CAPCon Writing Panel

[Personalias]

Here's a look at the slides I put together for my Capcon presentation this weekend. It was a crazy adrenaline rush and I had to rush through spots, but please take a look at. ESPECIALLY the other writers I got to mention! All ABDL artwork is included with permission from the artists and everything else should be covered under Fair Use. All contributors, both writer and artists are credited at the end and links are provided to various websites where you can support them.

Capcon.pdf

[Cute_Kitten]

Very well put-together with a lot of useful and well thought out information! Thank you for sharing with the wider community for those who didn't get to go to CapCon!  

[Ohmo]

An excellent presentation.

I hope you do not get dragged into court over the use of copyright and trademark infringements. The majority of images used in the presentation are not "unknown authors" and are not in the public domain so cannot be used under any CC license. 

Perhaps, in addition to telling writers to use proof readers/editors another major step should be inserted telling them to not use any artwork/images they did not create unless they have a license signed by the IP owner or a statement that the work(s) were placed in the public domain and the statement signed by the creator.

"Should be covered under fair use..." is not usually an acceptable excuse when the presentation is for financial gain (discount tickets, etc.) Unless your attorney, who specializes in IP law, told you it was OK. But even then, the "big boys" already mentioned have even more lawyers who will disagree with her/him.

[WBDaddy]

1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

An excellent presentation.

I hope you do not get dragged into court over the use of copyright and trademark infringements. The majority of images used in the presentation are not "unknown authors" and are not in the public domain so cannot be used under any CC license. 

Perhaps, in addition to telling writers to use proof readers/editors another major step should be inserted telling them to not use any artwork/images they did not create unless they have a license signed by the IP owner or a statement that the work(s) were placed in the public domain and the statement signed by the creator.

"Should be covered under fair use..." is not usually an acceptable excuse when the presentation is for financial gain (discount tickets, etc.) Unless your attorney, who specializes in IP law, told you it was OK. But even then, the "big boys" already mentioned have even more lawyers who will disagree with her/him.

He didn't get paid for it. Editorial fair use applies here.

[Ohmo]

2 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

He didn't get paid for it. Editorial fair use applies here.

He got discounted tickets - that is financial gain. First page: "CAPCon gave me a presenter discount and a neat sticker." Not knocking the discount, but it is a financial gain.

Editorial or any other fair use concept is a 50/50 chance game. This one would, most likely, fall under the educational clause of the US fair use doctrine, but the IP owners might see it differently. The more unauthorized images used, the higher the odds for a DMCA takedown or lawsuit for infringement, especially trademark. And the major players such as Disney, etc., do go after anything they think violates their rights. They can afford it. Can you?

Argue all you want, but, if:

• You did not create it
• You don't have a license from the original creator
• You do not have a signed statement by the creator that it is in the public domain

best not to use it.

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, but it is information based on discussions with an IP attorney every February for the last 32 years. Seriously, one entity tried to sue me simply for asking to use their stuff. They were just being assholes, but they are in over abundance. And I have, inadvertently used stuff illegally and been hit with the dreaded DMCA takedown request. 

I strongly suggest everyone discuss these legal issues with licensed attorneys. Your reputation and your bank account might thank you at some point.

[WBDaddy]

3 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Editorial or any other fair use concept is a 50/50 chance game. This one would, most likely, fall under the educational clause of the US fair use doctrine, but the IP owners might see it differently. The more unauthorized images used, the higher the odds for a DMCA takedown or lawsuit for infringement, especially trademark. And the major players such as Disney, etc., do go after anything they think violates their rights. They can afford it. Can you?

So, you're thinking Disney would sue him for a percentage of his ticket discount over this? 

I'm well familiar with the DMCA laws.  And I'm also well familiar with fair use.  I've been a musician for 45 years; I watched the DMCA take shape live in front of me.  I've had to deal with Harry Fox.  And then defend my usage under my HFA license from a DMCA takedown attempt. 

Trust me, his $20 discounted ticket isn't going to peg anyone's radar.  He's not posting the seminar on Youtube (he can't, because it wasn't allowed to be filmed due to CAP privacy rules) or showing the slides somewhere he could profit from someone's viewing of them.  

There are things companies won't bother with.  This is one of them. 

[Ohmo]

17 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

... There are things companies won't bother with.  This is one of them. 

Then you know that when an intellectual property - copyright, TM, or patent - is not defended it loses its legal protections, so yes, if Disney and any other entity sees their rights being infringed, they will take action and that it won't be just for part of a $20 ticket. Court costs, attorney fees for both parties, etc. paid by the losing side are prohibitive to most individuals. But hey, if YOU can afford to and will, pay for OP's defense a lawsuit, let him know so he can rest easier. Keep in mind there is more than Disney involved, so each company could file lawsuits. 

