I think this is pretty copyright infringing. They didn't even put it in the fanart category. In fact, I see no acknowledgement that the characters aren't theirs at all.
A little of topic, but....
I have a question. Some of you are members of the website and some of you seem to despise the website. So my question is... what is the website all about? I'm merely curious as I've never heard of it until now, whereas you all seem to have.
I want Hassat Hunter to explain who a "furry" is, if he'd like to do so. That way we can avoid confusion and stop jumping onto conclusions.
Someone who likes anthromorphic animals (basically animals that act like humans, walking on 2, and wearing clothes etc.) style. Basically if you like many Disneyfilms you already fit the description.
A little of topic, but....
I have a question. Some of you are members of the website and some of you seem to despise the website. So my question is... what is the website all about? I'm merely curious as I've never heard of it until now, whereas you all seem to have.
It's a website for art. anthromorphic art. Also known as "furry" art.
It's like Deviant Art, specifically for one artstyle (furry).
The website is a place to share anthropomorphic art. Its related to what is called the furry fandom, which is a community of individuals interested in anthropomorphics. Some people within the community like to create their own anthropomorphic characters as an extension of themselves for fun. Drawing themselves as if they were an anthropomorphic cartoon character.
Someone who likes anthromorphic animals (basically animals that act like humans, walking on 2, and wearing clothes etc.) style. Basically if you like many Disneyfilms you already fit the description.
You know that that word is generally not used for this description, right?
I prefer "my" generalization since yours simply gathers all cartoon addicts, and there isn't much of a "dramatic" difference between the people out of the generalization and inside the generalization. It also makes me wonder what to call "those" ones.
I prefer myself as a cartoon addict more than a furry tbh. That name is infamous.
Christian has a meaning. Pedophile has another. Muslim has a meaning. Terrorist has another. Gay has a meaning. Faggot has another. They're claimed to be stereotypes (I don't agree with none) because either some people pointed out or rumored the relationships between each two words.
I'm just saying that if we call every anthropomorphic fictional character lover a furry, what should we call those who want to fuck bears? Those people are called furries by most of people already, and the furries theirselves -in your definition- have nothing against calling only those ones furries. Furry is not a religion, not a race or a sexual decision people have to make, so it's not that important, it just includes a MAJORITY of humanity, even so that watching cartoons and seeing and liking anthropomorphic characters can be considered a social NORM, and that simply means there is not even a need to give a name to that grouping. We can just call all those people cartoon lovers or something similar, and get on with it. It's NOTHING about stereotypes or anything, there is no need to be sensitive about anything.
How about "a furry who likes to fuck bears". Last I checked we didn't have special words for pedo christians, terrorist muslims or evil gays.
Or we could just make up new words, like how anime lovers like terms as "Yuri" or "Yaoi". Which, oddly enough, has far less negative view than "furry". Although, at least to me, it sounds kind of aweful (and 'more screwed up in the head') wanting to see schoolgirls make out with each other.
Trust a furry to think that the next step forward for the Sam & Max franchise is a game where everyone gets their cock out. Ugh. Even if they're supplying it free of charge, I'm pretty sure that the owners of the IP (isn't that still Steve Purcell?) can slap them with a C&D letter if they're doing this kind of stuff with it, I'm pretty sure Disney's done that to people who've made pornographic images of their characters. (though that doesn't seem to stop them)
Also, I totally agree with Falanca on the definition of furry issue. Liking cartoons which feature anthropomorphic animals =/= furry, otherwise everyone who's ever watched the Disney channel would be a furry. I think for me, the definition would be that if you like something that involves anthros, fine, but if you want to be an anthro/have sex with one, then you're a furry.
Okay, so the issue here is that someone created a non-commercial game starring Sam & Max, which is, I gather, perfectly legal, and they are now charging people for custom character design and inclusion in said game?
They are [supposedly] making money by charging people for creating in-game assets and including them with their game, which they are still not charging for. They seem to be profiting from the game indirectly.
People need to stop saying this is legal. This is NOT legal. They are using Sam and Max's names and likenesses without permission which is by no stretch of imagination legal.
