million worldwide, while Spider-Man (2002) became a global phenomenon, drawing some $821 million.

60 Minutes II correspondent Bob Simon, using a bit of spicy language that seemed uncharacteristic for the venerable CBS show, actually asked Lee if he felt "screwed" by Marvel. Lee toned down his usual bombast though and displayed remorse for having to sue his employer, a situation that he explained "I try not to think of it." As a result, many Marvel fans sided with Lee in the dispute.

Mere days after the segment aired, Lee sued Marvel for not honoring a stipulation that promised to pay him 10 percent of the profits from Marvel Enterprise film and television productions. Despite his $1 million annual salary as chairman emeritus, Lee's attorney's argued that the provision be honored. The grand battle between Marvel and its most famous employee shocked observers and sparked news headlines around the globe. Summing up the public's general feeling about the controversy, Brent Staples of the New York Times explained: "You can't blame the pitchman for standing firm and insisting on his due."

The public nature of the contract and its terms (including his hefty salary for a mere 15 hours of work each week, guaranteed first-class travel, and hefty pension payouts to Lee's wife Joanie and daughter J.C.) led some comic book insiders to once again dredge up the argument regarding how the comic book artists and co-creators - most notably Jack Kirby - were treated by Marvel (and by extension Lee). Rehashing this notion and the idea that Lee attempted to capitalize off the success of the films turned some people against him. To critics, Lee got rich, while Kirby and others didn't. The injustice had been done and they weren't going to change their opinions, regardless of what Lee's contract stipulated

In early 2005, after the judge presiding over the case ruled in Lee's favor, he again appeared on 60 Minutes. "It was very emotional," said Lee. "I guess what happened was I was really hurt. We had always had this great relationship, the company and me. I felt I was a part of it." Despite the high profile nature of the lawsuit and its apparent newsworthiness, Marvel attempted to bury the settlement agreement with Lee in a quarterly earnings press release.

In April 2005, Marvel announced that it had settled with Lee, suggesting that the payoff cost the company $10 million. Of course, the idea that Lee had to sue the company that he spent his life working for and crisscrossing the globe promoting gave journalists the attention-grabbing headline they needed. And, while the settlement amount seemed grandiose, it was a pittance from the first Spider-Man film alone, which netted Marvel some $150 million in merchandising and licensing fees.

Despite the financial loss, the lawsuit resulted in an unexpected upside for Marvel. The settlement put in motion plans for the company to produce its own movies, a major shift in policy. Since the early 1960s, Marvel and its predecessor companies had licensed its superheroes to other production companies. Back then, the strategy allowed Marvel to outsource the risk involved with making television shows and films, but also severely hindered it from profiting from the creations. This move gave Marvel control, not only of the films themselves, but the future cable television and video products that would generate revenues.

Merrill Lynch & Co extended a $525 million credit line for Marvel to launch the venture (using limited rights to 10 Marvel characters as collateral), and Paramount Pictures signed an eight-year deal to distribute up to 10 films, including fronting marketing and advertising costs.

Interestingly, the details of the settlement between Lee and his lifelong employer shed light on suspect Hollywood accounting practices that film companies use to artificially reduce profitability. For example, for all the successes Marvel films had in the early 2000s, raking in some $2 billion in revenues between 2000-2005, Marvel's cut for licensing equaled about $50 million. Despite his earlier contract with the company, Lee had received no royalties.

Although Lee received the settlement money and fences were eventually mended at Marvel, the episode is one of the stranger ones in Lee's long career. In the long run, it transformed Marvel's film strategy and helped it become a movie powerhouse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a tale filled with greed, envy, unfulfilled promises, and years of legal scheming, Marvel announced a financial settlement on April 28, 2005, with its most famous employee - comic book legend Stan Lee. Filed under the heading, "Things No One Ever Expected," Lee had sued Marvel three years

# data[].attributes.body
Steve Gerber v Marvel
(Howard the Duck)
Marvel wins in court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How Howard the Duck's original creator pulled off one of the greatest creative "heists" in comic book history...

Does creativity beat out industry, in the sum of all things? We'd like to believe so, but a casual glance at the pop culture landscape - strewn with the wreckage of various artists who've stood by and watched characters and IP they've created make companies billions of dollars while they in return get squat - suggests quite the opposite. But, every once in a very short while, the cleverness of creators wins out... every once in a while, those very creators are able to stick it to their corporate overlords, even if in only small, barely noticeable gestures. Just like the time Steve Gerber, co-creator of Marvel Comics' Howard the Duck, stole his own character back from the company right out from under their noses.

If all you know of Howard the Duck is the disastrous 1986 movie, then do yourself a favor: track down Gerber's original run on the character (the omnibus of which is due to be reissued this year!). Working with amazing artists like Val Mayerik, Frank Brunner and, most especially, Gene Colan, Gerber - an immensely talented and influential writer who just doesn't get enough credit - created nothing short of a comic book masterpiece: an amazing, shotgun blast of satire aimed at the comics industry and popular culture at large, equally as funny as it was revolutionary. The title sold well enough that Gerber was left alone to do pretty much anything he wanted for a while there, even having Howard run for U.S. President in the 1976 elections (which apparently resulted in thousands of real world write-in votes). But the truly remarkable thing about Gerber's run on Howard the Duck was how it wasn't just an angry, rant-filled screed raging against whatever the writer found ridiculous or absurd. At the heart of his run was a deep, almost melancholic existentialism which plumbed the depths of existence and what it meant to be alive in the world at that time. A quote from Gerber himself perfectly encapsulates the absurd/melancholic tone of his seminal series: "Life's most serious moments and most incredibly dumb moments are often distinguishable only by a momentary point of view."

But, like most things, nothing gold can stay, and Gerber was eventually fired from the book, with Howard the Duck being canceled not long thereafter. Gerber later sued Marvel to regain the rights back to his character, in one of the first examples of the constant battle for creator's rights in the comic industry. The lawsuit was eventually settled out of court, and the exact details are not public knowledge. Marvel came out still in full ownership of the character, but - for whatever reason - Gerber later returned to write Howard intermittently throughout the years, even getting a chance to have his final say on the character in the totally-worth-tracking-down MAX (Marvel's mature readers imprint) series from the early 2000s, which is every bit as sharp as his original run.

Gerber also returned to Howard in Spider-Man Team-Up #5, and that brings us back around to Gerber's rather brilliant and sly reclaiming of his own character. You see, Gerber was also writing another team-up at roughly the same time, a pairing of his own Destroyer Duck (a parody created with Jack Kirby in an attempt to help fund Gerber's previous lawsuit against Marvel) with Erik Larsen's Savage Dragon, and the writer came up with a devious notion as to how he could unofficially tie both team-ups together. He did it in a way that was completely valid, and yet free of any legal entanglements from Marvel. Although given the chance to write his iconic character once again, Gerber was growing tired of the character's misuse at the hands of others who didn't quite get it (Lobo the Duck, anyone?). Gerber decided that he was going to "steal" Howard - the real Howard - back from Marvel, leaving the company none the wiser in the process.

See, both comics feature a big fight taking place simultaneously in a warehouse in Cleveland. The scene plays out virtually the same in both comics, although some clever silhouetting of the respective copyright holder's characters in each issue keeps everything nice and non-litigious. One could read either story without having to track down the other, as the "crossover" has no bearing on either issue's plot, and the status quo is reset at the end when Spidey and Howard beat the bad guys and walk off together into the sunset.

Or is it? The Savage Dragon/Destroyer Duck expands a little on the scene in the warehouse, revealing that in the fracas, the silhouette that is Howard the Duck is cloned, resulting in a thousand different "Howards" running rampant. In the chaos, both parties leave, with Spidey taking one of the clones with him, and Destroyer Duck grabbing another one, proclaiming to the Dragon that he's "got the real one." The three promptly escape, along with Howard's girlfriend Beverly. After their getaway, Dragon asks Destroyer Duck if they shouldn't take Howard and Bev back to "the other side," where they can rejoin their friends. "They haven't got any friends over there," Destroyer Duck proclaims. "They're comin' with us!"

And with that, Steve Gerber took back the reigns to his old character, with Marvel stuck in the position where they couldn't do a damn thing about it.

The issue ends with the kidnapped duck being placed in witness protection, having dyed his feathers green and changed his name to "Leonard." Leonard the Duck was intended to be Gerber's new character, but he only made one further appearance, in Gerber's Vertigo series from the nineties, Nevada. I suppose you can only test the fates so much.

Still, Steve Gerber pulled off one of the greatest coups in all of comicdom - a blow in the favor of creator's rights that ultimately amounts to little more than a drop of water in the corporate bucket, but remains a brilliant creative endeavor totally worthy of the guy who helped proliferate mainstream satire in American comics; a statement of the hollow trademark Marvel's duck became in comparison to the true essence of Howard that lived and died with Steve Gerber, who left us in 2008.

Marvel may still publish comic books with Howard in them. They may even plop him in at the end-credits tag to their latest mega-blockbuster. But you and I know the truth... that's not the real Howard. That laughter you hear? That's Steve Gerber, chuckling to himself at executing a ploy so ridiculous, it could have easily been featured in an issue of one of his own comics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Howard The Duck's Creator Stole Him From Marvel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Howard the Duck's original creator pulled off one of the greatest creative "heists" in comic book history... Does creativity beat out industry, in the sum of all things?

# data[].attributes.body
Marv Wolfman v Marvel
(Blade, mainly)
Marvel wins in court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Comics Journal - Wolfman loses Blade lawsuit against Marvel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The magazine of comics news and criticism.

# data[].attributes.body
Gary Friedrich v Marvel
(Ghost Rider)
Marvel opts to settle before case goes to trial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marvel Settles With Gary Friedrich Over Ghost Rider Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marvel Comics has settled with modern Ghost Rider co-creator Gary Friedrich over a rights dispute over the character.

# data[].attributes.headline
Company v Company over similar characters

# data[].attributes.subject
Company v Company over similar characters

# data[].attributes.body
DC Comics v Bruns Publications
(Superman/Wonder Man)
"the first copyright lawsuit in comic book history"
DC wins in court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc. | Wikiwand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., 111 F.2d 432 [1], the case of Superman v. Wonderman,[2] is a 1940 decision of the Second Circuit in which the court held that the archetype of a comic book hero, in this case a cape-wearing benevolent-Hercules figure , is an idea, which the copyright in the comic strips does not protect against copying; only the specific details of the strips, their particular expression, enjoy legal protection.

# data[].attributes.body
DC Comics v Fawcett Comics
(Superman/Captain Marvel)
Fawcett opts to settle before case goes to trial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the second in a series of examination of comic book urban legends and whether they are true or false. The first one can be found here (spurred on by me falling for an urban legend regarding Walt Simonson keeping a list of Doom Bot appearances during his Fantastic Four run).

Let's begin!!

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Youngblood was a reworking of a pitch Rob Liefeld made to DC for Team Titans.

STATUS: True

Yes, amusingly enough, in the early 90s, Liefeld was in negotiations with DC to create a spin-off title of the Titans, tentatively called either Titans Force or Team Titans.

From an interview with Newsarama, here is Liefeld discussing the situation:

Question: And for fans who may not know, in the early '90s you were in negotiations with DC about doing a Titans limited series with Arsenal and Speedy which eventually morphed into...

Liefeld: I proposed a new Titans book in 1991, Team Titans was the proposal, Jon Peterson who edited the book approved it, Marv Wolfman signed on to co-write it and then I couldn't make the deal with Dick Giordano. God bless him, we just couldn't make the numbers work. So I took my proposal and merged it with an existing indie project I had called Youngblood. Next thing you know, POOF...Image comics was born.

Question: Can you tell us about the circumstances surrounding that time and that project?

Liefeld: Shaft was intended to be Speedy. Vogue was a new Harlequin design, Combat was a Kh'undian warrior circa the Legion of Super Heroes, ditto for Photon and Die Hard was a Star Labs android. I forgot who Chapel was supposed to be. So there you have it, the secret origin of Youngblood.

Thanks to Ian Gould for the suggestion!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the second in a series of examination of comic book urban legends and whether they are true or false. The first one can be found here (spurred on by me falling for an urban legend regarding Walt Simonson keeping a list of Doom Bot appearances during his Fantastic Four run).

# data[].attributes.body
Marvel Comics v Rob Liefeld (Awesome Comics)
(Captain America/Fighting American)
Liefeld is allowed to use the character, but he can't throw his shield in the comics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the one-hundred and fifty-third in a series of examinations of comic book urban legends and whether they are true or false. Click here for an archive of the previous one-hundred and fifty-two. Click here for a similar archive, only arranged by subject.

Special Theme Week! Today's theme is "What's in a Name?"

Let's begin!