You are right, though, that $20 ticket will not hit anyone's radar.  It is the illegal use of the images that will.

IF your experience is factual, then you also know that there is only one simple defensive against a DMCA takedown request/attempt - file a counter claim.  Any thing else is not DMCA related - it's an infringement lawsuit.

Trust me when I say that, as an artist of any kind, you should seriously reconsider defending infringement on other artists' rights. Shame on you.

 

 

[Sissy Becky]

On 8/2/2022 at 3:29 PM, Personalias said:

Here's a look at the slides I put together for my Capcon presentation this weekend. It was a crazy adrenaline rush and I had to rush through spots, but please take a look at. ESPECIALLY the other writers I got to mention! All ABDL artwork is included with permission from the artists and everything else should be covered under Fair Use.

This is fantastic.  I am not all the way through yet, but I am loving every little bit of it.  I especially love how empowering you are to new writers.  Love it.

 

On 9/1/2022 at 6:00 AM, Ohmo said:

Trust me when I say that, as an artist of any kind, you should seriously reconsider defending infringement on other artists' rights. Shame on you

Uhh, the issue is a little more complicated than that.  Copyright is not some kind of universal human right, its a legal fiction that is more and more set and controlled by large corporations.  It’s no accident that the copyright term seems to increase every time Steamboat Willie goes into the public domain.

Any artist worth their salt will tell you art is derivative.  I’d much prefer we have a system that allows artists to both properly cite their sources, and get paid.  But here we are. Instead we have DMCAs, Content IDs that don’t respect any notion of fair use, and a draconian copyright system that protects the big industry players, and eff the little guy.

It’s certainly not as moral an issue as your suggesting, and not worth a “shame on you”. 

[Ohmo]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:38 PM, Sissy Becky said:

 

Uhh, the issue is a little more complicated than that.  Copyright is not some kind of universal human right, its a legal fiction that is more and more set and controlled by large corporations.  It’s no accident that the copyright term seems to increase every time Steamboat Willie goes into the public domain.

Any artist worth their salt will tell you art is derivative.  I’d much prefer we have a system that allows artists to both properly cite their sources, and get paid.  But here we are. Instead we have DMCAs, Content IDs that don’t respect any notion of fair use, and a draconian copyright system that protects the big industry players, and eff the little guy.

It’s certainly not as moral an issue as your suggesting, and not worth a “shame on you”. 

There is nothing new under the sun, that is true, and any artist, worth their salt or not,  will tell you the derivations to which you refer do not confuse one creative work with another. Although fiction can be copyright protected, copyrights are not fiction; they are legal rights, in nearly every country on the planet, that grant the same rights to individuals as well as corporations.  The fiction is your blatant conspiracy theory concerning Walt Disney. 

Theft of any kind, for fun or profit, is a moral issue as well as a legal one. Copyright infringement is theft from any perspective. Civilized societies recognize that and base copyright(and other) laws on morality, which is nothing more than recognizing and granting others their rights.

The shame of the issue that laws are required to prevent theft of one person's work to feed another person's greed, laziness, and selfishness. So, yeah, the theft you support deserves a "shame on you" every time you look in the mirror. 

That you will willingly and cheerfully surrender any work you create to the public domain is admirable, however, your support of thieves is not. Shame on you.

 

 

[WBDaddy]

3 hours ago, Ohmo said:

There is nothing new under the sun, that is true, and any artist, worth their salt or not,  will tell you the derivations to which you refer do not confuse one creative work with another. Although fiction can be copyright protected, copyrights are not fiction; they are legal rights, in nearly every country on the planet, that grant the same rights to individuals as well as corporations.  The fiction is your blatant conspiracy theory concerning Walt Disney. 

Theft of any kind, for fun or profit, is a moral issue as well as a legal one. Copyright infringement is theft from any perspective. Civilized societies recognize that and base copyright(and other) laws on morality, which is nothing more than recognizing and granting others their rights.

The shame of the issue that laws are required to prevent theft of one person's work to feed another person's greed, laziness, and selfishness. So, yeah, the theft you support deserves a "shame on you" every time you look in the mirror. 

That you will willingly and cheerfully surrender any work you create to the public domain is admirable, however, your support of thieves is not. Shame on you.

 

 

Will you stop this sanctimonious nonsense?  Personalias did not profit a penny from using those graphics.  It was a presentation he posted at CAPCon.  No one paid him for it. And despite your earlier assertion, he was given a room in return for hosting the panel, whether he made a PowerPoint presentation or not, so that wasn't profit either.  

