Forum:Copyright for fursuit pictures?

Forums: Index > Help desk >

What is the copyright status for ? While the fursuit maker or owner might have other exclusive rights (like trademarks), does the copyright rest with its author? --Kakurady / talk 12:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I use Photo3D. I wouldn't tell you that you were wrong if the photographer tagged it CC-BY-SA, etc; I think it would be understood that the copyright owner of the fursuit has some rights too. --Rat 14:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

	Sigh. What is the copyright status of a picture of a copyrighted three-dimensional work (like a fursuit)? 	hi nightfox is it not the bottom one? the something about being a image of a fursona etc?	 	the same as regular pic 	RaccoonYasha: It's a somewhat complicated question, and there's been some debate about it on Wikipedia, but so far it's tended towards copyright being owned by the photographer, not the suit owner or designer. =-=	GreenSleeper is now known as GreenReaper 	GreenReaper: http://pool.wikifur.com/wiki/File:Zets_the_Coon.JPG 	GreenReaper: the copyright is always on the creator of the physical representation of an art of work so the suiter has it on the suit, but the photograph always on the image 	however most local laws include some ability for people to disallow images of themselves to be spread in germany for example that's simply handled by whether a person gives consent to being photographed or not (posing would be consent) 	Yes. It's an interesting question as to whether someone with a full-face mask on can be recognized as themselves for the purpose of that, though. 	Especially when they are posing... 	that is, it's just not a copyright question if they're posing they're giving implicit consent 	But trademark and personality rights as well. 	so the question is really moot :)		and there's trademark issues potentially too, though the Foundation lawyer downplayed those.		i SERIOUSLY doubt a fursuiter has trademark on their suit	furries aren't that affluent, paranoid and/or intelligent		Some may however have suits of trademarked characters.	I've seen a few Pokemon at conventions.		well, that's only an issue with the relevant company then		Indeed. Who probably won't give a damn . . . probably. :-) <RaccoonYasha>	In the fandom, though, I recognize fursonas as something like trademark and people's likeness. <Xenofur`>	if they do they'll simply send a takedown notice ;)	<GreenReaper>	Furmark.	<RaccoonYasha>	But that's just a type of respect and doesn't have any legal standing.	<Xenofur`>	RaccoonYasha: that's quite plain wrong	trademark is something that has ONLY legal meaning	<RaccoonYasha>	Not exactly.	<GreenReaper>	That's why he said "like"	<Xenofur`>	well, i'd still rather he not use that word unless he's talking a court and lawyer context	<GreenReaper>	There is a "use and custom" of not using other people's characters.	<RaccoonYasha>	The legal meaning of a trademark is that it is used to uniquely identify a manufacturer or a merchant.	<Xenofur`>	i get enough grief from furries who are retarded about trademarks and copyright	<RaccoonYasha>	And that such use is legally protected.	<Xenofur`>	no need to spread such notions even further	<RaccoonYasha>	Fursonas are not legally protected (yes, you can copyright images, but you can't copyright the idea of "a gray raccoon with purple hair"), but it is still rather used to uniquely identify someone. <GreenReaper>	You could take out a design patent. Again, I don't think anyone would, just saying. They are very specific though. <Xenofur`>	it's a social agreement :)	<GreenReaper>	e.g. it would apply to making a fursuit in a particular design.	<Xenofur`>	GreenReaper: don't tell ayukawa or she totally would :p	<RaccoonYasha>	Anyway, I went bold and posted the picture of Zets I took on Pool.	<Xenofur`>	RaccoonYasha: no need to be bold, only exercising your legal rights ;) <RaccoonYasha>	Legal rights I wasn't sure I had. <Xenofur`>	well, i hope you're more sure now then :D <RaccoonYasha>	Yup.