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Rob Liefeld bought the rights to Fighting American under legal pressure from Marvel.

STATUS: False

The story of Rob Liefeld's transition from Captain America at Marvel to Fighting American at his own Awesome Comics is pretty interesting in the way that the story overlooks a fairly significant part of the story, in my opinion.

Here is Wikipedia on the situation:

At Awesome, Liefeld and Loeb attempted to resurrect their unused Captain America plots for a new character, Agent America. This character was nearly identical in appearance and background to Captain America. Under legal pressure from Marvel, Liefeld scrapped Agent America and acquired the rights to Jack Kirby and Joe Simon's Fighting American, updating the design.

Okay, so the part where Liefeld does Captain America for Marvel is correct.

He then left the book, along with a number of stories that he and writer Jeph Loeb had finished, but Marvel was not going to use.

So Liefeld decided to turn the unused pages into a new comic book, with some changes.

Now here is where the story takes a bit of a twist - the first place Liefeld went was to GET the rights to Fighting American. He knew that he'd be better off using an established character with these unused pages, so that's what he went to do.

He could not strike up a deal at the price he wanted, and that's when he created Agent America, which was more a matter of compelling the Fighting American rights holders to give him the rights to Fighting American, which they did. He did a pin-up or two using the character. It was the Fighting American people who first considered taking legal action, but in the ensuing negotiations for Fighting American, Marvel then sued Liefeld.

Before the trial started, Liefeld finalized the deal to license Fighting American, which bolstered his claims, and at the end of the trial, both parties had what they felt to be a "victory."

Liefeld was able to reuse his Captain America pages as Fighting American, but Marvel got the judge to rule that Fighting American could not throw his shield, and that there must be some cosmetic changes (like more brown in the costume).

International Hero has a great display of the three characters (click to enlarge)- Captain America, Agent America and Fighthing American.

They also have a display of the three sidekicks (click to enlarge)...

Thanks to Luke Y. Thompson of The OC Weekly for the information!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the one-hundred and fifty-third in a series of examinations of comic book urban legends and whether they are true or false. Click here for an archive of the previous one-hundred and fifty-two. Click here for a similar archive, only arranged by subject. Special Theme Week!

# data[].attributes.body
(but the artist is the one suing)

# data[].attributes.body
Former Marvel artists v Marvel
(over similarities between Iron Man armour - and Iron Man 3 poster - and their original characters)
The case is still going, as far as I could find

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A pair of comic-book artists may have found ​a secret weakness in superhero-factory Marvel's legal armor.

A Manhattan federal judge OK'd part of Ben and Ray Lai's copyright lawsuit accusing Disney and Marvel of ripping off their company, Horizon Comics, when it revived "Iron Man" for the big screen.

Manhattan federal Judge Paul Oetken tossed the bulk of the lawsuit, which claimed that the Iron Man character - as revived for film in 2008 - was a copycat of the Lai brothers' "Radix" comics, which also features futuristic fighters wearing full-body armor.

But the judge allowed a smaller claim by the Lai brothers to move forward involving a 2013 "Iron Man 3" movie poster featuring a kneeling Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, the industrialist-turned-armor-plated superhero.

That poster, and one of a kneeling Radix character in a similar pose, shared a "similarity of expression" sufficient to survive the powerful Hollywood studios' motion to dismiss, the judge said.

The Lai brothers said they created the Radix series in 2001 at a time when Iron Man, who first appeared in comic books in 1963, was still "wearing simple spandex-like attire and minimal armor."

"It was not until after the Lai brother's submitted their work in Radix ... that Marvel began depicting Iron Man wearing the suits," their lawsuit claimed.

Judge Oetken agreed that Iron Man's armor had similarities to the armor worn by Radix characters, but said that there were too many differences to let that part of the copyright claim move forward.

The Radix series takes place in a futuristic society where the inhabitants' "only memory is of the past three years," according to comicvine.gamespot.com. The series "four would-be heroes" attempt to solve the riddle and save the human race, the comic web site said.

"My brother Ben and I are thrilled that the judge, despite Marvel's and Disney's efforts to have the case thrown out, has recognized that we have a legitimate claim," Ray Lai said in a statement provided by their lawyer, Jeffrey Wiesner.

A lawyer for the defendants, which also include Paramount Pictures, declined to comment.

The brothers claimed Marvel had to have known of their Radix series because it's what got them hired as freelance artists for a predecessor company in 2002 and 2003.

Back in 2002, Radix won some publicity after MIT apologized for using one of Radix's images to win a $50-million research grant for what became the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, the lawsuit said. That publicity paved the way for them to work on comic book series including Marvel's "X-Men" and "Thor" and Hasbro's "G.I. Joe," they said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comic-book artists claim Iron Man ripped off their ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A pair of comic-book artists may have found ​a secret weakness in superhero-factory Marvel's legal armor. A Manhattan federal judge OK'd part of Ben and Ray Lai's copyright lawsuit accusing Disney and Marvel of ripping off their company, Horizon Comics, when it revived "Iron Man" for the big screen.

# data[].attributes.body
20th Century Fox Television (2013)
Firefly knitted hat, received a cease and desist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Undying devotion to your favorite TV show can lead to much worse than a sedentary life parked on the couch. For Stephanie Lucas, it threw her right in the middle of an intellectual-property lawsuit: In March she was hit with a cease-and-desist order from 20th Century Fox Television.

Her actionable offense? She was selling a knitted hat inspired by a Fox TV show on Etsy.

Lucas is a member of the Firefly fan community, a group dedicated to Joss Whedon's short-lived "space western" series that originally aired on Fox. "I'm absolutely in love with this show and its characters," Lucas says. And thus her shop features one special item dedicated to her fellow Browncoats (a nickname for the Independence fighters in Firefly, and now for the fans themselves).

"Fans like to show their love for a show, and sometimes that comes in the form of fan art," Lucas told TechHive. "A lot of these artists then try to sell their art and make a small profit off of something they love doing."

For as long as there will be television shows, books, movies, and music, there will be fans, hordes of them. Some shows may not receive a ton of commercial success, but will attract a cult following of people who are dedicated to their fictional universes. Conventions, such as this week's Comic-Con in San Diego, stoke the passions of these mega fan communities, and enthusiasts show up wearing their favorite gear and memorabilia.

Rob Hainer / Shutterstock.com
Fans show off their homemade Nintendo costumes at DragonCon in 2012.

But there's a fine line when it comes to making memorabilia versus selling it, and that all comes down to copyright.

Intellectual-property law is a tough nut to crack, and it can quickly stifle creative expression among well-meaning fans. In 2008, Steven Jan Vander Ark lost a lawsuit challenge from J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers over an unofficial "Harry Potter Lexicon" he wrote to help fans keep track of the numerous characters, spells, and terminology Rowling used in the Harry Potter series.

Four years later, CBS blocked a not-for-profit, fan-made production of a Star Trek film based off a new script. And between 2009 and 2013, Disney/Lucasfilm, Summit Entertainment (which owns the licensing for the Twilight film series), and video game developer Bethesda have all gone after fans for selling unlicensed homages to copyrighted TV shows, movies, books, and games.

Some artists' designs are considered a threat and give attorneys a headache, while others are considered benign or go completely unnoticed. The legal boundary is more of a blurry squiggle than a hard line, which poses quite the problem for fan artists.

Fans are cunning

Stephanie Lucas was named in a large intellectual-property suit against fan crafters involving a simple, knitted, three-colored cap. Jayne Cobb (played by Adam Baldwin) wore such a bright red, orange, and yellow hat in one episode of Fox's short-lived sci-fi series. Cobb was a trigger-happy, rough-and-tumble character, but his not-so-intimidating chullo belied a softer side-his mother made it, so he wore it proudly. The hat quickly became a Firefly symbol, if you will, and it also was a fan-crafter's dream: easy to make, but not readily available, as no official version was for sale.

Firefly gained a huge fan following after it dropped off the air in 2002, but because it had seen little commercial success, fans had no official merchandise to scoop up. So devotees turned to the Internet-namely, to Etsy -and to fan conventions to share these handcrafted hats with like-minded souls.

Nerdcorps.com
'Firefly' fans can easily spot one another, thanks to these caps.

Firefly continued to amass a huge underground following, and now-more than ten years after the show was cancelled-the series has gained enough traction to make Fox, the original producer, take notice. Earlier in 2013, Fox licensed retailer Ripple Junction to mass-produce, distribute, and sell the Jayne hat through online catalog ThinkGeek.

In late March and early April 2013, shops on Etsy that sold the fan-made hats received cease-and-desist letters, after the deal between ThinkGeek and Fox's licensed retailer was finalized.

"I got the notice on March 28," Lucas says. "I remember how it felt like the world had just stopped: More than 70 percent of my sales are Jayne hats."

Another Etsy shop owner, Jessa, received a similar letter. "I got scared because I thought they might sue me," she says. (We've omitted Jessa's last name to protect her shop; she continues to sell the offending hats.) Both sellers took down their listings initially. They, like so many others, felt that they had no choice.

At first, people pointed fingers at ThinkGeek, but representatives of the online catalog insist that the company played no part in the legal challenges. "ThinkGeek had nothing to do with the C&D notices... Would the C&D's have happened if we did not carry the hat on our site? We're not sure; we'll leave that question to sharper legal minds than ours," wrote ThinkGeek's Carrie in an official statement.

Droves of Firefly fans and crafters turned to the Web to express their disappointment and anger at Fox butting in, after remaining silent and uninterested in Firefly for years. "Why would Fox care about people making these hats for a show that's been off the air for ten years? A show that they cancelled before the first season was over? A hat that appeared in one episode that didn't even air?" says Lucas.

The Etsy market is full of unofficial, handmade hats.

Fox took action to protect the value of its license for official Jayne hats made by Ripple Junction. Although small, the Etsy sales cut into Fox's sales of the official licensed hat, and Fox is within its legal rights to take action against the third-party sellers.

The original idea of making and selling the hats came from the fans themselves, so fans feel that they deserve some latitude to make money from the idea, or at least to receive gentler notices of the new license. (Fox declined TechHive's request for comment.)

Firefly fans are quick to point out that the hat's story origins uniquely resonate with their own crafting motivations. Indeed, Cobb's hat was a handmade gift from his mother, and it appears in only a single episode. "There has always been a touch of motherly love to each and every Jayne hat made by fans. No two are quite alike. That's the charm," writes Dan Roth in an article featured on Blastr.

The blurry, blurry rules

Fans who had been knitting these hats for years were now screwed, thanks to Fox's claim that they broke the law after the official version debuted. But which law?

"Merchandising rights is a monster that has grown without any proper legal backing," says Madhavi Sunder, a professor of law currently at University of California, Berkeley, with a specialty in intellectual property and culture. "Under traditional copyright law, the exclusive right to make these goods is not there," she says. The U.S. Supreme Court has made no rulings in regard to merchandising rights, so intellectual-property violations have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Intellectual property is protected under both trademark and copyright, but the two concepts are different: Trademark protects names, terms, and symbols used to identify an original work or brand, and copyright protects the creative work itself. According to U.S. copyright law, the only groups with the right to distribute works based on an original creation are copyright holders. So, technically, only the original story creators are allowed to make pieces featuring images and concepts for which they hold the copyright.

In the case of Firefly, that would be 20th Century Fox Television. But what about series director Joss Whedon and his original production house, Mutant Enemy Productions? It's unclear what rights they have.

However, a loophole in copyright law known as fair use allows some interpretation on copyrighted works. According to Rebecca Tushnet, professor of law at Georgetown University, fair use provides some leeway for fan art. Fair use allows the reproduction of protected works in cases of criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, research, and other purposes. In a court of law, judges decide whether a piece is considered "transformative"-if it's distinguishable from the original piece and adds artistic value or commentary.

Another big problem with copyright infringement comes into play when something has the potential to be confused with official, licensed merchandise authorized by the intellectual-property owner, as stated in U.S. trademark regulations. In the case of the Jayne Cobb hat, It wasn't necessarily the hat itself that posed the issue, but rather the fact that Lucas, Jessa, and so many other Firefly crafters called these hats "Jayne Cobb hats" using trademarked names and references to the show.

"Clarity on official merchandising is big," Tushnet says. "A person referencing Firefly is different from thinking [the item] came directly from Fox."

But using names isn't necessarily exclusive to trademark owners, either. "As long as artists are making it clear that [the item] isn't from Fox, trademark law should not prohibit [the language used]," Sunder says. This type of speech is protected, as it is considered nominative use, according to Sunder. If the only way to identify something is to call it by its trademarked name, then the name is okay to use.

