Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Desslok

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/01/1969

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Seattle, Washington, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

3,317 profile views
  1. Actually the first thing I thought of was Brainstorm from 1983, with Christopher Walken: The technology in Star Wars seems plausible and reasonable, but I do agree that it should be rare or a prototype of some kind.
  2. It'd never work at our table. My character doesn't feel done until we're something in the neighborhood of 900-1500 points. I guess if you're playing a one shot or something to teach new people - but then you'd be better off with the beginner sets. Also, it's fine if you want a table full of one-trick ponies, but my princess turned businessman turned jedi or my smuggler/gambler/general or my technician turned pilot would never work with your system. In my long gaming career, I can only think of one character that would fit comfortably under one career, and even I'm working my way up the Padawan->Knight->Master track. So it's fine I guess for you, but I'm not a fan.
  3. You got the order all wrong: * Write it * Post it * Let us point out strengths and weaknesses * Modify it * Play it * Modify it * Post it again
  4. That's being generous, calling it a conversation when the rebuttal generally consist of "Nuhuh!" (Sorry, needed to top off the ice in my Manhattan. I'll close the door behind me.)
  5. If you go back and watch the early episodes, be gentle. We were still getting used to this whole "podcasting" thing, so they're a little a lot rough. We're much better now!
  6. *tangential rant* Holy crap, Sony is the absolute worst for having to deal with fair use! In doing the Video Nasty Project, I've had studios lay claim to my monetization through copyright claims despite my show being a 100% fair use slam dunk. That sucks, but I can live with it (plus my show is small enough that I might make 2 or 3 cents - if I'm lucky). Some studios - Arrow Video, Shout Factory - are pretty good about "Whoops, that's clearly an error! We'll release the claim right away!" Sony, on the other hand are onerous mutherfers. They blocked the video for Happy Birthday to Me nearly world wide - the only studio to do that. Fine, pillage my money, I don't really care about that - the VNP is strictly a hobby for me. But blocking the video on every continent other than like Guam and Antarctica? That's BS. I've not had to deal with them, but I understand that Lionsgate is also a stone cold bee-atch to regards to fair use.
  7. Only if you bring the beer/consumables! Last one to the party and all that. . . .
  8. As someone who has been dealing with fair use laws and copyright claims for three years for my movie review channel, I'm not really in the mood to be lectured at by someone who knows ****all about fair use, so looks like I'll be joining you on the veranda.
  9. Doing a bit of looking during lunch, here's Fractal Sponge's renders of the juggernaut: http://fractalsponge.net/?p=134 With all those close up renders and alternate angles on the vehicle, could easily slot this under educational. So yeah, this is fair use.
  10. Here's an important thing to remember. We can sit here all day, going back and forth on what we think is fair use, but only a judge can say "Yup, fair use" (and even one judge can render a different verdict from another) . The boundaries of what fair use is are kept purposely vague just so a judge can evaluate a work on a case by case basis. Now I'm not familiar with the original stolen art, so I'm guessing here with the four pillars of fair use: * the purpose and character of your use. Has the material taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings? One could argue that someone's interpretation of the juggernaut fits the criteria of new aesthetic. Plus depending on other factors like if the artist made the juggernaut look badass with the lighting and the background, that could add new meaning ("Badassery") * the nature of the copyrighted work. There is a stronger case of fair use if the material comes from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his or her expression. Clearly this is a published work, so we can tick this box * The amount and substantiality of the portion taken The less an artist takes, the more likely that they will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words “I can’t get no satisfaction” from the song “Satisfaction.” * The effect of the use upon the potential market. And then there's "Does the copied work deprive the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work." Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work. This one is harder to judge than the other three factors. Occasional quotations or photocopies may have no adverse market effects, but reproductions of entire software works and videos can make direct inroads on the potential markets for those works. So we'd have to ask ourselves if the new work serves as a replacement for the old. If your purpose is research or scholarship (or in this case, fan art which Lucasfilm has been fine with in the past), market effect may be difficult to prove. If your purpose is commercial, then adverse market effect may be easier to prove. Again, the judge has final say - but if I were this artist, I would be comfortable claiming fair use. ***EDIT*** Also, its important to separate copyright and trademark. Disney may have a trademark for individual ships/designs, but they cannot use another person's work even if that work is of their design.
  11. Since I'm suppose to be something else, no time to get into it, but here's a way more articulate article that might help what I'm getting at: https://web.archive.org/web/20190902075104/http://blog.tcrobinsonlaw.com/should-it-be-considered-fair-use-for-artists-to-take-a-photographers-work-and-transform-it-for-profit/ TL;DNR summation: completely redrawing an vehicle in an all different context would probably fall into fair use.
  12. Actually, they kind of do. Mind you, I've not seen the original work the back cover was stolen from, so I'm going off assumptions here - but the original stolen art would fall under the category of fair use, if it was sufficiently transformative.
  13. Oh the blame totally rests on the artist who nicked the back cover, not FFG or Disney - although at the end of the day, this puts both companies in hot water if the artist decides to make a stink. It's ultimately Disney's neck on the line, legally. I don't fault FFG for missing this - hell, this is beyond vetting every piece of art. This is having to vet every element IN that piece of art. Really, the only thing they can do is go back to that freelancer and go "Your services will no longer be required for any of our projects moving forward." and then maybe warn other companies.
  • Create New...