In the spirit of shameless self-promotion, I was trawling Facebook for a while in search of new cohorts, when I came across a page entitled the "anti-Disney Channel", which momentarily had me clapping my hands with glee. I hate the Disney Channel with a fiery passion. Their programming is dull and insipid, they're grossly manipulative of their target demographic, and when they show one of the old classics they put commercial breaks in the middle of big musical numbers (or change the lyrics to the opening song of Aladdin). But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Friday 30 April 2010
Friday 23 April 2010
Ah, the irony
Research on internet copyright debate made me realise I should probably state the following, even knowing full well how laughably ironic it is:
All writing and art on this site is copyright Copyright Cat. No one may reproduce, sell, or pass off as their own anything contained here, without express permission from myself, Copyright Cat. Trespassers will be prosecuted, etc, etc, etc.
Had to get that out of the way. Now, having said that, don't go running away in terror. I'm ranting and raving about copyright for a reason, and if you like what I write enough to copy-paste some into an e-mail and pass it on, go ahead. If you like my little comics and want to print some out and make a flipbook out of them, I can only be flattered (though the longer I can stay off Rule 34, the happier I'll be). I'm not planning on being a tyrant. In fact, if it weren't a big enough subject to warrant it's own post or twenty, I'd say my part about fair use right now (more on that later).
Here's what I won't tolerate:
All writing and art on this site is copyright Copyright Cat. No one may reproduce, sell, or pass off as their own anything contained here, without express permission from myself, Copyright Cat. Trespassers will be prosecuted, etc, etc, etc.
Had to get that out of the way. Now, having said that, don't go running away in terror. I'm ranting and raving about copyright for a reason, and if you like what I write enough to copy-paste some into an e-mail and pass it on, go ahead. If you like my little comics and want to print some out and make a flipbook out of them, I can only be flattered (though the longer I can stay off Rule 34, the happier I'll be). I'm not planning on being a tyrant. In fact, if it weren't a big enough subject to warrant it's own post or twenty, I'd say my part about fair use right now (more on that later).
Here's what I won't tolerate:
Why copyright extension affects more than just Rule 34
For anyone who doesn't know, Rule 34 runs thusly: if it exists, there is porn of it. That's right, as soon as anyone realises this blog exists, there will no doubt be graphic depictions of Copyright Cat and Steroid Mickey engaging in a very different type of wrestling. Yeah, let that image fester for a while.
Anyone who didn't go peroxide their eyeballs might be interested to know that, with the exception of those using characters definitively in the public domain, every single instance of Rule 34 is illegal. Most of it is not for profit (though I'm sure there are students who paid their way through art school by selling doodles of Jessica Rabbit
Anyone who didn't go peroxide their eyeballs might be interested to know that, with the exception of those using characters definitively in the public domain, every single instance of Rule 34 is illegal. Most of it is not for profit (though I'm sure there are students who paid their way through art school by selling doodles of Jessica Rabbit
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Self-portrait
In case anyone was wondering what I look like when I'm not getting clobbered by mice on performance-enhancing drugs. I may have to acquire myself a lovable sidekick.
Monday 12 April 2010
Cranky Mickey, pt. 2
Continued from Cranky Mickey, pt 1:
Oswald the Lucky Rabbit is what alerted Walt Disney to the finer issues of creative ownership. That's right, copyright paranoia is perhaps the only thing the Disney company still actively uses that dates directly back to Walt himself.
In 1927, Walt signed with Universal Studios, headed by Charles B Mintz, to produce a series of shorts. Together with his creative partner, Ub Iwerks, Walt came up with the character of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, a lovable, impish rogue who got into a bunch of scrapes and worked his way out of them through sheer, floppy-eared charisma. All went well for a year or so, and then
Oswald the Lucky Rabbit is what alerted Walt Disney to the finer issues of creative ownership. That's right, copyright paranoia is perhaps the only thing the Disney company still actively uses that dates directly back to Walt himself.
