Fair Use?

 A question that pops up semi-frequently is how can other authors, studios or publishing companies use characters that are copyrighted by another? Initially I had little interest in the question as it's between two or more people/companies that aren't me. But, since it keeps coming up, I think it might be worth examining for the educational reasons.

Well, there's a misconception around copyright, you can, in certain situations, make use of copyrighted material depending on the laws in the country you operate and how you go about it. It's impossible to give an answer that covers every situation, so I won't give specific examples, I'll outline the general possibilities here.  

Generally what's happened is one of the following.

1.  They sought and received permission to make use X 
2. The copyright holders do not know about the unauthorised usage of X
3. The copyright holders do know about the unauthorised usage of X, they just don't mind
4. The usage is protected via a specific part of legislation.

You can use things if you get permission, it happens all the time, creators are fans of each other and corporations will license or collaborate with others to exploit new revenue streams. Check to see if there is an acknowledgement or mark of collaboration.

For the second option, it's a big world and no one can be everywhere. There is no such thing as a copyright police force (not yet anyway) the protection of copyright is the responsibility of the owners of that copyright. Even in the digital age, things fall through the cracks and stay under the radar. I won't give specific examples, but I've seen plenty of restaurant/takeaway children's menus made more colourful by the inclusion of some beloved children's media characters, and I have a hard time believing these small businesses went through the trouble of sending in the required paperwork.

For the third case well, it's up to the copyright holder what they do and do not do with their copyright, they don't lose it due to laziness. You ever followed an author or showrunners social media accounts and seen them share examples of fans cosplay, fan art and other acts of appreciation? You could make a case that all of that is copyright infringement in court, and yet they seem to be cool with it.

 The last one is a bit different, some copyright legislation have exemptions. Parody is a common (though not exclusive) example, it's difficult to make fun of a thing in a way that does not use any recognisable elements that aren't copyrighted in some form. 

I guess the point of this piece is `don't sweat it`.

UK News - Prohibit publishers irrevocably disabling video games they have already sold

 

 

 You may remember the EU wide initiative to expand consumer protections for video games, the Stop Killing Games initiative. Well, the same network of activists is working in other areas and has launched or re-launched a similar initiative in the United Kingdom.

Currently, the British campaign is at the petition stage. If you're a UK citizen, you can sign the petition here. The text of the petition reads as follows.

The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them. We seek this as a statutory consumer right.

 Most video games sold can work indefinitely, but some have design elements that render the product non-functional at a time which the publisher controls, with no date provided at sale. We see this as a form of planned obsolescence, as customers can be deprived of their purchase and cannot retain or repair the game. We think this practice is hostile to consumers, entirely preventable, and have concerns existing laws do not address the problem. Thus, we believe government intervention is needed.

The deadline is 14th of July 2025. UK government petitions have to pass through a committee to get published online to collect signatures and there are two thresholds, the first is 10,000 verified signatures which triggers a response from the government regarding whatever the petition is about. Then at 100,000 or more signatures, the issue raised in the petition must be debated in parliament. So far the number of signatures is over 12,000, so a formal response is guaranteed, though the show of support on the issue would be strengthened if it hit that second threshold. Incidentally the EU wide initiative has stalled somewhat so if you're an EU citizen better sign before its too late.

European Citizens Initiative to prevent publishers from killing games

I've been informed of an initiative to promote game preservation in the European Union. I am not an EU subject and I have what can be described charitably as a healthy contempt for representative government. 

Nevertheless I think this initiative is worthy of support. Corporations and governments most effective tools for control and expansion are to present themselves and their policies as both normal and inevitable. If you disagree with something before they send the thugs they make you feel small, isolated and strange. So, a show of popular opposition can be very usueful in rally further opposition.

I like games and hate that that the industry is actively hostile to the public almost as much as they are to their employees.

Preservation of art, media knowledge and entertainment is important. If you're in the EU and want to preserve media or just make things uncomfortable for major corporations signing couldn't hurt.

https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en

Update: In addition to the 1 million valid signatures requirement each member nation has a set threshold to meet e.g. 9,870 signatures for Denmark. I was under the impression that in order to pass an EU initiative needs all these thresholds met but I'm told it needs 7 to pass though the more nations that meet or surpass that threshold the more impact it will have.