The case of the hat is particularly interesting because of the item itself. According to Tushnet, clothing designs themselves cannot be copyrighted, only the pattern for the design. It's possible that Fox now owns an official pattern to the Jayne hat, but Tushnet doesn't think the design of the hat itself is protectable.

"There's no such thing as copyright on a pom-pom hat," Tushnet says. "This is America. You can make any sort of terrible intellectual-property claim you want, but it doesn't mean it's right."

In general, it is unlikely that a copyright holder will come after fan-art creators unless the fans are profiting from selling protected materials. Sunder believes that companies will leave fans alone if they can, because they don't want to receive major backlash from the fan community.

Still, fans can run into trouble even when they're not trying to make a profit on their creations.

Graphic designer Sarah Buczek encountered legal difficulties when she tried to screen-print a scene from a Harry Potter tale onto a pair of Keds sneakers. She drew the image by hand, and uploaded her design to Zazzle under the name "Harry Potter Shoes." Zazzle is different from Etsy-it's an online marketplace for users to upload their original designs and create their own products, from shoes to mugs to iPhone cases. She had no intention of selling these shoes-she insisted that they were a gift for a friend, and placed an order for only one pair. Still, Zazzle refused to print them, claiming that the image was protected under copyright laws.

Sarah Buczek
Buczek's shoes were inspired by Harry Potter, but are not a copy of an existing work.

"I explained that they were my drawings-hand-drawn by me with Sharpie, scanned into Photoshop, and then repainted-but I was shot down," Buczek told TechHive.

"In this instance, your order contained products with copyright-protected content related to Harry Potter, which cannot be printed without written permission from the rights holder or licensor," Zazzle stated in a letter to Buczek. However, Buczek was eventually able to create the shoes through Zazzle after she dropped the Harry Potter reference and named them "Generic Battle Shoes" instead.

Etsy and Zazzle abide by copyright law, and though they are not obligated to blow the whistle when items in their marketplaces break the rules, they tend to lean in favor of the copyright holder. They clearly state these practices on their respective websites. (Both Etsy and Zazzle declined our requests for comments on this story.)

Copyright can't bring the fandom down

Fans will always find a way to share their art with others. Three months have passed since the initial ban on unlicensed Jayne Cobb hats, yet you can still purchase them on Etsy. However, you probably won't see them with the words "Jayne Cobb" or "Firefly" attached, and if you do, you'll see large fan disclaimers stating that they have no affiliation with the show.

"Since I was [originally] using Fox's trademarked terms, I got in trouble for that. I learned that I 'can't show any endorsement' for the show, so I resolved this issue by renaming the hat," says Lucas. The problem with sticking to generic terms for items in your shop is that they aren't easily searchable for other fans and Etsy patrons, but fans still make it happen: Etsy is full of shops that sell unique, original art inspired by pop culture.

Jonathan Daily of Plagiarism Today provides a few tips for fans to follow when creating inspired art: Check the community rules, make it clearly unofficial, be noncommercial or charitable (if possible), be careful with domains, and comply with requests if the original creator asks for the item to be removed.

"By no means do these steps prevent fan fiction and fan art from being a technical infringement, but they may help your use of the content be considered a tolerated and even respected use of the source material," Daily writes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'I almost got sued for knitting a Firefly hat': The legal risks of pop-culture fan art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Undying devotion to your favorite TV show can lead to much worse than a sedentary life parked on the couch. For Stephanie Lucas, it threw her right in the middle of an intellectual-property lawsuit: In March she was hit with a cease-and-desist order from 20th Century Fox Television. Her actionable offense?

# data[].attributes.body
Pokémon company (2015)
"Party that played host to a slew of Pokémon themed giveaways", sued for $4,000

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It feels like you can barely go a week without hearing another story of a fan-created work being shut down by the company that owns the IP being emulated. Here's the way things usually go: a cease and desist letter is sent to the fan as a sort of warning, the offending material is removed, and the issue is resolved. Unfortunately for Ramar Larkin Jones - a massive Pokémon fan - things didn't go over quite so smoothly.

Jones manages a small café in Seattle and was formerly a Pokémon fanatic. For the past five years, he's held the "Unofficial Pokémon PAX Kickoff Party" at his café; a party that played host to a slew of Pokémon themed giveaways, music, and a Super Smash Bros. tournament. There was a $2 admission fee that went towards a DJ and the giveaways, but conflict between Jones and the Pokémon Company arose when he made posters for the event that prominently featured Pikachu and Snivy. Jones immediately cancelled the party when he received word of the lawsuit, but the Pokémon Company was resolute in its goals and a Washington judge has just ruled that Jones now owes the Pokémon Company $4,000 in damages.

Speaking to Motherboard about the issue, Jones said

I can't pay it. I manage a cafe, and cost of living is super expensive in Seattle. I am hoping I can try to pay it over the course of a year, because I simply want to be done with it.

Though the total amount was reduced slightly, his appeal for a payment plan was later denied by the Pokémon Company and Jones now has forty five days to pay up. In an effort to try and fund raise, Jones set up a GoFundMe account which you can find here.

What do you think of the Pokémon Company's decision? Is this a justified course of action or do you think it's a bit heavy handed? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pokémon Company Sues Fan for Copyright Infringement, Demands $4,000 in Damages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It feels like you can barely go a week without hearing another story of a fan-created work being shut down by the company that owns the IP being emulated. Here's the way things usually go: a cease and desist letter is sent to the fan as a sort of warning, the offending material is removed, and the issue is resolved.

# data[].attributes.body
Bethesda (2012)
(Free) Fallout posters, received a cease and desist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Threatened with lawsuit by Bethesda; This was my reply

Back in december of 2011, I set up a fansite dedicated to Fallout and Fallout art. Specifically, it contained several high-resolution Fallout-style posters, clearly inspired by the in-game posters of Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas.

I'm a huge Fallout-fan, so I went to all this work primarily to decorate my own apartment. However, after the 10-20 hours I spent making the posters, I thought: Hey, why don't I share these posters with the other Fallout-fans out there?

That being said, I bought the domain name Fallout-posters.com and uploaded the high-resolution Fallout-posters to the page - offering them free to download for the Fallout-community. I also threw in some nice Fallout-vectors. All this was done out of pure "fandom"; I didn't even include ads on the website.

Now, the original post got quite a bit of attention on Reddit, Stumbleupon and similar sites, and during the first few days, I got more than 100.000 unique visitors to the site. My host actually mailed me personally and forced me to move the site to a bigger server (which I paid had to pay extra for).

So far, so good. I made some free posters, set up a quick one-page site and leaned back to enjoy the fact that I was helping Fallout-fans around the globe.

But suddenly, after a few weeks, I got an email: What's this in my inbox? A legal letter from the global law firm DLA Piper on behalf of Bethesda?
READ THE FULL LETTER FROM DLA PIPER BELOW:
Now, I'm not out looking for trouble. I set up the website out of pure "fandom", and the last thing I wanted - or expected - was to be threatened with a lawsuit by Bethesda. What pisses me off isn't the fact that they're looking out for their trademark - as they have every right to do so. What I'm pissed about are large companies abusing their monetary power, hiring global law firms to go after a fan online, immediately threating with a lawsuit.

Had they had the slighest bit of PR-savyness, they would have shot me a quick personal mail asking me to remove the (supposed) infringing content - and preferrably sent me some nice Fallout-swag as a nice gesture (yes, I am that corrupt).

But no, they had to bring DLA Piper into the picture. You know what? I'm tired of behaviour like that. I'm tired of intellectual rights holders - be it RIAA, MPAA or in this case Bethesda - going after little guys like myself and threatening them into obedience. Some people doesn't have the intellectual capacity or money to fight their cause, so they just fold after receiving a letter like that. But just because you can't afford to fight, doesn't mean your oponent is right.

So I decided to respond.
READ MY FULL REPLY TO DLA PIPER AND BETHESDA BELOW:
So far, I haven't heard back from DLA Piper and Bethesda - but if I do, I'll be sure to let you know. In the mean time: Here's to the little guys!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Threatened with lawsuit by Bethesda; This was my reply - Erling Løken Andersen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back in december of 2011, I set up a fansite dedicated to Fallout and Fallout art. Specifically, it contained several high-resolution Fallout-style posters, clearly inspired by the in-game posters of Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. I'm a huge Fallout-fan, so I went to all this work primarily to decorate my own apartment.

# data[].attributes.body
Beyoncé (2015)
Decorated mugs, received a cease and desist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beyoncé has rung the freakin' alarm, y'all.

Her team has sent a cease and desist letter to one Etsy shop owner selling items the Queen believes are using her name without consent. The items in question were cute and quirky newly engaged couple mugs that read Feyoncé. According to TMZ, Beyoncé thought the play on fiancé(e) was more than coincidental. Which, like, duh.

The mugs aren't available anymore. Unfortunately for the Beygency, there's still a slew of Feyoncé themed items being sold on Etsy. Scoop 'em up while you can. Or, upgrade (yourself) and purchase actual Beyoncé merchandise. Every punny item is probably going to be thrown in a box to the left, anyway. ( TMZ)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyoncé has rung the freakin' alarm, y'all. Her team has sent a cease and desist letter to one Etsy shop owner selling items the Queen believes are using her name without consent. The items in question were cute and quirky newly engaged couple mugs that read Feyoncé.

# data[].attributes.body
"So I’m on AO3 ...(the forgotten history of disclaimers)"

(older fans talking about fan work and copywright in the late 80s to early 2000s)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So I'm on AO3 ...(the forgotten history of disclaimers) is a Tumblr conversation that begins with a comment by fandomlife-universe.:

As of March 2017, the post had 108158 notes.

Some Topics Discussed

Disclaimers

[kleenexwoman replied to that-vicious-vixen]:

yep I did that. Everyone did. It's honestly quite liberating to not have to put that disclaimer on your story

[majorenglishesquire replied to kleenexwoman]: [aerialsquid replied to kleenexwoman]:

I believe some sites, including fanfiction.net, used to actively require it on every story.....god, one ages fast in fandom.

[itsmeappo replied to kahtiihma]: [angelwhowasfound replied to tahthetrickster]:

I still do it compulsively. It was expected, kiddies. People would get up in arms if you neglected to write that shit.

[youdontownme101 replied to letsboldlygomotherfuckers]: [eleanor-3 replied to ladyzadie]:

[bec77broo replied to dealanexmachina]:

Also that shit can still happen so most sites insist on that disclaimer. It's only a few words and it helps both the writer and the site not get in trouble.

[scarredswordheart replied tomswyrr]:

It's a disclaimer, an attempt to stave off a lawsuit by the rightsholders.

[kirkspersonallog replied to nunchler]:

Of all the things to complain about. The disclaimer isn't for YOU. It's for the author's peace of mind. And if it gives someone peace of mind to write that disclaimer, whether it's necessary or not today, what is it to you? It's so easy to skip over.

[amberdoe]:

I remember seeing this on FF all the time. I just assumed they were dumb and thought the artist authors would see it and assume they would be getting paid want to pay to write awful harry potter/ star trek fan fics. It like when someone puts up a video on youtube that recorded from a theater and says 'not mine'. Or has a tv ep just a little bit faster then in regular episode as if their going to get around copyright with it. I'm so glad I don't see that on AO3.

[i-own-loki.tumblr]:

I remember back in the days having to put a disclaimer on EVERY. SINGLE. ONE of my Twilight fanfic chapters. That's what everyone did. Even though sometimes it was simply a: I don't own these characters. I play with them.

It was so strange not doing it on AO3 at the beginning.

[snowballschanceinahandcart]:

I still disclaim. Fandom may be more mainstream, but you never know who might get lawyer happy. You can bet I'll cover my arse best I can at all times.

[suricattus]:

A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend, but they can get pretty amusing...

I was one of those who disclaimed on my XF fic, and got wildly creative with some of it, because I knew it wasn't actually going to stop them if they decided to sue so yeah, all of the above, and the "confusion of product" idea got a lot of writers really worried, since copyright law was still... iffy on that (it's since been clarified considerably.

As a creator, my feeling is "go forth and have non-commercial fun, but for god's sake don't show me." That's for everyone's protection: if dog forbid we come up with the same idea, knowing that neither of us saw the others' work allows us to both write in peace.

[marthawells]:

Yeah, I did the disclaimers back in the late 80s and early 90s. Besides worrying about a show's overzealous lawyers, occasionally other fans would threaten to turn you in for whatever reason. Even the ones who weren't doing it maliciously were hard to deal with. There was one person who emailed me to tell me she liked our stories so much she was going to copy them off the web site and send them to one of the actors in the show, and I had to try to convince her that she could get us in a shitload of trouble. It took several long emails and a lot of begging to get her to understand. That was not a good time for my anxiety problem. And then there were the ones who were going to send your stories or vids or whatever to the producers or actors AND dox you, in order to prove the point that fans shouldn't be afraid of being sued, or something, which I agreed they shouldn't but but maybe they could do it with themselves instead of selecting an involuntary sacrificial victim? There were a lot of things that eventually turned me off participating in fandom. (The doxxing was probably the most hurtful. There's just something that hits you hard with the whole "I don't like your head canon in your stories so I'm going to try to hurt or embarass you in real life" thing.) Someone said once that it isn't going to be the lawyers who ruin your time in fandom, it's going to be the fan sitting next to you, and I found that to be sadly true.

