Am I correct about copyrights?

Generally, unless the copyright holder has given that specific kind of permission, that is not correct. The copyright holder holds the rights to that work, and others may not use it without their permission. Now, whether or not they choose to enforce it, that may vary. But you don’t have to profit from something to be in violation of copyright law.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. It’s just Fluther. Consult a real professional if you are in trouble or somethin’.

No, +1 to what @laureth said.

@laureth and @phaedryx are correct, copyright laws are apply whether or not you are profiting from the copyrighted material.

No, this is completely false.

This is a common myth, but it is nothing more than a myth. Whether or not someone makes a profit is just one of several factors considered when determining whether or not a work infringes on someone else’s copyrights. If all that mattered was profit, then anyone would be allowed to hand out free copies of films they had downloaded off the internet all day long without getting into any trouble. But we all know that people actually do get into trouble over downloading (even if they aren’t distributing anything).

Moreover, there are instances where it is allowable to appropriate someone else’s work even if you are making a profit. Consider the career of Weird Al Yankovic, for instance. Almost everything he releases includes significant portions of work originally done by others, and he makes a very good living off of it. His music is protected, however, because it is parodying the previous work. So it turns out that making a profit is neither necessary nor sufficient for infringement.

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above is based on seminars I’ve taken on copyright law and discussions with colleagues who have studied and/or practiced copyright law. The information may be out of date or based on a misunderstanding. It is always advisable to speak to a practicing lawyer.

Well what about the game Abobo’s Big Adventure. It’s a new games that features several NES characters. It’s also free. How could they have paid off so many people?

@simone54 after doing some quick research it looks like the creator of Abobo’s Big Adventure got away with using the characters by calling the game a parody. Parody seems to be kind of a murky area of copyright law, but has traditionally been considered a “protected form of free speech.”

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer either. The above information is based on a quick internet search along with what I have learned about copyright law in library media and education classes.

Not correct.

You cannot use clips of copyrighted work.

@simone54 – Assuming it didn’t fit in under parody, there’s still an option between “copyright violation” and “paying them off.” Sometimes, if you ask, they might let you use it for free, especially if the rights holder is philanthropic, or looking for exposure, or likes your project. No guarantees or anything.

@laureth my oldest son once had a soccer team that wanted to be called the Cheetos. I knew there might be a copyright issue so I called Frito-Lay. They said that it is copyright infringement but they weren’t going to do anything about it. @simone54 the moral of the story is that it is always worth a try, especially if you are doing something that will get the name out there and not take away their profit. It is definitely better to check first.

@simone54 Plenty of copyright violations never get prosecuted. That doesn’t mean they aren’t violations. Not all companies are equally diligent in protecting their copyrights. Disney is extremely aggressive, for example, whereas Nintendo is fairly selective. Abobo’s Big Adventure has two things in its favor: it has a prima facie defense posted on the website, and the game is probably doing nothing to hurt Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Copyright holders tend to be primarily concerned with two things: keeping their copyrights intact, and not losing revenue due to infringement. The first is a major driver of copyright lawsuits. If Disney turns a blind eye to someone’s use of Mickey Mouse, they could wind up losing their copyright for failure to enforce it. This gives them a reason to care about the infringement even if they otherwise would not.

The second also drives lawsuits, but not as many as you might think (though the RIAA MPAA are doing their best to change this trend). This is why putting up a prima facie defense is good cover. Nintendo can’t lose its copyrights over a parody because parodies are allowed exceptions. Leaving parodies alone does not count as failure to enforce. And since Abobo’s Big Adventure also does not hurt Nintendo’s bottom line, the company has no real reason to bother sending a cease and desist.

It could still happen. Some people just don’t like to see “their art” being used by others and will use any pretext to prevent it. Like I said above, though, the main reasons that people file this kind of lawsuit are to protect their copyrights and to prevent the market for their work from shrinking. If a copyright holder does not think you are doing either of these things, you are often—but not always—safe from anything more than a takedown notice.

Funny we get to mentioning Disney. Copyrights used to be about as long as patents. But every time that Mickey Mouse’s copyright threatens to expire, there’s Disney going to court to protect it by making copyright last a whole lot longer than it really should. This is why a lot of other works should be public domain by now, but aren’t, because of the Mouse. I think our culture is a lot poorer as a result.