In 1927, Walt signed with Universal Studios, headed by Charles B Mintz, to produce a series of shorts. Together with his creative partner, Ub Iwerks, Walt came up with the character of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, a lovable, impish rogue who got into a bunch of scrapes and worked his way out of them through sheer, floppy-eared charisma. All went well for a year or so, and then
Cranky Mickey, pt. 1
Divided into two parts, because I got carried away and this is seventeen times as long as it should have been:
About fifteen seconds before beginning to write this, some random blog-hopping put me on to this. For anyone whose RSI prevents them from clicking the link, Disney plans to re-imagine Mickey Mouse. That's right, in a scene right out of the Manchurian Candidate
About fifteen seconds before beginning to write this, some random blog-hopping put me on to this. For anyone whose RSI prevents them from clicking the link, Disney plans to re-imagine Mickey Mouse. That's right, in a scene right out of the Manchurian Candidate
Saturday 10 April 2010
Who is Copyright Cat?
Aaaand...we're online!
Ladies and gentlereaders, if I could please direct you to my mission statement, there you will find a thrilling tale of trust and betrayal, heroism and...oh, who am I kidding. Head over there and read it.
In the meantime, my name is Copyright Cat, and when I'm not ranting and raving about the sorry state of copyright law in the USA and UK, I'm an emerging writer, artist and animator. Generally speaking, that just gives me more reasons to rant and rave about the sorry state of copyright law. I'm all for artists being able to profit from their work. I'm even for artists being able to exclusively profit from their work...up to a point. I'm not too fussy about where that point is. Maybe ten years after publication/release. Maybe fifty. Maybe the day, minute and second the originator clutches his or her chest and keels over dead in the kitchen. Oh hell, maybe even long enough to pay for the funeral. But fifty, seventy, a hundred years (or near enough) after said originator is a maggot-ridden cadaver? Say what you will, I don't think I'll really appreciate additional revenue once I'm dead. And my kids? Well, that's kind of the point. One of the reasons we're in the economic outhouse we're in is that people don't know how to manage money. They don't save, they don't invest, and they die leaving their kids nothing but pennies and spiderwebs. Now, for all I know, I'll be just as dim once I've paid off my student loans, but here's the deal: if I haven't taken steps to provide for them while I'm alive, or at least given them the tools to provide for themselves once I'm dead, then I've done something wrong.
Besides, the very sad fact of the matter is that extended copyright protection has absolutely zip to do with providing for the artist's kids. The protection is there for publishing houses, studios, and powerhouse corporations like Disney. Let's say, for example,
Ladies and gentlereaders, if I could please direct you to my mission statement, there you will find a thrilling tale of trust and betrayal, heroism and...oh, who am I kidding. Head over there and read it.
In the meantime, my name is Copyright Cat, and when I'm not ranting and raving about the sorry state of copyright law in the USA and UK, I'm an emerging writer, artist and animator. Generally speaking, that just gives me more reasons to rant and rave about the sorry state of copyright law. I'm all for artists being able to profit from their work. I'm even for artists being able to exclusively profit from their work...up to a point. I'm not too fussy about where that point is. Maybe ten years after publication/release. Maybe fifty. Maybe the day, minute and second the originator clutches his or her chest and keels over dead in the kitchen. Oh hell, maybe even long enough to pay for the funeral. But fifty, seventy, a hundred years (or near enough) after said originator is a maggot-ridden cadaver? Say what you will, I don't think I'll really appreciate additional revenue once I'm dead. And my kids? Well, that's kind of the point. One of the reasons we're in the economic outhouse we're in is that people don't know how to manage money. They don't save, they don't invest, and they die leaving their kids nothing but pennies and spiderwebs. Now, for all I know, I'll be just as dim once I've paid off my student loans, but here's the deal: if I haven't taken steps to provide for them while I'm alive, or at least given them the tools to provide for themselves once I'm dead, then I've done something wrong.
Besides, the very sad fact of the matter is that extended copyright protection has absolutely zip to do with providing for the artist's kids. The protection is there for publishing houses, studios, and powerhouse corporations like Disney. Let's say, for example,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
