Trademarks are more complicated. than copyright The context in which they are used is more important. I can mention Scooby Doo in a story, but if I create a character named Scooby Doo, I would run afoul of tradmark infringement. Most product names are registered trademarks, as are many place names and character names (particularly in TV/cinema). As long as the use doesn't injure the reputation of the product, or cause confusion over which is the real "product" and which is the copy, or inply an endorsement of your work by the trademark owner, you should be ok. A literary attorney can explain in more detail when you can and cannot use a trademarked name.
Off topic but is graphical art different from literary works? I've heard BART(Bay Area Rapid Transit) has a policy of harassing people with cameras around their trains or stations with the justification of their name being trademarked. The "bean" or whatever the hell that big shiny turd in Chicago's Millenium park is called is another example. Maybe it's a misunderstanding. Say in the context of a private sculpture in a public square for instance, the rule has to do with making one party the sole right to sell merchandise with the likeness of the statue on it? Tourists shouldn't be bothered by the rent-a-cops.
Th Eiffel Tower is "trademarked" by the french government. You can take pictures of it - but pictures taken at night cannot be used to make money without the government's permission.
Graphical art is not different from written work insofar as copyright is concerned. However, I'm not sure about the laws used to prevent people from photographing certain landmarks and such. I'm no lawyer. If you photograph or record something from another visual medium, that would be a copyright violation, but where the original is a live performance, an architectural feature, or a sculpture, I don't see how copyright would apply, because rendering it in another medium is an interpretive, creative action. But a lawyer might be able to clarify it for you. Chances are that other, regional laws are applied in such cases.
H.P. Lovecraft invented the Cthulhu Mythos. You know, Shub-Niggurath, etc. Many writers have paid tribute to Lovecraft's creations. I'm wondering how this works - aren't they copyrighted? It's the same thing with Tolkien's inventions. If I wrote a story where I made a direct reference to, say, Cthulhu, would that be acceptable? I would love to have this cleared up. Thanks very much.
Ya, everything written by Lovecraft is in the public domain now (the call of cthulthu expired in april, 2008, thank god). You can reference him, put him in your work, go crazy : D!
The copyright rules change once in a while, but usually works are in the public domain between 70 - 120 years after the author's death. For example, everything before 1923 is now in the public domain according to the US copyright laws.
While I don't like his works, he does seem to have been an early proponent of copyleft and all that. All his friends thought his ideas were good, and they wanted to write in the Mythos as well, so they did, and he wrote based on their ideas as well. He even wrote part of a trilogy based on someone else's work based on his own Mythos. I will say, while I think his writing is bad, he did have interesting ideas about horror.
Reference to his work is one thing. Including excerpts of his work is quite anotger matter. If you quote his writing, you at least must fully identify the source of the quoted material. I don't know the state of his copyright, but you might need written permission from whomever currently holds the copyright.
if it's in the public domain that only means you don't have to ask permission to quote from it... you still have to cite the source and it sure doesn't mean you can claim another's work as your own!
So I couldn't write a story with Cthulhu in it? People write stories with creatures that Tolkein invented without giving him any credit.
You can write a Cthulhu story no problem, but if you were to lift actual text directly from a Lovecraft story, you'd have to cite it.
IANAL, but a few Google searches tell us: If a work is in the public domain, it can be used without permission. So if "The Call of Cthulhu" is now in the public domain due to expired copyright, there are no legal restrictions over it. You can reprint the work (say, on paper or on a web page) without asking permission or paying money. Why? Because no one who owns it -- it belongs to the public. (In fact, you could even sell it.) http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/publicdomain.html http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/ http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_plagiarism_faq.html You are free to include some or all of a public domain work in your own work, but you still have to cite the source. Not because it's copyright infringement -- public domain work isn't protected by copyright -- but because it's plagiarism. What legal penalties public domain plagiarism carries I cannot say, but you'd be kicked out of academia and the publishing industry would probably do the same. It seems there is some debate as to which works of Lovecraft are actually in the public domain and if anyone tried to publish them, Arkham House might have something to say about it, as I believe they still hold a copyright claim over the works. Regardless, many authors freely borrow from the Cthulhu mythos -- that's one of the great things about it. Lots of people have written stories that feature or discuss Cthulhu, the Old Gods, and the Necronomicon. (I refer you to Army of Darkness.) Tolkien's work, on the other hand, is still protected (or actually, re-protected) so you'd best not be writing a story with Gandolf or Samwise unless you're doing it as a satire. Slightly off topic, I found this page on false copyright claims quite interesting, especially the part about the NFL's false claim they run at the beginning of every game. "No part of this broadcast can be used without the NFL's consent...." http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false-copyright-claims.html Oh, and Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Damn it! *Rumpole starts spray painting the sign of the Elder Gods on the forum walls* I'm gonna be tentacles everywhere if I don't.