[fanfichasruinedmylife]:

Reblogging because I can't believe there are people out there who don't know the story behind fan fiction disclaimers.

[adiwriting]:

Oh you youngins... How quickly they forget.

Back in the day, before fan fiction was mainstream and even encouraged by creators... This was your "please don't sue me, I'm poor and just here for a good time" plea.

Cause guess what? That shit used to happen.

[infearofblankpages] replied to [reconfemmandoforares]: [silvermoonlight-gj]:

Yes I can vouch for this back in 2002 when I came in to the fanfiction world, it was made real clear that if you don't put your disclaimer in you'd be in trouble and your story would be pulled. I still put them in to day even though they are not required as I want the reader to know the source so if they want to go and watch it themselves or look at the companies other work

[cosmic-llin] replied to [hhertzof]: [glitteratiglue] replied to [cosmic-llin]: [sivsdotter] replied to [xxsparksxx]:

And before you know it, it will come back again. This will never entirely cease to be an issue.

[grimmbluepanther] replied to [jadelyn]: [thewhaleridingvulcan] replied to [charlion]: [remaaarkable] replied to [ofunicorndust]: [vamp-prince-mikhael] replied to [sugary-mint]: [timereaper[ replied to[wolfstardreams]: [boogiewoogiebuglegal replied to lexiconallie]: [johanirae scyllaya]: [initiala replied to octoberspirit]:

I know that FF.net is not ~the cool place to post~ anymore, but shit like this is the reason that at the bottom of their rules and guidelines page (which you have to agree to every time you post something new) there's this list:

Link to image.

I haven't heard of anyone else being quite as vindictive in destroying their creative fanbase as Anne Rice, but it would honestly not surprise me in the least.

#fandom history

[keyla-lovely replied to inquisitorpsyduck]:

I remember being on ff.net back in the day, and they actively BANNED certain fandoms from their site ( Vampire Chronicles and Pern in particular) because they were afraid of lawyers coming down on them. Like, it was in big letters when you joined the site what was and wasn't allowed to be posted there.

[girlwithapurplescarf replied to next-venoms]: [alv529 replied to johanirae]:

^All of this. Yes, you, the reader of the story, who is also a part of the fandom, know the author isn't trying to claim they own the story/world/characters/all that jazz. Here's the thing though. The people who do own all that jazz could, would, and did, get very, and I really do mean very hissy if you didn't disclaim everything potentially recognizable as the creation of the original author.

You know the word ' plagiarism'? That's how hissy they could get over your ' 5 ways Don Flack met Danny Messer' fic that included them meeting in the middle ages, during the roman empire, and because their space ships broke down on the same asteroid (fyi, those characters are from CSI: NY, which takes place in New York City during the 2000s, and sadly does not include space ships).

I think I got a warning somewhere once in the mid-2000s for my disclaimer being 'too sarcastic for this fandom', but I don't remember if it was on LJ or FF.net or where it was.

#Fandom stuff #Fanfiction #Fanfic

[silversolitaire replied to johanirae]: [kat1132 replied to liebgotitty]:

Disclaimers show respect for the creators. You're playing in their sandbox without permission. It tells the people reading that you're not trying to "steal" the original creators work or any part of the revenue/royalties they get for creating that work. Fanworks made by people who love and respect the original work, people who aren't intending to plagiarize/steal/copyright for personal gain. It says "I make NO money from this work, nor did I write it with the intention of making any money, but these characters are awesome and I'd like to see what would happen if..."

If you're not using disclaimers on your fanworks, you should be. Give credit where it's due.

Also, AO3 DOES have an Original Fiction archive as part of the site... so you don't always know if your reading fanfiction when you're on it.

#super important #disclaimers #fanworks

[mikes-grrl replied to johanirae]:

Yep, this is all true! Disclaimers were still de rigeur up until, what, 2010? But here's the funny part: disclaimers do zilch to protect you from being sued or served with a cease-and-desist notice. Nada. Nothing. They are useless shields. In fact, a disclaimer mostly shows that you KNOW that what you are doing is not legally kosher. Of course, ignorance of the law is (at least in the US) is not a defense either.

Basically, a disclaimer was a survival tactic fanfic authors from years past used to try and look small in the eyes of large predators.

#fandom history

[yorglow replied to hushthenoise]:

On the one hand, yes, that's why people did that. On the other hand, it was basically a useless set of magic words that couldn't stop anyone from suing who intended to, and could actually make things worse, since it showed knowledge that what you were doing could be interpreted as infringing copyright. Call it cargo cult language, plus a sociological dash of proving belonging in a particular subculture. @fyeahcopyright?

[renirabbit replied to letsboldlygomotherfuckers]: [moratheexplorer replied to daltheznadof]:

[catybird] replied to [vgersix]:

fun fact: fan fiction is technically copyright infringement. Most authors/creators allow fanfiction of their works to exist because

a) It's too difficult and pointless to hunt down and prosecute every single fan fiction author

b) fan fiction is a good thing. smart copyright holders realize that fan fiction is often what maintains the hype within a fandom, until the next official medium (book/episode/movie) is released.

But yeah, it's pretty normal and understandable for fan fiction writers to reiterate that the work is theirs, but they do not own the medium it is based on. It's the least they can do to show respect to copyright holders.

#commentary #fan fiction

[mage-cat] replied to [tarahime]: [bibliomancer7] replied to [lemedy]: [livelongthetruthisalwaysoutthere] replied to [beyondtherealmofscience7-deacti]:

I just usually write "I'm sorry" at the beginning of any and all fic. That should be good enough, right?

I once had someone report my story because even though I included a disclaimer that I was using SOMEONE ELSES SONG LYRICS, I was " plagiarizing ". Because no one had any freakin idea that one of the most recent "Top 20" songs actually wasn't written by a fanfic author.

#if you've heard it on the radio #I can promise I didn't write it

[ddynmjn] replied to [jchelseaw]:

ok maybe i'm old but i can't believe people don't think disclaimers are still important... fanfic sites have gotten sued and taken down bc of a lack of disclaimers lol...

[gwylliondream] replied to [theaoidos]: [omobolasire1] replied to [ladyspock7]:

I still do it to cover my ass. In this day and age where suing is common place it doesn't hurt to be cautious.

[everyonelikedbubbahotep] replied to [carltonlassiter]:

Never 5 Get when Viacom sued Outpost Daria.

#fandom #fanfiction #studios still don't know how to handle fandom #now they're trying to court us #and it's odd

(me: some context: http://www.dariawiki. org/wiki/index.php?title= Paperpusher%27s_Message_Board)

[blackmagickbabe replied to aventinemintha]: [freya-ishtar replied to butjustwhatif]:

Yeah, disclaimers aren't or the readers' sake (we know you guys know exactly what you're looking for when you click on the story), it's for the sake of covering our own butts as far as copyright infringement and other such gods awful legal matters.

The Passage of Time, Nostalgia, Some "Get Off My Lawn"

[imperatorannakas replied to twodefenestrate]

Ahhhh to be young and naive again! It is really interesting how much fandom culture has changed in recent years. #fandom #fanfiction #nostalgia

[branewurms replied to swordsandparasols]:

OH MY GOD KIDS THESE DAYS DON'T KNIW ABIUT THIS STUFF ANYMORE?!!??????!!!!

[deathberryhime] replied to [dickmaklim]: [annihilistic] replied to [mswyrr]: [amethystluna06] replied to [themagicmelodicmask]: [yuripliscatsky] replied to [fourofthem]: [hexiva] replied to [aerialsquid]:

....god, one ages fast in fandom.
Don't we just? I started feeling like a cranky old lady before I hit eighteen

[witchyunknown] replied to [trekupmysleeve]:

Shit I'm officially old....

[themoviegeekstrikesback] replied to [psychrophile]: [moonflower91] replied to [sarah-yyy]: [chloekomqueerkru] replied to [therewillbesparkles]:

Wait wut. We don't have to do that anymore? Rofl. I'm old af.

[pthalocy] replied to [cornerof5thandvermouth]:

back when fanfic wasn't a ubiquitous thing in culture, just some internet backalley. Ho man. Glad that's changed.

[angelicsentinel replied to kat1132]:

Seriously, don't hate. Don't make me lose faith in the younger generation, all right? Been here since dialup and Usenet, not quite old enough to have done zines, but I've been around for a long time, k? When you had to hunt that shit. You didn't have dedicated sites or archives. Y'all don't realize how fucking awesome Ao3 really is. Of all the crap to complain about, Jesus. Haha, normally I'm not all, "you kids and your one direction and your superwholockes and your homestucks," but haha, this totally used to be a thing. There were several big brouhahas and a few fans had legal trouble. It's why Anne Rice fic is rare as fuck, for one reason. (The other being ffnet) These days you don't really have to worry about Cease and Desist letters, but some people still like to make sure they have their bases covered. There was this one case, Google it it's on fanlore, there's a post floating about tumblr somewhere and so people started putting disclaimers as a cover your ass policy, before fair use and transformative works were defined and had precedent like they do today. Some people still do it. So like, take your condescending, ignorant attitude elsewhere and realise that people have reason for doing the things they do. Just because you don't know the history behind it doesn't mean there isn't one.

#disclaimers #fanfic #fanfiction #ao3 #you kids get off my lawn #*waves cane*

[maybeitstimetoearnmybluebead replied to jjeh--writes]: [suchbrightlights replied to cleolinda]:

I was growing up in the fandom while all the Anne McCaffery business was going down, and yes ma'am, double digit years later, I disclaim everything the same way I did when I was 12. It's habit- and I can't see a reason to drop it.

[myassbrokethefall replied to noifsandsorbees]: [dashakay replied to myassbrokethefall]:

Or on email lists! It was always fun to try to write a creative disclaimer: "These characters belong to Chris Carter but he doesn't deserve them."

[devonebriewiy replied to dashakay]:

Hahahaa..... ".....but he doesn't deserve them."!!!!! What a quote by Dasha!!!!! 😂 🙌

[bluegrasscontessa relying to pinknoonicorn]:

As someone who was part of an ancient FanFic Forum and whose own site was shut down by the service provider after forwarding me and my gang a Cease and Desist order from a US network legal department, I can attest to the fact that yes, back in the day, one had to put a DISCLAIMER in the header of your posted fan-generated fiction when using licensed likenesses and images. Yet we remained X-Philes and laugh now about the early days of creative license vs. first amendment rights/legal ownership/proprietary entities.

Long story short, one of our story lines caught the attention of someone on the TV show's writing staff and we were vindicated, exonerated, (eventually compensated) and given credit for contribution to the mytharc canon.

In a way, our being caught, chastised and censured had a silver lining.

But yes, once upon a time, creative types who wrote/photoshopped/made fan videos had to stamp disclaimers all over their works - no matter how underground or dark net we thought we were. TPTB *ALWAYS* find you.

[griesly]:

Oh man, let me tell you about the X-Files fandom. Lawyers for FOX sued, threatened, and generally terrified the owners of fan websites on a regular basis. God help you if you wrote or created original art set in their (expansive) universe or worse - dared to write about their characters. Even people who weren't creating fanworks, just hosting Geocities pages about how much people liked the show would be sent C&D orders or actually fined. When I was first discovering the concept, the first rule of fandom was you do not talk about fandom because the consequences could be devastating.

[dubiousculturalartifact]:

Lucasfilm also sent cease-and-desist letters to Star Wars fanzines publishing slash.

My favourite bit I read from one included the idea that you weren't allowed to have any explicit content, of which anything queer, no matter how tame, was included, to "preserve that innocence even Imperial crew members must be imagined to have".

Yeah. The same Imperial crew members who helped build the Death Star to commit planetary genocide.

(It's one reason Sinjir Velus, while I still have some issues with him, feels like such a delicious 'f*** you'.)

Later on, they were apparently persuaded to 'allow' fans to write slash, provided in 'remained within the nebulous bounds of good taste'.

(On a related note, if I wasn't quite so attached to my URL, I would 100% change it to 'Nebulous Bounds', because that's just downright catchy)

Music Vids and AMVS

[foremost-of-noble-ladies] replied to [sailaweigh]:

[turntechxgnostic] replied to [raineydayrainbows]: [equine-aurora] replied to [skaylanphear]:

This was actually an interesting read. I didn't get into fandoms till 2009 and while I read a bit of fanfiction back then, writing it is a recent development. I put disclaimers on AMVs I make but haven't put them on any of the fanfics I put on AO3. I might go add them now though just to be safe though I don't think the creators of Miraculous Ladybug care.