There is no theft if there is no gain from the use.  I've been in a thousand corporate meetings where people used externally-sourced graphics for their PPT decks, and none of them were sued over it.  Marketing materials are a whole other matter entirely, and yes, that's where people will enforce their copyrights.  He posted this as a potential item of interest for the rest of us, not for his own gain. Put your pitchfork and torch away and quit looking for witches to burn. 

[Sissy Becky]

3 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Although fiction can be copyright protected, copyrights are not fiction; they are legal rights, in nearly every country on the planet, that grant the same rights to individuals as well as corporations.  The fiction is your blatant conspiracy theory concerning Walt Disney. 

Copyrights exist to make capital out of ideas.  Copyright does’t have the same legal—or moral—reality as something like theft or murder (despite your later false assertions).  Maybe you should take a quick browse of the history of the Copyright Term Extension Ac before you start throwing around “conspiracy theory”. 

4 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Theft of any kind, for fun or profit, is a moral issue as well as a legal one.

Copying is not theft.  Ideas are not things. This is just so basic as to be fundamental.   If copy a thing, or make a derivative work of a thing, that doesn’t deprive the original creator of anything. There are valid arguments to be made that if I copy a thing that is being sold for money that this is immoral.  Is it theft?  No, it’s not. It’s infringement. If I copy a work and claim it’s mine, that’s plagiarism.  

 

4 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Civilized societies recognize that and base copyright(and other) laws on morality,

This is just, so fundamentally wrong it’s laughable.  Copyright was not based around morality, it was based around capital.  It was a way for authors to get paid for their work.  This is a terrible and ahistorical take.  Laws against murder are based in morality.  Laws about copying stuff?  Hardly.

 

4 hours ago, Ohmo said:

The shame of the issue that laws are required to prevent theft of one person's work to feed another person's greed, laziness, and selfishness. So, yeah, the theft you support deserves a "shame on you" every time you look in the mirror. 

That you will willingly and cheerfully surrender any work you create to the public domain is admirable, however, your support of thieves is not. Shame on you.

 

You’re throwing around a lot of wild accusations here.  Maybe you should go outside, and breathe some fresh air.  I don’t support thieves simply because we have a difference of opinion on copyright.  Get a grip.

 

 

[Ohmo]

18 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

Will you stop this sanctimonious nonsense?  Personalias did not profit a penny from using those graphics.  It was a presentation he posted at CAPCon.  No one paid him for it. And despite your earlier assertion, he was given a room in return for hosting the panel, whether he made a PowerPoint presentation or not, so that wasn't profit either.  

There is no theft if there is no gain from the use.  I've been in a thousand corporate meetings where people used externally-sourced graphics for their PPT decks, and none of them were sued over it.  Marketing materials are a whole other matter entirely, and yes, that's where people will enforce their copyrights.  He posted this as a potential item of interest for the rest of us, not for his own gain. Put your pitchfork and torch away and quit looking for witches to burn. 

I will not stop calling thieves thieves and those who support them the same.

Stealing is taking what isn't yours without permission. Profit does not enter the definition.  You know it, he knows, and anyone that can read a dictionary knows it.  He stole the images. You and your ilk support him

You'd be ok with me stealing your bank account(s) and giving all the money away - right?

[LittleFenny]

On 9/1/2022 at 5:00 AM, Ohmo said:

Then you know that when an intellectual property - copyright, TM, or patent - is not defended it loses its legal protections,

Just as a note, the only one of these for which that is true (at least in the United States) is trademark. And it doesn't require sending a room of rabid out for blood lawyers after someone. If you have a trademark and someone uses it in a manner which isn't legally protected but which also doesn't upset you, you could send them a letter saying, "So long as you add, '[trademark] is a registered trademark of [trademark owner] and is used with permission,' feel free to continue what you are doing." Or if you aren't happy about it but but they have deep enough pockets that you don't like the idea of going bankrupt trying to take them to court, you can publicly scold them for the misuse.

Copyright, at least in the US, has a complication of there being two levels. Unregistered, which everyone gets the instant the put something with creative effort into a fixed form (so for example, once I hit the Submit Reply button I'll have an unregistered copyright on my reply to your post). With an unregistered copyright you're pretty much restricted to getting a court to say, "Stop that! And hand over any profit you made from it and any remaining copies of the work." The real risk comes from registered copyrights, where someone registered the work (or a collection containing the work). Then the penalty is the above, plus up to $250,000 per violation. And they don't count violations by overall events but by every instance of a violation. So if I plagiarized someone's book and sold twenty copies on Amazon before being caught? That's not one violation but twenty. If you're old enough to remember Napster that is why there were articles talking about how the potential penalties if they were hit with the maximum would amount to not merely more dollars than all the dollars ever printed but more money than has probably existed in all of history combined.

