Wikia

Redwall Wiki

Watchlist Recent changes

Essay:A Primer on Copyright

LordTBT August 30, 2011

It has come to my attention recently that a lot of people are simply unfamiliar with United States copyright law.

I've developed this simple primer to help educate and inform on the matter, and hopefully answer some questions along the way.

Contents

What is "Intellectual Property" ?Edit

Intellectual property is something created by the mind, which can include literature, artwork, advertising graphics, and more.

The world of Redwall, inclusive of all characters, is a literary work conceived by the mind of Brian Jacques, thus it is his intellectual property.

Why is this important? Essentially, it means that because Brian Jacques created this world, any iteration of it without permission results in a violation of the law. The law states that he should be allowed to profit off of his work, if he so chooses.

A legal entity, The Redwall Abbey Co., Ltd., was created to maintain and protect Brian Jacques' copyright. You can see this referenced on the first page of any Redwall novel.

The Redwall Abbey Co., Ltd. must be contacted for licensing requests.

What is "Licensing" ?Edit

Licensing is the act of granting legal permission; in the case of a literary work like Redwall, licensing authorizes the usage of that work.

Licensing must be requested from a copyright holder before derivative works are created, especially if one intends to profit off of said derivative work.

One noteworthy example includes sculptor Julie London, who received licensing to produce Redwall Figurines.

If you do not have licensing and you go about creating a derivative work anyway, this is copyright infringement, and you may be subject to legal action on behalf of the copyright holder. This is not something good, and could quickly become very expensive.

QuestionsEdit

  • Q: Is it legal to write and publish my own book, and include places and characters from Redwall?
  • A: Without proper licensing/rights, no.
  • Q: Is it legal to produce t-shirts/laptop cases/coffee mugs with Redwall characters and sell them?
  • A: Without proper licensing/rights, no.
  • Q: Is it legal to develop an internet webisode series, and include places and characters from Redwall?
  • A: Without proper licensing/rights, no.
  • Q: Is it legal to write a screenplay to produce/pitch a Redwall movie adapted from a Redwall novel?
  • A: Without proper licensing/rights, no.

Simply put, you must request licensing/legal rights before creating/starting/producing/developing any work derivative of Redwall (or any copyrighted work).

If you don't do this, are you wasting your time? Likely.

Learning moreEdit

If you'd like to learn more about U.S. copyright law, the best resource is the United States Copyright Office, located at www.copyright.gov. I also recommend the website of Mark Litwak, an entertainment lawyer. If you wish to create a work derivative of Redwall, please pursue the correct legal path.

  • Showing 8 most recent

Comment on Essay:A Primer on Copyright (13)

Please remember, comments are not to be used as a forum or for chatting. Use the Edit button instead of double posting.

Sign in and comment with your Facebook account!

 
38.107.179.244Unregistered
Log in?
  Loading editor
  • Lord Tbt is there ever going to be an unabridged audiobook of marlfox

  • To LordTBT: I think legality isn't the issue here, at least not for most of us. From what I've seen of the argument (and I've been following it), most people knew the issue of the rights, and so forth. Even the people of the fan Mossflower movie knew this, and KNEW they were running a risk, and could be shut down at anytime, and their work in vain. They knew, and readily acknowledged, that what they were doing was technically illegal.

    But a few points I feel the need to stress.

    The fan Mossflower movie would NOT have been allowed to be sold or have had any profit from it, or probably even distributed, by it's makers without those rights, and would've forever remained a fan project (and thus would be equivalent to the fan art you host on the site).

    And second, they were trying to get the rights from day one, BEFORE they were doing any real work on the project. But The Redwall Abbey Co. wasn't really taking them seriously. So, to PROVE that they were truly serious about this, they started in on the work they did. If it hadn't been for that, they probably wouldn't have done it the way they did.

    Furthermore, I refuse to believe that The Redwall Abbey Co. didn't know what they were doing and how much progress they were making before now. Since the group behind the fan movie was routinely trying to contact them to arrange to get the rights proper, they've probably known what they were doing for a long while now. And they let them continue. They could've shut down the Mossflower movie long ago, easily, but they DIDN'T...until they went into talks with other moviemakers looking for the same rights. From there, I'm presuming that because the rights couldn't go to both, The Redwall Abbey Co. made a choice, opted to favor the legit company, and notified the fan movie project to cease and desist BUT in so doing, acknowledged their hard work, and also indicated that should the talks with this other movie company should fall through, the fan movie project could possibly gain the rights instead, and if so, THEN work could resume LEGALLY.

