AG + Lulu = angry Ananth

[Keizuki]

http://www.applegeeks.com/blog_archive/view.php?id=1236

I agree with you on this totally Ananth.

(more detailed pov coming soon!)

[Mandychan4ever]

hm well that isn't cool. sure we all want a book of all the AG issues but i think it would be better to get it from the creators and help support them than to go off and make my own. sure i've thought about saving all the issues to my computer but then thought it was pointless seeing out i can just hop online anywhere and read them. i love that you guys make your issues available, seeing how it let me make my little collages. I hope this guy doesn't ruin that little gift.


So...are the hounds going to be released??

[kospowinc]

at the very end of his post he wrote, "so sue me".  if he was selling it that would be an option.  but he's not, and he said he only has one copy. 
lulu is the real problem.  they allow copyrighted material to be printed without consent from those that hold it.  perhaps there are more people out there ripping off other people's work and a class action thing could be taken against them.

[Eckman]

I say applegeeks fans take his email and spam him till he takes it off his site or at least gets a messege from their loyal fans that we are none too happy at what this jerk has done.

[Favy]

I think that there likely are grounds for legal action.  I work at a photo lab (in Walmart, blech) and I know that if we reproduce any stuff done by professional photographers (without signed written consent) then we can get in huge legal trouble for it.  I think that this would fall under the same thing; even though he's not using it for a profit, Mr. Davis (www.chrisjdavis.org) would still have had to pay Lulu.com (www.lulu.com) for the hard copy that he recieved (I assume so, at least, because I couldn't find anything on their site that said otherwise), and as such, they would be garnering some form of profit from another's copyrighted works.

[Mandychan4ever]

I say applegeeks fans take his email and spam him till he takes it off his site or at least gets a messege from their loyal fans that we are none too happy at what this jerk has done.

Down boy.

As much as I and many others like to do such things, it would be wise to wait for word from Ananth and Hawk.

[Knightslugger]

LuLu.com can be held liable for their actions.  Copyrighted works are NOT to be reproduced without the holders consent, unless the reproduction is used for educational purposes, at which only one copy is permitted.  Only a copyright holder has the right to reproduce copyrighted works. Ownership of a book, photograph, musical score, magazine or a copy of such items alone does not give Lulu.com the right to copy them.

[chrisjdavis]

Hello everyone I am the apparently evil Chris J. Davis.

The long and short of it is that in the one bound copy I printed for personal use (which by the way according to copyright law is well within my rights) Hawk and Ananth retained all rights to.  There is no copyright infringement if I am not creating more than one copy.

Am I supposed to ask their permission to print them out here on my printer and put them in a binder?  I would hope we would all say no.  I see no difference in that and what I did, except the quality of the printing was better.  It was never publicly available for sale, and after the one copy for myself was printed I deleted the project.

Also I would say that directing any anger at LuLu is a bit silly since they have no way of checking that every piece of work uploaded to their site belongs to the person(s) uploading it.  You want to be mad at me, fine go ahead and be mad, but to blame LuLu is just absurd.

So I have a much more interesting question.  If I had printed out each of these comics on my home printer, created the cover and printed it here and then hand bound them would there be this much animosity?  Or is it the fact that I had an industrial machine do it for me and then mail it where all the hate is coming from?

Also to Hawk and Ananth, I am not sure why this bothered you so much, since if you read the post I stated that there was only one copy made and that was for my own personal use.  I honestly didn't think it would matter since as I have already stated I respected your copyright and never allowed it to be available.

Would you like me to mail the one copy that was ever made to you?  I will do that just give me an address.  I could also record it being burned and post that online.  Would that make everyone happy?

Also you might want to take down the link since you are inadvertently helping me; the increased traffic is driving up my adsense, and I don't think you would want to help me since you are not happy with my actions.

As for why I didn't email and ask permission as I have already stated I didn't feel I had to, plus I was assuming you wouldn't respond given the monumental amount of email you already get.  In closing this little missive I guess it goes without saying that I love this comic and greatly respect both the writer and the artist... which is you know why I wanted a dead tree version in the first place. 