The question then becomes, what about fair use? The problem here is that while some countries have laws that spell out exactly what is permissible with whatever their version of fair use is, the United States does not. Also, fair use is not in fact a right but a nebulous ill defined defense that basically comes down to whether or not the judge or jury approves of what you did. There's no, "Whoa! Hold on Copyright Cop, this here was Fair Use!" Followed by the Copyright Cop looking and turning to the other guy to say, "He's right. This is textbook fair use. Nothing I can do." Instead it's something your lawyer brings out after you have been pulled into court. Anything you've heard about, "Fewer than # pages," or, "Less than # minutes of a movie," or, "No more than # seconds of a song," are just guidelines that people have come up with out of nothing but their own thoughts on what they wouldn't be upset by. Even the standard four factor fair use test you may have heard of isn't law, it's just a set of rules that's evolved within courtrooms to try and figure out how to apply this undefined part of copyright law. A judge could decide not to use it and instead come up with their own test and all that would happen is that either the ruling would be slightly more likely to be overturned on appeal or other courtrooms look at it and decide they like it better and start using it too, or everyone ignores that this one trial used a different standard and keep the status quo.

 

Disclaimers, I'm not a lawyer, I'm especially not an intellectual property lawyer. I'm just someone who has read about this and even gone through a behind-a-paywall copyright law tutorial for photographers some years ago when I had some thoughts of trying to make money through photography. Also, as noted what I said has to do with law in the United States of America, not only should you not be quoting me in court you shouldn't be using what I say here to guide your actions if you aren't in the US. Also-also, watch out for trademark, it's possibly the slipperiest of the intellectual property provisions. There's a reason why books you see which went through one of the big publishers will likely either avoid using trademarks or do the, "Kleenex™ brand facial tissue," thing. Don't read about one type of IP and assume the same rules apply to the others. Again, not a lawyer, and if you're going to ask a lawyer for an opinion make sure you're going to an Intellectual Property lawyer, preferably one who specializes in the kind of IP you're interested in. Your cousin who handles divorce cases is essentially no more qualified to give a legal opinion on IP matters than I am, a random person on this forum who isn't a lawyer.

This is already off topic enough for the forum, so I'll save you all a few screens of my opinion on the morality of IP law and violations of IP law and just say it's a mess that could use some common sense reform if only that different groups involved didn't become worse than a box of rabid wolverines on meth whenever reform is brought up. (For example, look at the screaming and assumptions of bad faith that come up when dealing with orphan works is brought up, something that is only going to get worse as more and more works pile up that are covered under multi-century copyright durations) But now I'm going to go and maybe actually write some productive words.

[Personalias]

Dear @Ohmo,

If you were arguing that I should give credit to the images I used in the same manner that I remembered to credit small niche community artists, ie; "X Character is owned by X Mega Corporation", I'd say,  "Okay. Fair point. Let me add one or two more slides.  Thank you for pointing out that oversight of mine."  I was pretty sure that most people knew which mega corporations owned the rights to characters they didn't create and wouldn't benefit from the exposure and accreditation in the same way as the small time ABDL writers and artists I featured in those slides, but "fair is fair" as some say.

But you're making arguments that me doing a powerpoint presentation with pop-culture references is somehow immoral and/or illegal.  There's so much wrong with that that I can barely unpack it all, but I'll try to loosen up the mountain of faulty suppositions, logical fallacies and non-real world experience you've crammed in there.  

I'm speaking as a writer and a public school teacher with at least a decade experience in each field.  You're calling an uncountable number of public educators grade K-12 (not to mention college level) who put funny pics, memes, and references in their lecture slides to grab student attention and help them relate to and memorize the material of being thieves. 

That's just not the case. That's not how that works. That's not how any of that works.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Not legally. Not morally.  I don't even think the most deontological purist would take your side in good faith.  

I once had a Psychology and Sociology professor who played a different pop song every lecture and posted the lyrics at the beginning of class to relate to what she was talking about.  For example, she played Blue's Traveler's "Hook" as a way to explain emotional persuasion techniques.

"It doesn't matter what I say 
So long as I speak with inflection.
That makes you feel I'll convey
Some inner truth or vast reflection.
But I've said nothing so far.
And I can keep it up as long as it takes.
And it don't matter who you are
'Cause if I'm doing my job, it's your resolve that breaks."

(Yes, there's a reason I chose that song for this particular discourse in reference to you...)