[elvenavari] replied to [vixenargentum]:

[love-geofffree] replied to [polyglotplatypus]: [onewordtest1] replied to [luvtheheaven]: [luvtheheaven] replied to [onewordtest1]: [doublel27] replied to [evilythedwarf]: [sparethetragic] replied to [paulfwesley]:

[maplepancake replied to chichirinoda]:

Also, there was a lot of paranoia in fandom back then, specifically because of Anne Rice. Everyone wondered if their fandom would be next, and as a result they were all very careful to be as unoffensive as possible and to make it clear that they did not own the characters or the setting and that it was all for fun.

The same used to be true of roleplay too. Back in the day, Dragonriders were a big deal for roleplaying, but Anne McCaffrey shut that shit down very fast. Part of the reason why roleplaying is so different between sites now is that groups splintered off onto different websites at that point, and the culture of each group evolved differently. Hence why the email RPers do things differently from the DWRPers, who both do things differently from the message board RPers, and so on and so on.

[engineerleopoldfitz replied to mrsleopoldfitz]:

Scrolled down this post to see if Anne McCaffrey was mentioned, and sure enough, yup. I was in any number of Pern-based RPs over the years who got love letters from her lawyers for being 'too sexual' or 'too gay'.

[lovedlea replied to misakyra]: [gwendallas replied to teimywimey]: [unknown]: [cephalopede replied to embraceyourfandom]: [zwordsman replied to petermorwood]: [dingoes8myrp replied to luscious2]:

was introduced to message board RP around 2008 when Supernatural was getting popular (shout out to @greenekangaroo for suggesting "Hey, you should try this Internet thing the kids are using these days..."). I remember being baffled that there were all these online communities of people who also did what I did, that there was a name for it.

I had been writing what I called "what if" stories in notebooks since high school. It started when I read Interview with a Vampire, ironically, and I didn't know there were sequels. My aunt had lent me the book and I had so many questions about the lore and the characters. So we'd have these long discussions. "What if this?" and "What if that?" My aunt encouraged me to write it all down, to use my imagination to answer those questions for myself.

I did this with everything I read. And then everything I watched. It was not only a way to increase my reading comprehension and critical thinking, but to learn how to write a good story and compelling characters.

Until recently (whenever I started posting my fics on Tumblr, maybe a year ago), I still kept my "what if" stories hidden on my desktop or in my notebooks. I did message board RP, which had its own drawbacks and stigmas, and I wrote for canon characters. And it was generally well received. Nobody really picked apart or disliked my writing (or if they did, they kept it to themselves). I heard bits and pieces of the stories outlined here and it made me kind of nervous about my own fanfiction. It had never occurred to me that imagining scenarios from beloved works and (gasp) writing them down for fun would be frowned upon (or even illegal).

I do remember even on message board RPs having to put disclaimers on things, having secret password protected boards, sites coming down on players for writing non-hetero relationships in a certain way (even some Buffy the Vampire Slayer communities did this, which I found strange given the show's landmark same-sex relationship). At the time, I didn't really get it. It annoyed me and made me roll my eyes, but I wasn't a part of the online fanfic community at the time. So I saw some ripples reverberate across the Internet, but I didn't see where it came from.

The reason I've begun posting my fanfiction online is because so many fandom creators, writers, actors, and crew have shown acceptance or support of fanfiction (granted, sometimes it's grudgingly so).

It seems like fanfiction has always been a thing. But talking about it publicly was what ruffled some feathers, as well as the Internet allowing us to "publish" it during a time when it was unclear what that meant.

#fanfiction #rp #message board rp #dingorambles

Anne McCaffrey/Dragonriders of Pern

[thepioden]:

[uncannykate] replied to [bastlynn]:

I'm glad that it's changed, because it was really not fun to devote your time and energy to living in your favorite fantasy world and then have the creator find out and stomp all over you. Which was the norm and common as fuck. It was basically treated like piracy, if not worse - authors had been scared from a few real cases into thinking fanfiction was a breeding ground for lawsuits from fans if your stories happened to resemble things they'd posted online earlier.

Also: Please never claim anyone 'stole' from your fanfic, because people that did that nearly killed fandom in the 90s and left horrible scars on the rest of us.

[cheyinka] replied to [violent-darts]:

Take that paranoia and multiply by 10,000 for anything on a static webpage where anyone could find it. (Multiply merely by 5,000 for anything behind friends-lock, because anyone could take a screenshot and save it and send it somewhere, right?)

#paranoia strikes deep #into your life it will creep #it starts when you're always afraid #step outta line #the man come and take you(r fanfic) away

[smartass-telepath] replied to [jathis]: [epoxyconfetti] replied to [sixth-light]: [urbandev] replied to [garshil]: [iamtehzuul] replied to [garrusvckcricns]: [seespotbitejane] replied to [general-leiaorgana]:

As a giant nerd who did some Dragonriders of Pern RPGing in High School, I can add that Anne McCaffrey was, not Anne Rice aggressive, but definitely threatening to fans. She especially didn't like people trying to reconstruct Pern in a way that made it less inherently sexist and homophobic.

[monstersonmidnight] replied to [leavesdancing]: [overlordrae] replied to [bitcheslovepuns]: [awesomeavocadolove] replied to [relevantlyirreverent]: [thepioden] replied to [blame-my-muses]: [cassi-misc-art] replied to [thefloatingstone]: [jade-ramblings] replied to [cygnaut]:

Hah, I remember feeling so lucky whenever I stumbled onto that rare Vampire Chronicles fanfic.

To this day, I honestly can't read Pern fic that star the book characters without feeling like I'm doing something really wrong. Pern fusion where other characters have dragons? Sure. Reading about Lessa or Manolly? Oh no, no way. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one from those days who has the fanfic taboo still haunting them, looking at the overall lack of quantity in the Pern fanfiction categories at ff.net or AO3 and comparing it to the sheer number of people I remember being a part of those RPGs.

[bluehooloovo] replied to [ellethinthewoods]: [catpella] replied to [trianamars]: [blitzdrake] replied to [ladydrace]:

I feel so old right now, because I remember too much if this.

I can't believe I managed to Forget the McCaffrey and Rice crap. Specially Mccafrey and her lovely opinions on the gays (like me). And as a gay nerd the dragons of Pern was so fascinating, and it would mesh so well with so many fandoms I love now, but I just can't go back to that series.

I'm old enough to remember the damn tent peg thing making the rounds. If you aren't familiar during an interview asking about sexualities of riders of green dragon riders (male green dragon riders and whatever dragon rider MAN was impressed with the dragon mating said green dragon end up having relations driven by the passion of their dragons....) and a big question arose as to if green dragons picked gay riders, and "what if the green D[r]agon picked a straight rider," to which she replied, to the effect of "if you have sex with a man once and are straight, even if it's rape (an actual story about a straight man being raped by a tent peg was inserted here by McCaffrey at this point) you become gay." So yeah, bisexual and questioning erasure, neither of which I was but so many of my not-out or trying to find their way friends were, and such a horrifying dismissal of their sexuality from one of my favorite childhood authors was devastating. I aggressively stayed out of fandoms for all my favorite books after that and only read/write slag fandoms on the underground archives for anime and cartoons that I had less childhood emotional investment in, (oh gundam endless waltz: 3x4 forever) so I wouldn't have more things RUINED.

#blitz feels old #but happy about the times a changing

[foxy-voxy] replied to [merindab]:

Oh god, Pern. Pern was my first online fandom. Not gonna lie, I miss it, a lot.

I played on Skies Apart for a while in 2013 as weyrfolk, a cook. No unorthodox dragon characters. Plenty of gay stuff.

If anybody's reading this and played on NorCon, especially, during those times, feel free to message me, especially if you were at Igen, Telgar, or Ista. I miss people :)

[silensy] replied to [northstarfan]:

[asksythe] replied to [aphonicdreams]:

Yeah... I remember this too. Any fan authors who started their foray into the world of fanfiction during the 90s know this [about disclaimers]. Those are some wacky early days, before even the creation of fanfiction.net and the gradual acceptance of fanfiction as a celebration of our love for fictional worlds and characters. I never got quite into the whole Anne Rice's melt down thing, but I do remember Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern and its torrents of cease and desists emails sent to young teenage girls and boys who wrote and celebrated their adoration for McCaffrey's fictional universe out of pure love.

Now it has gotten much better because the marketing people are wising up to the facts that fan arts and fanfictions lengthen the longevity (and thus profitability) of any given series. But... you never know when some lawyer people are gonna get greedy dumb over chump changes.

[dreadlord-mr-son] replied to [aviatingwolves]:

I grew up reading X-Files and Pern fandom during those days, and it has left me incredibly sensitive to creators trying to control what is and isn't allowed within fandom.

If any of my followers has wondered why I get so mad at the Yogscast over their treatment of fanfic authors, it's because I remember this. And I am not okay with even the slightest motion back towards it.

(I read McCaffrey's rules on what was and wasn't allowed in fanworks, got to "no new dragon colors" and almost immediately turned around and made a dragon OC whose color was best described as "rainbow quilt" because screw that noise.)

[boxfullofcats] replied to [sakura-daydream]:

Oh man. Pern fandom brings back memories. Yeah, I helped a friend do one by the book. Did regular emails back and forth with her son (forget which one - not the one I think took over her books tho) to get it the official approval.

The different color dragons and such came about to get around her rules. Most of those were on free forums and technically *not* on Pern. Though terms and such were shared. As far as I knew McCaffrey didn't send lawyers out to anyone, but just wanted to keep a tight reign on how things were set up.

She let things go once her Pern series was trying to be picked up for a movie/tv series. It was basically explained that she did this to give the writers and producers some leeway. They even started filming a bit. I remember seeing a pic of her on a dragon saddle. It was all green screen around her and only saddle was practical. But then that fell through.

(Sorry, I know the convo on this moved past this but PERN YO)

[truxi-twice] replied to [lior-lichai]:

There could not be another white dragon, aaaand:

Greens: only women and gay men

Blue: gay/bi men and women (maybe not even bi)

Browns: MEN ONLY

Bronzes: HET MEN ONLY

Queens: HET WOMEN ONLY

Like, we had to abide by those rules in any fandom setting. Is there an RPG weyr? Still better be within those bounds. (and, of course, no other "special" dragons")

I heard tell that once upon a time, women were allowed by McCaffery to be brownriders, but that apparently there was some kind of fandom kerfuffle, and she responded by "taking the toys away." At the time, I shrugged and accepted it, but now I wonder just what kind of people went whining to Anne freaking McCaffery that they didn't want female brownriders in their rpg/fanfic group.

#so naturally i made up my own character with a purple-ish bronze dragon because I Do What I Want #fic life #fandom life #q

[lunararcher] replied to [whitebear-ofthe-watertribe]: [hatpirestuff] replied to [octoberspirit]:

Someone above mentioned Anne McCaffrey, and I can never pass up the chance to tell people about The Time Anne McCaffrey Threatened to Sue a Middle Schooler.

Since it was also "Back in the Day" a number of authors were just starting to make websites for themselves. Anne McCaffrey was one of them with Dragonhold Underhill, and on her website she'd posted her AOL email address. I was so happy, and I emailed her excited to talk to a REAL LIVE AUTHOR. I told her how old I was, asked her where she pulled her inspiration, and then mentioned that I roleplayed as Lessa online.

She replied back with the writing tips, and then at the end of the email, she threatened to sue me.

My favorite author threatened to sue me. I was twelve years old.

[fandomentanglement] replied to [koane]:

I was in the Pern fandom and played on a Harper's Tale for a while, and that was in the era of when some of the Mu* still had official letters from McCaffrey declaring they could operate. (Like... wow.)

Plus, the Pern fandom is why I was originally *deeply baffled* by people who wrote fic about canon characters (whaaat?!?!) and roleplayed using canon characters (??!!??), because that was def. against the Rules.

I mean. I got over it, but it's hard to shake the cultural norms of the first fandom you're socialized into.

[michirucipher] replied to [everyday-im-preaching]:

Oh god I remember the horror stories. I used to rp Pern and it was just awful because I was kicked off the site just because I was "too friendly" with another rper of the same gender character. They were just good friends, but they were so afraid that they decided to ban me. That's how bad it was.

[rhodalle] replied to [lonewolf574]: [ebonykain] replied to [bibliotecaria-d]: [dzamieponders] replied to [thewyndur]: [seven-dragons] replied to [bisexualcharliedavis]:

I am having nightmare flashbacks to Burned Fur.