I don't think it's legal for them to make the game if it's non-commercial, The Silver Lining (unofficial King's Quest game) is totally non-commercial (and actually treats the IP with respect) and the creators have had recurring legal issues with Activision. (I think one of the conditions was that the fan game was not allowed to use the King's Quest name at all) I don't know enough about copyright law to know what the exact legal issues would be, but I'm sure that what these guys are doing is completely illegal since they're charging people to be included in the game.
Really, if they want to make a furry NSFW scrolling beat-em-up, why the hell do they even need Sam & Max for it? They could just use non-licensed characters, then there's no legal issues. (I think)
ETA: Disney has successfully sued kintergartens for painting Disney characters on the walls so yeah, using licensed characters without permission is definitely not kosher. They can't really call this fanart either, it's a game.
How about "a furry who likes to fuck bears". Last I checked we didn't have special words for pedo christians, terrorist muslims or evil gays.
Or we could just make up new words, like how anime lovers like terms as "Yuri" or "Yaoi". Which, oddly enough, has far less negative view than "furry". Although, at least to me, it sounds kind of aweful (and 'more screwed up in the head') wanting to see schoolgirls make out with each other.
not all yaoi/yuri is like that. I like yaoi with cool storys involving ninjas or fighting smexy heros rather then school boys.
Okay, so the issue here is that someone created a non-commercial game starring Sam & Max, which is, I gather, perfectly legal,
No it's not. Many companies would have their lawyers send Cease-and-Desist letters over this much alone.
They are [supposedly] making money by charging people for creating in-game assets and including them with their game, which they are still not charging for. They seem to be profiting from the game indirectly.
Be that as it may, they're still using Sam & Max as a key ingredient in a money-making operation without permission. That's ethically questionable at best.
I don't like inciting a company to bring out the lawyers against individuals, especially for something on the internet, but here sending one of those letters seems the appropriate step to take.
I don't think it's legal for them to make the game if it's non-commercial, The Silver Lining (unofficial King's Quest game) is totally non-commercial (and actually treats the IP with respect) and the creators have had recurring legal issues with Activision. (I think one of the conditions was that the fan game was not allowed to use the King's Quest name at all) I don't know enough about copyright law to know what the exact legal issues would be, but I'm sure that what these guys are doing is completely illegal since they're charging people to be included in the game.
It's true that fan games in general aren't legal without direct permission from copyright owners, but for the most part, only certain overly protective companies stop people from creating those kinds of things. Most companies see fan projects as a positive thing and some even actively encourage it, like Valve for example.
It is pretty bad to make money off of fan games though, that's just wrong.
If we're going on technicality, they're only really making money off of the inclusion of original characters, so they could tenuously claim to fall within fair use as long as no assets are taken from the source material.
Purcell (or perhaps even Telltale) would certainly be within his rights to send a cease and desist notice though.
And HaraldB posted up a good article too in case anyone whiffed on it.
Lawsuit probably wouldn't be in the cards at any rate since there's so little to be had. Unless you really want whatever is under their parents' basement's couch cushions.
Edit: Honestly though, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness and should probably be allowed to sink into the abyss.
As I said, the reason I started this thread was so that the people who own and control the Sam and Max Copyright do something about those dumwits on FA.
Comments
Here:
oh god .... oh god.... no..... i never realized that
I have a question. Some of you are members of the website and some of you seem to despise the website. So my question is... what is the website all about? I'm merely curious as I've never heard of it until now, whereas you all seem to have.
Game1: http://majestyquest.com/
Game2: http://majesty2.com/
And, finally, the fangame: http://www.heroesofardania.net/
IP belongs to Paradox (final link): http://www.paradoxplaza.com/ Someone who likes anthromorphic animals (basically animals that act like humans, walking on 2, and wearing clothes etc.) style. Basically if you like many Disneyfilms you already fit the description. They are anthromorphic animals. So; yeah? It's a website for art. anthromorphic art. Also known as "furry" art.
It's like Deviant Art, specifically for one artstyle (furry).