By your logic she's a thief who should have been fired and Blues Traveler should be coming after her for a large sum of money because she played their song in a classroom without permission and gave us the lyrics on a powerpoint while she verbally explained the connection she was trying to get us to draw.

My high school math teacher taught us the difference between combinations and permutations using a 2-3 minute clip from Spongebob Squarepants trying to build a hamburger and obsessing on the exact order of the toppings. No ethics committee within the school system has taken up the case against him and to my knowledge Nickelodeon hasn't chosen to take legal action. Not even a cease and desist letter.

A former colleague who is an English teacher taught passive voice with a slide from AMC's The Walking Dead.  (If you can tag on "by Zombies" at the end of a sentence and it's still a correct sentence, it's passive voice.)  

Similarly, I included pictures of famous pop-culture characters owned by Disney et. al. to act as persuasive arguments and mnemonic devices about writing, world building, planning, point of view, stylistic choices, etc.; with a specific focus on writing ABDL fiction and treating it as as much of an artform as anything else.  I didn't include every correlation on every slide, because I didn't want my presentation to be nothing but me reading off the slides.

Are we all thieves?  I certainly don't think so.  Your argument doesn't hold water in the hypothetical thought experiment realm, and it DEFINITELY doesn't work in the real world.

Furthermore, you sent me a PM that told me you weren't looking for a reply, you weren't accusing me of wrong doing, and that you'd be leaving the site permanently, and yet here you are again saying very blatantly that I'm a thief.   

By your own simplistic logic you're a liar, sir.

Why should I take the word of a liar? Everything you've said is now suspect you immoral so-and-so; you Sneaky Pete, you!

I'd take the time to politely explain how each image was used in context of the greater presentation and how and why it fits into an educational and/or satirical fair use policy, but based on your behavior I have no reason to believe you'll engage with me with any kind of intellectual honesty or good faith.  You've already told me and shown me that you have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself and getting the last word in.

Copyright, Trademark, IP, and artists' rights are all tricky and nuanced subjects for in depth discussion both from a ethical and legal point of view. I can and have had my mind changed in the past by such emotionally and intellectually honest discussions. However, I have no reason to think that you're capable of having such a conversation.  As near as I can tell the only conviction you have is wanting to be "right" and wanting to get the last word in.

If you REALLY have a problem with the above content I have submitted at no charge, report it to a moderator here on DailyDiapers and hope they take your side.  If they don't, leave like you said you would the first time. If this place is not for you, I don't want you having to go through the struggle of navigating a community that clearly goes against your core beliefs.

You can also contact the organization that allowed me to give this presentation: CAPCon.  Get them to ban me or shake their finger at me or whatever so I don't do it again.  https://www.capcon.club/   

If they don't do that, then there's one less event that you have to worry about going to because of your deeply held personal beliefs and you can warn others who share your deeply held beliefs to stay away too.  Full support! Integrity first! 

Are you really so out of touch?  No. It's the children who are wrong. (That's also a pop culture reference, btw.)  

OR...
  
Take a moral philosophy class.
Learn about logical fallacies and how to spot them.  
If you're religious, talk to your spiritual leader and see what they have to say about it.  Yes, including the diaper porn part. Integrity!
Stop pretending you're standing up for artists like you're protecting the little guy when you're just standing up for corporations that have wealth greater than most small countries.

You can overcome Dunning Kruger Syndrome if you choose to; I just don't believe you'll choose to.

Sincerely,
Personalias

 

[Cute_Kitten]

Much of what I would say has already been said (and probably more eloquently than I could). All I'll add for now is according to American case law, copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally made copies are not stolen goods- ruling by the Supreme Court.- Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).  And this isn't even touching on fair use. Personalias did nothing wrong, and someone got assmad for no reason, went off the rails, and derailed the thread. 

Again, I want to thank Personalias for sharing this resource with the community and I hope the actions of one poster do not deter anyone in the future from sharing such resources. Personalias gains nothing from sharing this, and he puts both physical and emotional labor into shairng this with us, simply for the betterment of the ABDL writing community. 

[Oradanny]

The CAPCon Writing Panel is an enlightening platform that ignites my passion for writing by delving into impactful social issues topics. Engaging in thoughtful discussions with seasoned writers inspires a deeper understanding of how words can catalyze change. This enriching experience not only hones my writing skills but also empowers me to address critical societal concerns through my work. The diverse perspectives shared on the panel fuel my creativity, encouraging me to explore innovative ways of addressing social issues topics https://essaypro.com/blog/social-issues-topics in my writing. It's a dynamic forum where the written word becomes a powerful tool for advocacy and positive transformation.