FYI Pern fanfiction predates the internet. I knew people who belonged to in-person Pern writing clubs.

#i love watching people write about ancient history that is comparatively new in the history of fandom

[wingsoferebus] replied to [smellslikeburntpopcorn]:

It still does happen, for people who are still interested in some of those old fandoms. I don't recall hearing Anne McCaffrey, for one extreme example, ever easing off on C&Ding every piece of fanwork, RP, or anything else her lawyers can Google up.

[andlightplay] replied to [etharei]: [a-singer-of-songs] replied to [kay-lang]: [issoylentgreen] replied to [tarahime]: [chaoskirin] replied to [nabulos]:

Anne McC@ffrey was another one. She's the writer of the P@rn series, and to this day, I still cannot bring myself to own or read anymore of her books. She, or rather, her son, litigated like crazy. We learned not to type out the name of the author or the series name, because if he found you, he would sue you. I still use the @ sign to block out a few letters out of habit.

I think T@dd McC@ffrey tried to claim a copyright or trademark on dragons right around then.

ETA ( from Dee Dreslough's page): This was the cease-and-desist she was sent. Bolding/letter editing is mine. .....

Dear Ms. Dreslough:

I represent Anne McC@ffrey and recently had occasion to review your web page entitled "Dee's Drag@nrider Art Gallery (Tables Version)". You have made clear in the text of your materials that the artwork appearing at this web site is inspired by and based upon Ms. McC@ffrey's Drag@nriders of P@rn series and you appear to understand fully the copyright and trademark rights reserved to Anne McC@ffrey, by your reference to her works. You also seem to understand that you may be violating her rights by your statement found on your web site that " if mentioning my inspiration is something that can get me sued... oh well. If I've goofed, let me know where to fix and I will.*sigh*"

Indeed, you are seriously violating Anne McC@ffrey's trademark and copyright rights by your efforts to copy her work (creating "derivative" works) and marketing them over the Internet. As you indicate, you have not received permission from Anne McC@ffrey to do so and the mere fact that you disclaim such endorsement does not allow you to violate her rights. ........

This was how I learned that disclaimers were just extra letters on a page, and ultimately pointless. (Note that the artist was not 'marketing.' She had a fanart page.)

[featheredschist] replied to [phinarei]:

Wasn't until about a decade ago that she changed her mind about the fandom stuff.

I do know a couple people who are like "fan fic is of the devil", and I can only say "well, that's your right, and I respect that" and go on about my day.

#fandoms #authors #approving # or not #of fan fic #fan art #etc #FFN #still has a list of#no-no authors #to avoid #so they don't get sued

[bones-and-struts] replied to [geekygothgirl]: [disease-danger-darkness-silenc] replied to [e kyraneko]:

Dude the Anne McCaffrey thing was so weird to me when I got into the online fandom in the mid-90′s. At first it was "no fanfic," so if you wrote it you had to hide the shit out of it or keep it to yourself (a lot of this had to do with the fact that in the 90's no one was really sure what to do with the Internet because compared to today it was so small. There were actually legitimate concerns of someone confusing a fanwork with something AM herself had written, because 1. No one knew how to deal with the Internet, as stated before, and 2. Anne McCaffrey's website was garish until her dying day so someone confusing a Geocities site with it was not out of the realm of possibility).

Then it was "No fanfiction except on my specific archive, on my website, which has to be approved." Which was so fucking weird because that was when FNN was really popular, before the Purge and AFF, well before AO3. FFN had to take down all of the Anne McCaffrey-based fic. Simultaneously the shit was going on with Anne Rice so FFN had to pull her shit too.

Then the criteria for her archive was released and basically you could only use her characters in specific situations; if you wanted Teh Gay, you had to create your own characters within her world and use them (that, apparently, you were allowed to do to your heart's content, but it still might not get published). I found this really bizarre because Anne McCaffrey was one of the few well-known sci-fi/fantasy authors that regularly included queer people in her novels. They were usually side-characters and more often than not male, but they were there. There were even instances where their sexual escapades were described; not the long, lustful scenes you got with the het protags but like...actual gay sex happened in her novels. So the Ban On Gay Shit was really baffling to me. And the fact that the Pern fandom, specifically, was one of the only places where you were encouraged to create an OC. It was SO WEIRD.

She really did loosen up a lot after the 'net boom in '04, when it became very obvious that no one was going to mistake her shit for fanfic, or vice versa (most of the websites hosting illegal Pern fanfic LOOKED BETTER THAN HERS). But it was still really weird.

The last two years of her life she just stopped giving a fuck, as far as I can tell. Not sure what Todd, her son, thinks on the topic now that he holds the official rights to the universes she created. But the old site still has the rule of NO EROTICA which is just MIND-BOGGLING to me because??? she wrote???? erotica??? Like LOTS of it?????

W/E; AM, I loved your work and I miss you but fuck you were weird.

[whitmerule] replied to [soupernabturel]: [felixan] replied to [ioystercakes]: [ranuel] replied to [levynite]:

1. Fanfiction.net made it MANDATORY to have a disclaimer on every chapter to try to ward off threats of shutting the site down. If someone reported you for not doing it your fic would be taken down and you could be banned.

2. Anne Macaffrey got better about fanworks but her son didn't. He went after a woman who was getting known for her dragon art and harassed her until she shut down her website for a while even though the works she had up were not of Pernese dragons. She had done some fanart but it wasn't posted at her site. Just the fact that she was inspired to draw dragons by the Pern books was enough. http://www.dreslough.com/main/ important.htm

Edit to add: The son who did this was Alec not Todd.

Also, I had given up on finding this link to a Studio 360 story from 2001 about that case and suing fanartists in general until I thought about the Wayback Machine. http://www.wnyc.org/story/1510 40-fan-fiction/

[j-j-j-jenny-and-the-cats raisedbyhyenas]: [joaryn] replied to [spiletta42]: [aerinalanna] replied to [a-kingdom-or-a-fencepost]: [ironbite4] replied to [zephra85]:

Fandom History lesson always welcome on my dash. Also I find the Ann McCafffery rules just so deliciously ironic considering all Dragonriders except for Queen Riders were men and Greens were females. Horny females. Guess what happened to their riders when Greens rose to mate. Go on...guess.

[ironbite4] replied to [crzydemona]:

It's like looking into a...hold on a second. Ann McCaffrey's rules for fanfiction included "don't make it gay"? Did...did she not realize she made all the dragon riders save the Queen riders men? And that the greens were females and were prone to going into heat at the drop of a hat? Like literally? This was the jumping off point for the second fucking book. Don't make it gay my ass.

[bones-and-struts] replied to [deathcomes4u]:

I was part of an official, Anne-stamped fandom Weyr during her big tantrum and The New Rules. Some of my fellow players scrapped characters. Some changed gender of rider or dragon to comply. I had a male greenrider who got a change in his sexuality, because it was the one thing in my writing that hadn't come up yet. When Anne calmed down and relaxed the New Rules just a tiny bit, my group did not. We didn't want to relive all the upheaval if she changed her mind again.

[featheredschist] replied to [embraceyourfandom]:

I don't have the letter anymore, but McCaffrey has flip-flopped in her fan rules. It was the unwritten 'do whatever, but don't bring it to my attention' at first, then the structured online community ' Weyrs' for RP purposes, and so on, then as she got older it was looser, but still restricted. I wanted to write original fiction in her verse, and wrote her about it...big no no.

I know of at least two online instances of people getting the bricks dropped on them after having been 'approved' as fan works™ for Pern. One was an artist who drew dragons, and the other was an artist who made leather goods, with badges depicting the signs and symbols of the holds and Weyrs. Both had permission, then some nebulous time later, got C&D letters. And they have no idea what happened, other than possibly someone convinced the McCaffrey that it was bad. These days, I refuse to hide my fan fiction, because really, it's transformative. I have AO3 to thank for that.

#copyright #fan fiction #history

[skullfloo4518 replied to spockshair]:

..you won't be complaining if you have heard about how back in the days Anne Rice used to sue people who wrote fanfic of her characters, and there's a ban or something for that fandom.. I don't know the details all I know it's it COULD happen...

[crisfeline replied to chrisshemsworth]:

These sweet summer children have never heard about certain gothic novel author, who wrote some famous vampire novels, and who threatened and harrassed her fans for writing fanfiction. The threat was so real that many fan sites, archives and forums were shut down and many wonderful fans and fanfic authors went into hiding. So that is why you write disclaimers, boys and girls, in case other authors take that attitude against fanfiction and their fans. You can read more about this in the link www.angelfire.com/rant/croatoan/ #sad things #selfishness #greed

[lokigodof replied to crisfeline]:

Anne Rice: "I do not allow fan fiction. The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters. It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes."

I am currently thinking about fanfiction and I'm sure somewhere Miss Rice is feeling upset and thinking, "This must be because someone somewhere is thinking about Lestat fanfiction."

My voodoo capabilities make me happy. #shhh #mun

[tiger-in-the-flightdeck]:

I worked with one of the women that got contacted by Rice's lawyers. Scared the hell out of her and she never touched fandom again.

The first time I saw a commission post on tumblr for fanart, I was shocked.

[demonicae]:

One of the reasons I fell out of love with her writing was her treatment of the fans... (that and the opening chapter of Lasher gave me such heebie-jeebies with the whole underage sex thing I felt unclean just reading it.)

[teabq]:

Oh hey, even more blasts from the past.

I could tell such tales of how much Anne screwed over her fans back then. The tl;dr version is that she and her peeps would use fan projects as free market research and then bring in the lawyers once it was felt Anne could make money off of it herself. ( Talismanic Tours being one of the most offensive examples of this.)

But where fanfic is concerned not only did we get nastygrams but one of my friends had Anne's lawyer trying to fuck up her own privately owned business which had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ANNE RELATED. Said friend was a small business owner with health issues who wasn't exactly rolling in money, so guess how well that went?

On top of that when yours truly tried to speak out about it I discovered that someone in Anne's camp had been cyber stalking me to the point where they took all the tiny crumbs of personal information I had posted over the course of five years or so and used it to doxx me (before that was even a term and in early enough days of the WWW that this wasn't an easy task) and post VERY personal information about me on the main fandom message board of the time. Luckily for me the mod was my friend and she took that down post haste, but it was still oodles of fun feeling that violated and why to this day I am very strict about keeping my fandom and personal lives separate online.

(Also would love to know who tiger-in-the-flightdeck knew. Life paths crossing after so many years....)

[demonicae]:

I have zero problem with fanart/ fic so long as the creators aren't making money off of it. It is someone else's intellectual property and people who create fan related works need to respect that (and a solid 98% of them do.)

The remaining 2% are either easily swayed by being gently prompted to not cash in on someone else's IP. Or they DGAF... and they are the ones who will eventually land themselves in hot water. Either way: this isn't much of an excuse to persecute your entire fanbase.

But Anne Rice went off the deep end with this stuff by actively attacking people who were expressing their love for her work and were not profiteering from it.

The Vampire Chronicles was a dangerous fandom to be in back in the day. Most of the works I read/saw were hidden away in the dark recesses of the internet and covered by disclaimers (a lot of them reading like thoroughly researched legal documents.)

And woe betide anyone who was into shipping anyone with ANYONE in that fandom. You were most at risk, it seemed, if your vision of the characters deviated from the creators 'original intentions.' (Hypocritical of a woman who made most of her living writing erotica.)

Imagine getting sued over a headcanon...

Put simply: we all lived in fear of her team of highly paid lawyers descending from the heavens and taking us to court over a slashfic less than 500 words long.

[beckpoppins]: [barefootwithneonhands replied to harpers-mirror]: [themightyfluffyone replied to eloqit]:

If I remember correctly Anne rice was really bad about doing that That's the reason why if your looking for fanfiction for any of her vampires you can't find it on fanfiction.net

[m-winnike replied to boomboxgeneration]:

Cut to now where Anne Rice camps out on Amazon message boards about her works and other author's she supports and is shitty to people who give less than 5 star ratings for it. Anne Rice is a bitter, unpleasant woman and I fully believe that fucking over fans who were just writing fic and drawing art was just an excuse to show her true personality to people.

[nandamai replied to mrv3000]: [writers-spark replied to midoriko-sama]: [witchyunknown replied to trekupmysleeve]:

Ahhh Anne Rice. I cherished the few Vampire Chronicle fanfics I read. They were gems. ...this is literally the legacy that our generation will pass on. Horror stories about disclaimers on fanfiction.