If either one of you would like to discuss this like civilized human beings you can get my email via this forum, I have it hidden from normal users but I assume that admins can still see it.  Since I have such a love and respect for your creation I will do whatever you think neccesary to remedy this situation, just let me know.

Chris

[Hawk]

Chris, even though you made one book. LuLu still made money off our work. What would happen if each member in this forum went out and printed a book the same way. How does that help us? Do we get any profit from that? No.

[Mandychan4ever]

No one has called you evil...many of us just think it would have been a bit polite to merely inform Hawk and Ananth about it. It's their work and it isn't really hard to get in contact with them.  Also if you liked the comic so much why not just wait until they make and buy it from them, which would in turn help support AG as a whole? So you kinda ripped them off.

[Knightslugger]

Chris,

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the AG crew and I wouldn't presume to do so.  They have a lawyer (or so i understand).  Instead, I'm going to respond to you.

Why on Earth did you knowingly have a commercial printer reproduce copyrighted material?  Lulu.com is a commercial printer and they make profit from their services.  They should know more than anyone about copyright laws.  You knew the work was copyrighted and proceeded to have the works reproduced.  Under Copyright Law, you and Lulu.com committed a crime.  You, sir, are an impatient ignorant cuss.  I do hope you are embarrassed enough to admit your mistake and do the right thing.  You cannot simply claim ignorance or non-responsibility for your actions.

[cal_01]

Well, this issue was enough to make me register and offer my own insights.

Before we start, my view is from the viewpoint of Canadian Law, but I would expect US law to me more stringent. Also, I'm far from being a formal expert on copyright law, so I plead ignorance if any of my statements are inaccurate.

First, concerning materials on the public domain, any work published on the internet is still subject to copyright laws. Material on the public domain does not nullify its copyright.

Second, the concept of fair use is a bit stretch here. Concerning printed works, only 10% (IIRC) of any given work can be reproduced for personal use. If any more than 10% is reproduced, permission from the author must be obtained.

Ownership of materials is another vital point of fair use. If we're talking about music, then MP3s are only quasi-legal in that distribution is illegal but that private libraries compiled with music that you own is not. (It should be noted that this is why EULAs were created; you do not actually own the product and you are essentially purchasing a license to legally use the product.)

To link back up to the first point, simply downloading printed works off the public domain does not mean you have ownership of the product. Like a public library, the access of information is permitted but it does not actually mean you own the product.

Third, there is something that concerns every single copyright out there: reproduction and distribution is forbidden unless prior permission is given. That alone is the emcompassing statement about copyrights.

[AnyJohnDoe]

Note: this is a repost of something I posted on his site- not sure which one he is more likely to see first.
[Edit: the first and last quotes are all from http://www.whatiscopyright.org/ , a site referenced in his most recent post on his blog.  The middle one is a quote from Chris' earlier post in this topic]

"Fair use or fair practice is utilization of a portion of a copyrighted work "as is" for purposes of parody, news reporting, research and education about such copyrighted work without the permission of the author. Use of copyrighted works, or portions thereof, for any other purpose is not deemed fair use, so be careful! "

Not attempting to sound hostile or anything here- but how do you justify saying that you have not violated copyright under the Fair Use clause?  Especially since you yourself claim that you only did this for personal use- not for any of the above listed points under the Fair Use clause.

"The long and short of it is that in the one bound copy I printed for personal use"

Furthermore,

"Anybody who uses, copies or distributes my material in any manner, for commercial or personal purposes, without my written permission, would be committing an infringement of my copyright."

  Since you've admitted that you printed it for personal purposes, you commited an infringement of Anath & Hawks copyright.

[Mandychan4ever]

this is upsetting.... :'(

[thesilverfox06]

Bottom line: Somebody made a profit from someone else's copyrighted material without their permission.  End of story.