If your memory needs jogging: [link] [link] [link]
...which have nothing to do with shirts, which is the issue at hand.
'Out Of Gas'
Discussion of the Mutant Enemy series, Firefly, the ensuing movie Serenity, and other projects in that universe. Like the other show threads, anything broadcast in the US is fine; spoilers are verboten and will be deleted if found.
If your memory needs jogging: [link] [link] [link]
...which have nothing to do with shirts, which is the issue at hand.
Completely off the present topic, but for fan-type-folk, Alan Tudyk guest stars on CSI this week. I saw a couple of clips. There's no Wash there.
Forgive my foggy brain. If Susan is in the legal wrong of it, what's the brouhaha?
I'm insanely devoted to fandom, and I like Susan personally a great deal (she is a fantastic artist), but she seems clearly in the wrong.
The marketing bill is amusing, but from an ethical standpoint (my own ethical standpoint) promoting the thing you love comes with no strings attached.
There was an amount of exploitation in Universal's own campaign that fed the beast by giving fans a sense of ownership over the flick. I have an ethics issues with that, and feel that Universal should quietly settle the matter because they look foolish.
which have nothing to do with shirts, which is the issue at handI'm confused. Didn't Strega bring that up to counter your refutation of her B5 point?
She did, but it doesn't counter it - whilst it says JMS doesn't like bootleg DVDs, RPGs and such, it doesn't mention shirts. Now, maybe I'm wrong on that score and he doesn't like them. I don't know. I'll mail him.
Allyson, I'm not convinced Susan *is* clearly in the wrong. She debatably was, but as it stands her work isn't referencing Firefly/Serenity, isn't linked to on her site and doesn't contain any copyrighted work. In an ideal world Universal's law firm would quietly drop the issue, or go after one of the 3150 other shirts available: [link]
Allyson, I'm not convinced Susan *is* clearly in the wrong. She debatably was, but as it stands her work isn't referencing Firefly/Serenity, isn't linked to on her site and doesn't contain any copyrighted work.
As it stands now.
What keeps discombobulating me is that some fans seem to be arguing that since she complied with the C&D, she's exonerated from having to pay the licensing fee. I'm not understanding that part of it. Why doesn't she have to pay? What's the reasoning?
She did make money off the violating material before the C&D, right?
Yes.
So she should have to pay.
It seems pretty simple to me.