    But that's not my real point.

    My point out of all of this is that YES there were a whole slew of legal issues...and yet the project was allowed to continue anyway until there was a conflict of interest. Were it not for that, the movie could've still come to be, and there's a chance (a small one, yes) that it could still come to be, and no matter HOW you look at it, these guys got the attention of not just the Redwall Abbey Co., but a large majority of the fanbase, and were making some good progress nonetheless, and deserve at the very least SOME credit for the work they did.

    Which is where the issue truly lies. With ALL due respect, you, LordTBT, seem insistent that you aren't going to even acknowledge they existed. You seem you'd rather pretend that it didn't happen at all, and people are getting offended by this apparent stance and can't understand WHY you are doing this. You keep citing legality issues, but the legal issues aren't covering it. It's as if you're trying to use the legal issues to hide a bigger issue you have against the fan movie project.

    Now don't get me wrong. I don't want to believe that for a second. I want to believe that this is all just a huge misunderstanding on our part, and that we're all reading in too much into what is really a trivial matter.

    But you've acted very bitter and cold towards the fan project nonetheless, and people, even people not even involved in the project (including me) are being offended by it, and worse still, we can't understand why you are so bitter. I, for one, WANT to understand why you're being so bitter, if you're really as bitter as you seem about it at all (I'm hoping not), but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is.

    Whatever it is, I can't accept that it's just because of the legal issues. Something tells me it goes deeper than that. And if I'm wrong, then TELL me, IN detail, and stop trying to avoid the issue. I'm willing to listen, and I hope I'm not alone. I want to get this resolved for, at the very least, the record.

    I await your reply.

    • People are reading way too deeply into this. I'm not against Redwall fans, I love Redwall fans. Nor am I "bitter" - that's silly. Copyright is the only thing I'm interested in, and as I've said before, I cannot endorse any project that does not follow proper legal measures concerning a derivative effort of Brian Jacques' works. Cut and dry.

    • Okay, good, that's what I thought. It's just...how you've been saying it. One couldn't help but read more into it when there was nothing to read into. :)

      I feel better about this now, thank you. :D

  • I do hope you realize you have contradicted yourself on this. You say that any work derivative of Redwall should have proper licensing, yet you have countless numbers of illegal fan art and fanfiction that are displayed on the wiki's home page. I'm not saying that I disagree with what this essay says (always useful to learn something new), but in the "Perhaps a Redwall movie is coming" you state that due to the legality issues "this project has never been linked on this website, and it will not be linked here even now, as we take copyright and legal issues very very seriously." , yet you have links to fanfiction and fan art that are illegal. I do hope you realize the truth in this comments. Regardless, you are awesome in everything you do for this wiki.

    • No contradiction Ashley.

      Absolutely nothing on this site is for profit, or for professional publication. As explained on our copyright page, these are for entertainment purposes (and in some cases satire/parody), and fall under the Fair Use doctrine of U.S. Copyright law. In fact, one artist eventually became a Redwall illustrator himself. Writing a screenplay IS NOT Fair Use.

  • It was a good idea to post this here, I hope that this information will be well applied.

  • I'm pretty sure everyone understood this well enough, or at least should have. But the people who were making the fan Mossflower Movie were at least TRYING to get the rights.

    • Means nothing in the terms of the legal system. Sort of like telling a police officer you were TRYING to slow down when he pulled you over for speeding. You were still speeding.

  • Pretty explanatory; this should clear up a good deal.

  • Thanks

  • The more you know. well have to say this is a very easy to understand essay and should answer lots of questions thanks TBT, I'm glad that I remember nearly everything mentioned in this essay haha

Pages on Redwall Wiki

Create an Article
2,967articles
Advertisement | Your ad here

Latest Photos

Add an Image
4,360images on this wiki
See more >
New blog post

Popular blog
posts

See more >

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki