Furry Megathread - Furry Things Here

[g4merm4ster1234]

im gonna draw a serval and nobodies gonna do a damn thing to stop me

this thing?

it's cool I guess but it has a tiny ass head

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

coming home and seeing the massive walls of text

One to two paragraphs != massive walls of text

[kanew2000]

this thing?

it's cool I guess but it has a tiny ass head

sorry I meant a nergal

[g4merm4ster1234]

One to two paragraphs != massive walls of text

Well in addition to all of the quotes and such, yes

[Headcrab Zombie]

You cannot think up an idea and then say you own the concept of something without it being a property.

Saying you own something and actually owning something are two very different things. An official document published by the US copyright office straight up says you can't own ideas or concepts.

because they are tangible property conceptualized and produced by an artist.

The artwork produced is copyrightable.
The idea the artwork is representing is still not.

Sergals are more than just an idea.

How so?
"I took an animal and gave it a shark head, now it's mine!" isn't much to own. And that's really all a species is.

Someone clearly thought up the idea of "a fox that walks on two legs"
Yet no one would argue that anyone could own the rights to furries, because that would be ridiculous.
So why is "I took a furry and gave him a shark head" suddenly ownable? Where do you, specifically and objectively, in a way that can be legally enforced, draw the line between those two, as to where it suddenly becomes ownable? (Not that it matters, as they're still ideas)

Please, look at the list of categories of copyrightable works given in the document I have you, and tell me which one of them a species fits under. (Hint: graphical/pictorial means art of the species, not the species itself)

Too abstract? A fictional species implies a set standard of appearance, distinctive racial qualities and traits and oftentimes requires visuals in order to demonstrate what the artist is trying to conceptualize. I doubt that is too abstract to be considered intellectual property.

It's abstract because members of the species can be wildly different in color, markings, body shape, personality, etc.

Abstract definition: "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence"
A sergal concept does not have a concrete existence. If you draw one, you have a character of the sergal species, and you own the copyright to that drawing, and if the character is extremely well known and distinguishable from other sergal characters, then you can trademark the character. But the species itself is an abstract concept

http://bfy.tw/58OM

There's honestly nothing more I can say here, anything else would just be repeating what I've already said. I've even provided citations of government sources, but nothing will sway you. Unless you can offer a citation of your side, there's really nothing more to discuss

[Insert Name Here]

Guuuuuuuuuyyyyyys

[Foxscotch]

court cases are always important. if you think species are protected by copyright, try to find a lawsuit where someone successfully enforced copyright of an entire fictional species

[g4merm4ster1234]

Guuuuuuuuuyyyyyys

whaaaaaaaaaaatttt?

[Glass Joe]

There's bare hands, then bear hands, then

[IkeTheGeneric]

Saying you own something and actually owning something are two very different things. An official document published by the US copyright office straight up says you can't own ideas or concepts.

Documents can say whatever they want, it's up to how its commonly interpreted. The common interpretation is that if you create IP that is written or drawn, it is your IP. If you have no tangible evidence that your IP is yours, then I guess it can't be copyrighted.

The artwork produced is copyrightable.
The idea the artwork is representing is still not.

However anything closely resembling said artwork or fictional species could possibly be considered infringement even though it is a species.

How so?
"I took an animal and gave it a shark head, now it's mine!" isn't much to own. And that's really all a species is.

I don't really know much more about Sergals than what I've previously learned today, but that's basically the gist of it. The fictional species is your average anthropomorphic mammal depicted with a shark-like head. The thing is that distinctive quality alone allows you to differ Sergals from nonfictional species, therefore not being too abstract to be intellectual property. This is why Sergals are intellectual property.

Someone clearly thought up the idea of "a fox that walks on two legs"
Yet no one would argue that anyone could own the rights to furries, because that would be ridiculous.
So why is "I took a furry and gave him a shark head" suddenly ownable? Where do you, specifically and objectively, in a way that can be legally enforced, draw the line between those two, as to where it suddenly becomes ownable? (Not that it matters, as they're still ideas)

We're talking about whether or not a specific fictional species should be considered protected intellectual property that can be traced back to one point of origin, the author herself. I agree that attempting to copyright the general idea of an animal standing on two legs is too vague, mainly because it's been a thing that's been conceptualized and represented in every art medium for a long forgetin time, and that no one entity is responsible for the idea of anthropomorphic animals.

Sergals, however, is intellectual property that was conceptualized by a single entity.

Please, look at the list of categories of copyrightable works given in the document I have you, and tell me which one of them a species fits under. (Hint: graphical/pictorial means art of the species, not the species itself)
It's abstract because members of the species can be wildly different in color, markings, body shape, personality, etc.

No, it's not abstract in the sense that there is a set physical standard for this said fictional species. Otherwise, you could claim that a wooden chair is a Sergal. The definition of a Sergal is concrete enough that you can claim it is intellectual property. Pikachu can be any color, can come in any size, can have any personality and vary in body markings, scars and tattoos, but at no point would the character or species stop being Pikachu.

The art is meant to represent the fictional species, both are protected as intellectual property.

Abstract definition: "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence"
A sergal concept does not have a concrete existence. If you draw one, you have a character of the sergal species, and you own the copyright to that drawing, and if the character is extremely well known and distinguishable from other sergal characters, then you can trademark the character. But the species itself is an abstract concept

A sergal most definitely has a concrete existence. It's somebody's legit intellectual property. I looked it up and by golly is there legal protection for whomever owns the Sergal species.

Honest to god I still don't have an answer as to why you can copyright an entire fictional universe but it stops just short of a forgetin species. That's baffling how you figure this is a reasonable line of thought.

nothing will sway you.

I can most definitely be swayed, I have absolutely no idea what a loving Sergal is in the first place, I just know somebody came up with it. So far everyone's been reiterating the same point and honestly this isn't how you change minds in a debate.

Unless you can offer a citation of your side, there's really nothing more to discuss

I am offering citation, I'm interpreting the legal documents you provided. That's the whole point.

[Arekan]

coming home and seeing the massive walls of text

Guuuuuuuuuyyyyyys

Can you guys stop? Just because two people are discussing something doesn't mean you immediately have to whine like you're a kid and two adults are discussing politics.
It's interesting to me. The legality of it all, it's something I would like to know about even if I didn't have to be involved in it. Nobody is cursing at eachother yet. And yes, they're typing a lot. Does that scare you or something?
Though TBH Ike's getting a little passive aggressive.

[PowerDag]

There's bare hands, then bear hands, then

tUMMY

[Insert Name Here]

Can you guys stop? Just because two people are discussing something doesn't mean you immediately have to whine like you're a kid and two adults are discussing politics.
It's interesting to me. The legality of it all, it's something I would like to know about even if I didn't have to be involved in it. Nobody is cursing at eachother yet. And yes, they're typing a lot. Does that scare you or something?

I only posted once, chill

Plus when I posted that, it looked more like a full on argument rather than a discussion

[Masterlegodude]

There's bare hands, then bear hands, then

What is this new thing with head-hands

Why is this a thing? Has science gone too far???

[IkeTheGeneric]

Though TBH Ike's getting a little passive aggressive.

The idea why copyright laws should stop short of fictional species is boggling, I apologize if I come off that way but I'm having a hard time trying to understand the opposing view.

Why shouldn't Sergals be protected intellectual property? It seems a little strange because as somebody who writes fiction they should definitely have protection for things they create. A fictional species should count, even if it is a broad term.