Is this copyright infringement?

[Thandal]

And what any of us might personally be willing to risk in creating such material, and what Dark0ne (and by extention, all the other users of the Nexus sites) are willing to risk in allowing his services to be used to publish/distribute such material, are two very different things. His site -- His rules!

And I, for one, am happy to stay well within Robin's comfort zone on this. :thumbsup:

[yoba333]

So does Trey Parker (The co-creator of the show and voice of Cartman) own the rights to Cartman's audio or does Comedy Central own it?

[myrmaad]

The thing is you guys are completely blowing it out of proportion. Do you realize how often music artist's instrumentals are completely covered and reused by other artists? They're always redistributed for free to prevent such lawsuits. The same applies just in a far smaller way.

 

Wrong again.

 

 

And it's clear to me you are not yourself, and do not have any close friends or family, in the actual music industry.

[Thandal]

So does Trey Parker (The co-creator of the show and voice of Cartman) own the rights to Cartman's audio or does Comedy Central own it?

He may, by virtue of being the "creator" or "producer" of the work (and if he didn't sign those rights over either before-, or after-the-fact.) But he probably would NOT if he were just the voice of a character. In any case it would depend on a number of factors. But it's easy to tell who to apply to for permission: Look for the "c-in-circle" notice on the work itself! :thumbsup:

 

But just f'instance, see here: South Park sues for copyright infringement, and here: "SoutPark Studios site official copyright policy statement".

 

(And that was just from five minutes of googling...)

[urbex]

Sigh. I know a lot of what I said was BS filler, but I don't know a better way to get it through your heads. The main idea is that VIACOM would never start a lawsuit over using an audio sample in a mod. It's just stupid. It won't hurt their profits and if anything serve as free promotion for southpark.

The thing is you guys are completely blowing it out of proportion. Do you realize how often music artist's instrumentals are completely covered and reused by other artists? They're always redistributed for free to prevent such lawsuits. The same applies just in a far smaller way.

 

Wrong again.

 

 

And it's clear to me you are not yourself, and do not have any close friends or family, in the actual music industry.

Was I implying I did? No.

I do know for a fact that obtaining an instrumental, rapping over it, and distributing it for free without permission IS legal. Does sampling a voice from an animated character and distributing it for free via a fallout mod not constitute the same thing?

 

Anyways, I'm done with this thread and arguing over something so clear.

[Thandal]

Sigh. I know a lot of what I said was BS filler, but I don't know a better way to get it through your heads. The main idea is that VIACOM would never start a lawsuit over using an audio sample in a mod. It's just stupid. It won't hurt their profits and if anything serve as free promotion for southpark...

So, your point is NOT that it's legal, but that it wouldn't be worth the trouble (and in your opinion, would be "stupid") for the copyright holder to actually attempt to enforce their rights. Hmmmm... Quite a different argument from the one you made earlier.

 

Anyways, I'm done with this thread and arguing over something so clear.

Agree. The need to get prior permission for the use of ANY copyrighted material in anything you're going to post to Nexus is quite clear. :thumbsup:

[yoba333]

Well thank you guys for your support... This turned more into a debate than anything else. But nevertheless, gracias

[bben46]

Copyright lawyers can be quite anal.

 

Or is that a redundant statement?

[roquefort]

"I do know for a fact that obtaining an instrumental, rapping over it, and distributing it for free without permission IS legal."

 

No it isn't; it just is not. If anyone can quote a qualified source for that "fact" other than, "I read it on the internet/Wikipedia/the back of a cracker box", I'd be interested in seeing it. The US Copyright Office (and most other legislatures) make it perfectly clear what creative material can (very little) or can't be distributed without an author's permission. It really isn't rocket science.