[pottergerms replied to gloster]: [sliceosunshine replied to anfichasruinedm ylife]:

Diana Gabaldon

[mswyrr relying to dealanexmachina]:

and this one time diana gabaldon said that writing fanfic about her characters was the same as a woman coming into her home and seducing her husband. then she deleted the blog post #diana gabaldon #is a fucking asshole who glorifies domestic violence tra la la #jump in a lake asshole #fandom #i know that i am old because that was six years ago and kids on this site have no memory of it #but it feels like yesterday

[rose-griffes relying to mswyrr]:

[pocketseizure]:

This isn't even ancient history. Back in 2010, there was an extremely nasty incident in which Diana Gabaldon (the author of a number of formally published Doctor Who self-insert fics the Outlander series) put up a blog post that began like this...

OK, my position on fan-fic is pretty clear. I think it's immoral, I _know_ it's illegal, and it makes me want to barf whenever I've inadvertently encountered some of it involving my characters.

As if this weren't already a strong statement coming from a woman who seems to be oddly invested in writing sexy assault scenes (not that there's anything wrong with subversive female fantasies, but I'M JUST SAYING), Gabaldon continued in the same vein, comparing fanfic to home invasion and adultery (as well as other bizarre and unsavory things in her responses to the comments on the now-deleted post). When "fandom" rose from the depths of Livejournal to challenge her, she became even more offensive and belligerent, and other popular writers (such as George RR Martin, who was ironcially part of the Livejournal fandom culture himself) came to her defense. This "debate" led to a number of think pieces in mainstream media about how entitled and ungrateful fans were destroying traditional publishing, not to mention high-profile male creators publicly complaining about cosplay, teenage girls attending comic conventions, and other visible manifestations of fandom. What has changed since then is that the young people (primarily women) whose work was nurtured in fandom communities have become professionals, and they're transforming the entertainment industry from the inside. Fanfic writers are now publishing original novels and editing their own literary magazines for genre fiction. Fan artists are now working for Marvel and DC and putting out original graphic novels with major presses. Video game fans work as programmers and localizers, and cosplay enthusiasts have become character and set designers.

This cultural shift is not just a white thing and not just a straight thing and not just an American thing. Representation in fiction and art - traditionally published or otherwise - is hugely empowering, as is being part of a supportive community. I don't mean to suggest that fandom is changing the world... but it kind of is.

[fandomfairy replied to isagrimorie]:

Um, wasn't Outlander inspired by Doctor Who?

Marion Zimmer Bradley

[athenadark]:

Every time I see this post it has another author being anti fanfic, but no one mentioned Marion Zimmer Bradley

she and a fanwriter had the same idea and the fanartist got there first putting it in print

she did approach the fic-author to ask about using the idea, offering her acknowledgement and a few dollars for the idea

the bickering that took place after this is almost entirely lost to time, but both the fic and the novel were killed

and the idea that writers won't accept fic etc comes from this battle

Laurell K. Hamilton

[plotqueen] replied to [rayshippouuchiha]: [laika-mercury] replied to [grungygardener]: [earthenarya] replied to [hostsamurai]: [angstrydenbytch] replied to [comtessedebussy]: [the-ouija-board-sent-me-moved] replied to [madelinelime]:

Didn't laurel k Hamilton basically ask people not to write fanfiction too? I don't think it was as horrifying as Anne rice though

[angstrydenbytch] replied to [ollygollymolly]: [angstrydenbytch] replied to [deanswingsbothways]:

Cassandra Claire

[sanicgofast] replied to [liikkua]: [grrrbarrowman] replied to [warblerties]: [zandracourt] replied to [ilovedancy]: [pg-chan] replied to [kryallaorchid]: [goodbyejorvik] replied to [wehavedonetheimpossible]:

also reblogging because of the cassandra claire flashbacks!

[justabrowncoatedwench] replied to [wildlingtothebone]: [positive-pebble] replied to [jewishpokemontrainer]: [samallcapswilson] replied to [hyperbunny94]:

I could always tell when some BNF (y'all remember that term) was trying to go pro because suddenly ALL their fanfiction would disappear and only be illicitly passed along in zip drives of enterprising fans who saw it coming. I'm still sad that DW didn't take over for LJ fandom space. It was a much better system than tumblr tbh. Ah, memories. Also everytime I see gifs for Shadowhunters and think that there aren't fans who know about the Cassandra Clare fanlore, I giggle.

Harry Potter

[kulekrizpy] replied to [anyhoodle]: [reconfemmandoforares] replied to [blackwidina]:

^that was a serious problem. As in recall, JK Rowling was the first author to embrace fan creations and that changed how most authors look at those same creations now. There are still a few who officially won't condone playing in their sandboxes, even if we play nicely, but its muuuuuch more relaxed than it used to be.

[ladyhallen replied to unpretty]:

The Fourth Wall

[0phei]: [hils79]:

Yep I used to have disclaimers on all my Buffy fic back in the day. The Buffy creators were mostly pretty chill about fandom but it's not like it is now. You did NOT talk about fandom with anyone except other fandom people and bringing it up at cons was a massive no no because of stuff like this.

Fandom history is important.

[whatdoesthistellyou replied to slavewhotouchedastar]:

"I remember going to a Merlin panel down in London and a girl sitting next to me asked the cast about slash and I thought she was going to get kicked out!"

What's more the reaction in the Merlin fandom on seeing the vid of a question like that was to condemn her completely.

(Also their reasoning was that they believed the creators would respond by destroying the Merlin/Arthur relationship to prevent slash fans touching their work. That was [the view of] what creators were like.)

[griesly]:

It was such a strange and uncomfortable experience for me when fans in LOTR and Potter fandoms suddenly started shoving their work in people's faces speaking publicly about fandom and wanting to engage in dialogue with the creators and actors of the Thing they were into. Fan stuff was supposed to stay online, in archives and list-serves and zines we passed around because it just wasn't cool to talk about it and it could get you in a boatload of trouble. The freedom we have to create and gather together in a shared space, or actually be acknowledged in any way by people outside the fandom was inconceivable to my fannish, teenaged self. I want fans these days to understand how amazing modern fandom really is, cherish the community, and appreciate what it took to get us here.

[roachpatrol]:

one thing i particularly love is how shows have characters that write fanfiction because shows have writers that wrote fanfiction. current fan culture hasn't been this way for very long, but it's been this way for long enough, and now it's in children's cartoons like adventure time that if you like a book or a show, you might write your own adventures for it and read it to your friends, no big deal. i don't remember seeing any girl in any show writing fanfiction where that wasn't the punchline, that she was a sad freak...you still see that joke sometimes, but increasingly there's also support and approval for the collaborative, imaginative storytelling fans do for fun, and that's really cool.

[thatswhenyouloseyourself]:

Let's not forget: the reason AO3 is called ' Archive of our own ' is because it was created in response to some bullshit that assholes were trying to play with fan creators. Basically (if I remember the fiasco correctly) trying to mine fandom creators for content which they could then use to generate ad profit on their shitty websites. When the series creators objected, the fans tried to pull their content, only to find that the website hoster resisted, claiming their content was all his now.

That wasn't even all that long ago...

[oyveyzmir]: [meeedeee]: [elfwreck]:

This, this, this, all of this... except:

I don't know of any actual lawsuits filed against not-for-profit fanfic. If anyone does, PLEASE SHARE INFO. I know about plenty of cease-and-desist letters, and threats of potential lawsuits; if anyone knows if a media creator (or their big-corporation-legal-team) actually filed a lawsuit, FANLORE NEEDS THOSE DETAILS. Fragments that I've heard that might relate to actual filings:

Chelsea Quinn Yarbro over St. Germaine (wtf is it with female authors and their vampiric imaginary boyfriends?)

X-Files owners vs fansites

Early Lucasfilm reactions to fan works

... anything else? My admittedly-not-detailed digging on each of those turned up no actual legal suits filed, just threats.

A big part of AO3 was the willingness to stand up and say, "y'know what? No more caving to vague threats. If you think this is REALLY illegal, if you think we are causing you financial damage, if you think we are not within the bounds of fair use ... put your damn money where your mouth is and file. that. suit. Because 'I don't like how they're talking about the characters I made up' is not, actually, against the law."

It's been more than 7 years, and AO3 hosts fic about pretty much all of the "NO FANFIC EVER" fandoms, and... zero lawsuits so far.

[cracktheglasses]:

Oh, this brings back some not so-awesome '90s fandom memories!

[racethewind10]:

History became legend. Legend became myth.... And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost.

[helena-invictus replied to scyllaya]: [prismatic-bell replied to argylepiratewd]:

Yup. That's why places like AO3 even exist. I remember actually including the line "I'm twelve years old, please don't sue me" in a disclaimer.

[luke-jace yexn replied to fandomlife-universe]:

So I'm on AO3 and I see a lot of people who put "I do not own [insert fandom here]" before their story. Like, I came on this site to read FAN fiction. This is a FAN fiction site. I'm fully aware that you don't own the fandom or the characters. That's why it's called FAN FICTION.

AO3 isn't even a fanfiction site completely? It is usually used for fanfics, but it has original content too. Fanfiction.net is a different story but still.

[anightvaleintern replied to voltronlaundryday]:

Fanfiction has also become more acceptable as the newer generations are becoming the published authors. Rebecca Sugar, for example, participated in fandom before become a professional so I'm sure to her, this all comes with the territory.

[gallifreygal replied to therothwoman]:

Anyway, this was way way way before Game of Thrones became an HBO show, so I suppose it was easier to enforce the ban when the biggest hurdle to the fandom was a collection of ultra-thick books. Then the show happened, the fandom exploded, and then everyone started writing stories regardless of George's feelings about it. Sorry George, the fans have won.

Also the talk about Dragonriders of Pern RPGs took me way way back to my online text gaming days. Remember MU*s? Remember creating a character and logging in and then auditioning to be a canon character in front of mods? Good times.

#fandom history #long post #but good! #so good

References

1. com/post/149279058442/ snowballschanceinahandcart-i- own-loki Stuff and Nonsense, 20170407051828/http://keyla- lovely.tumblr.com/post/ 149279058442/ snowballschanceinahandcart-i- own-loki Archived version

2. Actually, slash wasn't the issue. It was a very mild R-rated het fic called Slow Boat to Bespin, see Open Letters to Star Wars Zine Publishers by Maureen Garrett.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
So I'm on AO3 ...(the forgotten history of disclaimers)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So I'm on AO3 ...(the forgotten history of disclaimers) is a Tumblr conversation that begins with a comment by fandomlife-universe.: As of March 2017, the post had 108158 notes. [kleenexwoman replied to that-vicious-vixen]: yep I did that. Everyone did.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opinion pieces on comics companies possibly starting to sue fan artists

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinion pieces on comics companies possibly starting to sue fan artists

# data[].attributes.body
Comics site (2012)
Before the final settlement between Gary Friedrich and Marvel, Marvel said they'd "drop the countersuit if Friedrich agreed to pay $17,000 in damages, and ceased not only selling Ghost Rider-related items of his own creation but also promoting himself as the creator of the character for financial gain."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week, the latest judgements were made in the long-running legal battle between "Ghost Rider" creator Gary Friedrich and Marvel Characters Inc., and by extension, the latest victory of a comics company over a disaffected freelancer was also handed down.

Blogger Daniel Best, who has followed the Ghost Rider case closely, posted a copy of the court documents defining the legal stipulation - or agreement between Friedrich's lawyers and Marvel's - as a result of the writer's recent loss to the multi-million dollar entertainment company over the rights to the flame-headed, motorcycle-riding hero.

Friedrich sued Marvel, Columbia Pictures, Hasbro and other companies in 2007, alleging the copyrights used in the first "Ghost Rider" movie and related products reverted to him in 2001 because, he alleged, the publisher failed to register the character's first appearance in 1972's "Marvel Spotlight" #5 with the U.S. Copyright Office. The case took a few turns, with Marvel countersuing in 2010, seeking damages for the writer's unauthorized sale of Ghost Rider posters, T-shirts and cards online and at comic conventions.

In brief, the agreement lay out that Marvel will drop its countersuit if Friedrich agrees to pay $17,000 in damages, and ceases not only selling Ghost Rider-related items of his own creation but also promoting himself as the creator of the character for financial gain. Marvel did note Friedrich's right to sell his autograph on Ghost Rider merchandise, but only that officially created or licensed by the company's subsidiaries.

Aside from the obvious and decided victory for Marvel being the latest in a long line of cases in which the company has successfully argued that legal language stamped on the back of freelancer checks constitutes a binding work-for-hire contract, this judgment also brings up questions to the regularly-overlooked, and often vital, revenue stream of convention sales by comics creators. Every year, hundreds if not thousands of writers and artists earn a significant portion of their income by selling sketches, art commissions, art prints and other self-made product featuring the popular corporate characters fans associate with them. This practice is often overlooked by comics companies -Â and in the case of Marvel, the publisher has in recent years taken to aiding current freelancers in creating officially licensed prints to sell at shows - but with the judgment against Friedrich, the door is open to a future in which publishers demand profits or damages based on freelancer convention business.