Can you be sued if you just rewrite paragraphs and sentences that sound similar to a self-development self-help articles from a book if they were the first one to write about it?
Depends on how similar. If you lifted the text from said self-help book, or paraphrased it and passed it off as your own writing, you are guilty of plagiarism, whether or not you could be successfully sued.
I think someone would honestly need to see both works to judge, but if you are having these doubts, it might be telling you something.
Yes you can be. For non-fiction you are supposed to cite any source material which may not be directly quoted, but used as inspiration for theories or points of view in the piece of non-fiction. For example, if I read Dr. Laura's books on marriage and Dr. William Glassers books on choice theory and reality therapy, then wrote an article based on their ideas, I would have to cite the books as source material at the end of the paper or book. If I didn't I could be sued for stealing their ideas and theories even if what I have written doesn't resemble a single passage of their work, but instills their same ideas, solutions, and theories. That is a basic thing taught in school in English Comp classes (both high school and college.) Very little written today is based solely on personal observations when it comes to non-fiction self help. Most of it is based on previous theories. Look in the back of most self-help books, unless written by a professional in an unexplored region of the field, there will be many works cited for reference, even if they weren't quoted directly in the text. You are supposed to cite your research. Depending on the field (though most self-help books use APA style) will dictate your citations (MLA and Chicago styles differ from APA.) If you are taking a few paragraphs of someone else's work and rewording it in your own language, then you still have to cite your source of the idea. Otherwise it is plagiarism.
Just in case you don't know about it, I recommend purchasing the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. You can find it at most bookshops and even second hand, older editions are good.
Okay. What if i do cite the source and lets suppose it is the bible because I would be talking about God. However, their is another book that actually sounds and matches more the sentences I will be using in my book. So will that still be called palagerism since they cannot really support their argument that I got it from their book (even though it does sound similar) as I will do cite that I recieved the information from bible but not the exact quotes on what it being said, but from my own interpretation of the bible verses?
You can quote the King James Version. It's not registered under copyright law...and is hundreds of years old, so it in public domain. Versions not in the public domain require that you ask permission of the copyright owner to include quotes. I'm not following...the quotes from the Bible match what you've quoted, or the theological discussion matches what another person has written? If you're using another's writing to do your writing, don't, not without following all the rules, citing the source if this is a research paper, etc. If you take, say, a pastor's sermon, or a writer's theological analysis of the Bible, and change some words around and publish it as your own or try to represent it as your own writing, you're committing plagiarism. You can quote the King James Version of the Bible, but don't quote, paraphrase, use, misuse, alter or otherwise swipe someone else's discussions, unless those discussions are in public domain, or unless you cite the source and, when necessary and when "fair use" rules do not apply, obtain permission from the copyright owner, or consult a lawyer. See http://copyright.gov/ for more information on the rules governing public domain and fair use. From a legal perspective, if you're committing plagiarism, you can face some pretty touch ramifications, including lawsuit. From a moral perspective, it's just plain wrong. Since you're writing about religion, let me point out that plagiarism is stealing, and more than one religion views stealing in a negative light. Some religions even put it on a list as a commandment, and suggest warm, uncomfortable places much worse than getting sued. Other religions and secularists suggest that such acts of theft are personally reprehensible and will lower your self-esteem in ways that are also worse than getting sued. If you are writing your own interpretations, using your own words, without swiping, paraphrasing, quoting, misquoting or altering someone else's words, then you can do so with a free conscience, not worry about religious or ethical ramifications and also not worry about legal ramifications. Charlie