You know that that word is generally not used for this description, right?
But that doesn't make the description wrong. That is what furry is.
I prefer myself as a cartoon addict more than a furry tbh. That name is infamous.
EDIT: 1337 POST YO
And every christian is a pedophile.
Every islamitic person is a terrorist.
Gays are evil and sick.
To name just 3 similar stereotypes. Do you agree with all 3 too, now?
I'm just saying that if we call every anthropomorphic fictional character lover a furry, what should we call those who want to fuck bears? Those people are called furries by most of people already, and the furries theirselves -in your definition- have nothing against calling only those ones furries. Furry is not a religion, not a race or a sexual decision people have to make, so it's not that important, it just includes a MAJORITY of humanity, even so that watching cartoons and seeing and liking anthropomorphic characters can be considered a social NORM, and that simply means there is not even a need to give a name to that grouping. We can just call all those people cartoon lovers or something similar, and get on with it. It's NOTHING about stereotypes or anything, there is no need to be sensitive about anything.
Or we could just make up new words, like how anime lovers like terms as "Yuri" or "Yaoi". Which, oddly enough, has far less negative view than "furry". Although, at least to me, it sounds kind of aweful (and 'more screwed up in the head') wanting to see schoolgirls make out with each other.
It's just... I'm sorry, it just sounds redundant.
Also, I totally agree with Falanca on the definition of furry issue. Liking cartoons which feature anthropomorphic animals =/= furry, otherwise everyone who's ever watched the Disney channel would be a furry. I think for me, the definition would be that if you like something that involves anthros, fine, but if you want to be an anthro/have sex with one, then you're a furry.
They are [supposedly] making money by charging people for creating in-game assets and including them with their game, which they are still not charging for. They seem to be profiting from the game indirectly.
Really, if they want to make a furry NSFW scrolling beat-em-up, why the hell do they even need Sam & Max for it? They could just use non-licensed characters, then there's no legal issues. (I think)
ETA: Disney has successfully sued kintergartens for painting Disney characters on the walls so yeah, using licensed characters without permission is definitely not kosher. They can't really call this fanart either, it's a game.
not all yaoi/yuri is like that. I like yaoi with cool storys involving ninjas or fighting smexy heros rather then school boys.
I don't like inciting a company to bring out the lawyers against individuals, especially for something on the internet, but here sending one of those letters seems the appropriate step to take.
is someone comparing sexual orientation to being a furry
a furry said to me that cos im gay I should understand the predusise against him I just loled.
It's true that fan games in general aren't legal without direct permission from copyright owners, but for the most part, only certain overly protective companies stop people from creating those kinds of things. Most companies see fan projects as a positive thing and some even actively encourage it, like Valve for example.
It is pretty bad to make money off of fan games though, that's just wrong.
subcultures=/=something you're inborn with
pretty sure being gay, a woman, or asian is not an interest.
Ehm, what exactly is the problem then?
Getting a little confused here as to your point.
If we're going on technicality, they're only really making money off of the inclusion of original characters, so they could tenuously claim to fall within fair use as long as no assets are taken from the source material.
Purcell (or perhaps even Telltale) would certainly be within his rights to send a cease and desist notice though.
And HaraldB posted up a good article too in case anyone whiffed on it.
Lawsuit probably wouldn't be in the cards at any rate since there's so little to be had. Unless you really want whatever is under their parents' basement's couch cushions.
Edit: Honestly though, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness and should probably be allowed to sink into the abyss.
There's also a Sam & Max fanfic on that site that was a paid commission. It's explict, though, so I can't link to it to prove it.
And there may be a lot of creepy furries, but not everybody who identifies as a furry is creepy.
[/Sarcasm]
You can't compare furries to anything inborn. Which you were doing.
Where?
got associated with this half of the comparison:
instead of this:
... which I believe is what you intended, but wasn't clear the way you wrote the post (I initially parsed the same meaning as Giant Tope, FWIW).
Indeed, I've been following this thread since it started.
Please take action as soon as possible. It's so creepy in my opinion