Best notes in the comments for his original story that Friedrich is likely to appeal the overall decision, even as the stipulation on the $17,000 comes attached with a timeline whereby Marvel can reassert its trademark counterclaims within 90 days of February 6 if the writer doesn't comply with the terms.

CBR Staff Writer Kevin Melrose contributed to this story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Friedrich Ordered To Pay Marvel $17K Over "Ghost Rider"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, the latest judgements were made in the long-running legal battle between "Ghost Rider" creator Gary Friedrich and Marvel Characters Inc., and by extension, the latest victory of a comics company over a disaffected freelancer was also handed down.

# data[].attributes.body
Original creator (2016)

# data[].attributes.body
Lawyer on comics (etc) site (2016)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bleeding Cool has been running a number of articles of late concerning those people who exhibit work at comic conventions that is not their own. It really all started for us with Rob Granito who was an extreme version of this, and even gave his name to the practice for a time but at recent shows, it has been increasing on an industrial scale. To the extent that it seems that publishers can't ignore it for much longer and any resultant actions may damage relatively innocent creators in the process. But is anyone relatively innocent.

Seth C. Polansky is a lawyer with his own practice, and specialises in contract, art and IP issues from around the world. And he has his own rather involved take on this issue, which he shares with Bleeding Cool. He writes,

This past weekend I was privileged enough to attend a wonderful pop culture convention that shall remain nameless. While participating in the excellent panel discussions, film screenings, and photo ops, I crystalized an idea I'd been flirting with for a while now: How to attack the problem of copyright infringement by vendors at conventions.

All it took was a walk through "Artist Alley" to really understand the magnitude of the problem. Without exaggeration or hyperbole, 70-80% of the vendors and artists were selling infringing intellectual property ('IP').

This artist/vendor even uses the name "Avengers" in one of the prints on the left.

I doubt this artist/vendor has been granted the appropriate licenses for Flash, Deadpool, Agent Carter... oh and Star Wars.

There are multiple, overlapping problems here, and I'm not sure that there's an easy way to unravel ye olde Gordian Knot. Here are the issues as I see them:

1. Artists/vendors are selling items that clearly infringe the copyrights of others.

2. Artists/vendors often do not understand how IP rights work, and more troubling, often don't understand the risk they've taken on by selling potentially infringing items at a convention.

3. Artists often rely on selling such work to make ends meet.

4. Convention organizations, with few exceptions, turn a blind eye to their vendors' sale of infringing material.

5. IP rights holders aren't enforcing their rights - or perhaps not even paying attention to the issue.

6. Consumers (that is to say con-goers) either don't understand that what they're doing is supporting theft, or they don't care.

The obvious legal answer is that all conventions should stop allowing the sale of infringing items, and attendees should refuse to purchase them. But I'm not naïve enough to think that attendees or organizers are going to stop any time soon. Indeed most conventions simply shift the risk onto the vendors and artists. In my experience, their agreements include a clause similar to:

"Vendor/Artist certifies that, i) it is and shall remain in compliance with all State and local laws, regulations, statutes and rules, ii) it has the legal right to sell and offer for sale the products it sells at the Convention, and iii) it shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Convention and any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents from claims in any way related to Vendor/Artist's violation of any term of this Agreement."

So what's the answer? Is there an answer? Who is the most at risk here, and how can everyone - artists, vendors, attendees, and organizers - protect themselves?

In the discussions below, I've attempted to provide some suggestions intended to help artists, vendors, and con-goers alike navigate their way through this ... ridiculousness.

Artists/vendors are selling items that clearly infringe the copyrights of others.

This is a statement of fact. It is indisputable.

I'd be floored if this artist had been granted a license to reproduce and sell Yoda prints. And Indiana Jones. And Xena.

Just because you've ironically put Boba Fett "hunting" Carmen San Diego and Waldo in your painting, you haven't satisfied any requirement(s) for a fair use exception.

I regularly hear uneducated arguments, often citing "fair use", but in 99.9% of the situations I've encountered these arguments are utterly inappropriate.

They often go something like this:

One-of-a-kind, original drawings and paintings of someone else's IP are okay.

Since everyone does it, copyright holders must not care.

If I only sell it at conventions, and not online or in stores, it is okay.

If I'm not making a profit, it is legal to draw someone else's characters.

Each and every one of these is false. Let me repeat that. Each and every one of these is false. Any questions?

In any event a claim of fair use is always a question of law and artists/vendors can potentially be dragged into costly litigation over their mistaken belief that there is some sort of legal precedent that allows them to violate someone else's IP rights. ( For a detailed discussion of "fair use" please see one of my previous articles, here.)

Artists/vendors often do not understand how IP rights work, and more troubling, often don't understand the risk they've taken on by selling potentially infringing products at a convention.

The arguments I've listed above, and that I regularly hear from artists/vendors, are clear and convincing evidence that most of them really don't understand what they're doing. (At least one hopes so - though there are those who know exactly what they're doing and just don't care. See section 5, below.)

Here's a quick and dirty test anyone can perform at any time to answer questions about fan art or infringement issues:

Question: Do you own the IP in question?

A1: Yes.

Then you may do as you wish with the IP.

A2: No.

You have no right to profit from work featuring the IP, and almost no rights to create infringing work not for profit either.

A3: No, but I have a license with the IP rights holder.

Then you may do as you wish with the IP, subject to the terms of the license.

Artists often rely on selling such work to make ends meet.

From a purely legal perspective, these artists are violating the copyright of the IP rights holder. Replication, or the creation of a derivative work, of someone else's IP is infringement.

Copyright is a powerful thing. It was intended to protect authors, but today is mostly used by corporations to protect the rights transferred to them from artists via "work for hire" contracts. We'll get deeper into the corporate side of things later, but keep that in mind for now.

As a result of my personal and professional experience, my discussions with clients, my discussions with artists, and many detailed reviews of illustrator's contracts, it is clear that the industry is in need of better contracts/agreements that commission a work (or employ an artist).

Moreover, given the conspicuous absence of litigation by major corporations, indeed their conspicuous absence in weighing in at all, it stands to reason that they really should have no problem with ceding some small rights back to the artists.

Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro has taken a good first step here by allowing Magic the Gathering ('MTG') artists to reproduce their work on playmats. Prior to 2016, the vast majority of MTG art was work-for-hire, and the artists retained few or no rights.

Convention organizations, with few exceptions, turn a blind eye to their vendors' sale of infringing material.

This is also incontrovertible truth. Here's an excerpt from San Diego Comic-Con's vendor agreement:
"15. Copyrighted Materials Exhibitors shall not play or permit the playing or performance of, or distribution of any copyrighted material at the Event unless it has obtained all necessary rights and paid all required royalties, fees or other payments."
As you can see, they've shifted any risk from themselves onto the vendors and artists. And perhaps rightly so. Is it the job of convention organizers to enforce the law? Con organizers have many, many responsibilities - is enforcing IP law one of them?

From a legal perspective, it isn't their responsibility - assuming they've shifted the risk to the vendors and artists. Which most of them have done.

Now that said, I do believe that Con organizers have a responsibility to require vendors and artists remove infringing products from the vendor room floor - once they've been notified that it's there.

By way of illustration, here's an excerpt from the Otakon artist alley agreement. I had the opportunity to speak with some of the Otakon staff this weekend, and they actually do police the floor for obviously infringing work. While not perfect, their agreement goes go a long way towards protecting IP rights, in that they regularly request artists and vendors remove infringing works.
"The artist bears all responsibility and risk for the items brought for sale at Otakorp, Inc. Any questions regarding this policy will be resolved by the Department Head of Artist Alley, in consultation with Otakorp Inc.'s lawyer when needed. If a piece of art appears to be very similar to a licensed, copyrighted, etc. piece of art, the artist may be asked to remove it from display and sale at the discretion of the Department Head. The Department Head's decision is final."

IP rights holders aren't enforcing their rights - or perhaps not even paying attention to the issue.

This is troublesome. It leads to the situation we find ourselves in today. In my experience, the combination of artists and vendors who are ignorant of IP law, and the lack of any legal repercussions or penalties, leads to flagrant and widespread IP violations.

Take the recent case of Tim Lundmark. He appeared at Minneapolis Comic Con selling unlicensed prints of many artists' work. Aldrin Aw / Buzz, who has worked on titles such as X-Factor, Justice League, etc... reported him to the Con organizers, posted extensively on social media, and had the story picked up by Bleeding Cool.

I can't even begin to imagine what it must feel like to have worked on a popular comic, not own the work I did (most in-house artists are employees, and their art is the property of their employer), and show up at a convention to see someone selling blurry, photocopied prints of my own work - that I'm not even permitted to sell?!?

Unfortunately, to date no significant action has been taken by any of the larger corporate IP rights holders. Until the large corporations get involved, and make it economically risky to the convention organizers, things are unlikely to change. What it's going to take is something like the Star Trek Axnar case - which is to say something attached to six-figure dollar signs - before they sit up and take notice.

Consumers (that is to say con-goers) either don't understand that what they're doing is supporting theft, or they don't care.

This, to me, is the crux of the issue. Fans attend conventions because they love the characters, shows, and art. When addressed one-on-one, the vast majority of fans are law-abiding folk who love their favorite comics, characters, and games. I suspect if you asked each individual con-goer, very few, if any, would agree that they're happy to support what basically amounts to theft.

I submit to you that the answer here, as in so many other arenas, is education. Fans, con-goers, artists, vendors, and convention organizers alike need to understand that much of this type of work is unlawful.

So how do we educate? San Diego Comic Con brought in John Wells, Deviant Art's General Counsel, who gave an excellent talk on the subject. More conventions should take a page from this book, and include these excellent discussions in their programming.

In all honesty, I expect that nothing's going to change until someone gets made an example of. Given that Disney is now the parent company of Marvel - the "example" may come sooner rather than later. (In case you've been living under a rock, Disney controls its brand and IP with an iron fist.) I urge you ... don't be the horrible, horrible example.
Practical Advice for Artists and Fans
If you've read this far, I'm assuming you're still interested and wondering what you can do to help.

If you're a fan it is incredibly easy. All you have to do is ask one of these simple questions of the artist or vendor.

1. "Do you have a license for this print/t-shirt/tea-cozy?"; or

2. "Did you create that character/image/item and keep the appropriate rights?"

As a fan, you bear part of the responsibility to help fix the problem. Don't buy art or products that rip off the stuff you love.

If you're an artist or convention vendor, you need to educate yourself with regard to intellectual property. After all, as an artist, your job is the creation of intellectual property; and as a convention vendor, your job is selling items that contain someone's intellectual property. This is the world you live in. It is in your best interest to understand it!

Ask yourself, "Do I have the right to use/paint/draw/sell this IP?" (And be honest with yourself. It is unlikely that you've substantially altered the IP enough to satisfy any fair use requirements. As I mentioned above, if you want to delve deeper into fair use - I've written a fairly extensive blog post about it here.)

Read the contract or agreement that describes what you've agreed to by selling/attending each convention. As we've seen above, it is likely you've agreed that anything you offer for sale will not infringe the IP rights of another, and that you'll pay for (the legal jargon here is indemnify and defend) any suits or claims against the convention. Do you really want to have to pay a Comic Con to defend a lawsuit brought by Disney, Hasbro or Warner Brothers?

Finally, a last word of advice for artists. If you're at a convention and you see someone selling what appear to be unauthorized copies of a work - say something to the organizers, take a picture, and bring it to social media. But most importantly, keep it civil. If it ever comes to litigation, you want to make sure you look like a rational businessperson. Not a foul-mouthed cretin. It is much more likely (at least in today's environment) that the issue will play out in the court of public opinion.

Things aren't going to change overnight, but I believe that with a concerted effort on the part of artists, fans, IP rights holders, and convention organizers, we'll get there eventually.

As always, if any of you have more questions, or find yourself in need of legal advice in this arena, my door is always open.

(Last Updated )

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Artists Alley, Art Theft And Copyright Law - A Lawyer Speaks To Bleeding Cool - Bleeding Cool News And Rumors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bleeding Cool has been running a number of articles of late concerning those people who exhibit work at comic conventions that is not their own. It really all started for us with Rob Granito who was an extreme version of this, and even gave his name to the practice for a time but at recent shows, it has been increasing on an industrial scale.

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria: A work that has at least one woman (or the representation of one) in any state of nudity (including just topless, because female breasts have always been sexualized), regardless of whether or not there's also a male nude in the same work

# data[].attributes.body
(Attributed to a man)