emily the ripoff

[grebo]

Rosamond/Emily the Strange

original



rip off



read the article here --> link to article

[Amelia G]

Wow. That's fucked up to merch a copycat that hard. How fucking hard is it to come up with something original?

[keiko]

i knew i didn't like that Emily kid. she FELT like a poser.

~K

[Buster Friendly]

it's fucked up that I can't read the article, it's blank.

[Velvet-Tongue]

Woah.

[Mindgames]

BF - It's floating about on other blogs too, just google for "Rosamund and Emily".

I like the email response Rob Reger sent them, notably the revelation

"Through our fan forum, I have learned that Emily has comforted the suicidal, helped people accept their sexuality, and get through very taxing personal situations."

Apparently she is also chief political adviser to the Republican Party, helping GM with their restructuring package, and is due to fly to Baghdad on Tuesday to promote a line of heavy-soled shoes.

[Rockwulf]

That character sucked anyway. I'd be in high school walking through Hot Topic and be like, "Oh great, a little whiny emo bitch. There's something I NEVER SEE"

[Buster Friendly]

Ah, now that I've ready a few of emily's "creator's" lame explanations about how he "worked with a creative team" on the "concept" I'm pretty sure that no one gives a rat's ass.

Really, emily is about as flat, and humorless as it gets. That this product made money is baffling to me, but whatever.

[Raza]

It's not even an improvement, lol.

I dunno. I've never thought of Emily as very interesting or representative of goth culture, but allow me to fall into my role as the devil's advocate. It seems a stretch, but I actually do think it's possible to read something like that page, forget about it, and then years later develop an interest in a similar theme, keeping what you've seen as a subconscious ideal without remembering its context.

It's a looong shot, mind, what with the text and position of the cats being almost exactly the same, but on the other hand: if it'd been designed holding the original next to it, wouldn't they have had the sense to change it more? Would they have made those few changes they did, when at least in my subjective perception none of them are improvements? This seems as much like a bad translation than a deliberate derivative product.


It also strikes me as ironic that sortof redrawing rosamund is 'appropriating a character' on what's apparently a very flimsy legal basis, while photographing a person's image wholesale is creative art and will net you court-defensible exclusive rights to the derivative.

[jonny.illuminati]

It's not even an improvement, lol.

I dunno. I've never thought of Emily as very interesting or representative of goth culture, but allow me to fall into my role as the devil's advocate. It seems a stretch, but I actually do think it's possible to read something like that page, forget about it, and then years later develop an interest in a similar theme, keeping what you've seen as a subconscious ideal without remembering its context.

It's a looong shot, mind, what with the text and position of the cats being almost exactly the same, but on the other hand: if it'd been designed holding the original next to it, wouldn't they have had the sense to change it more? Would they have made those few changes they did, when at least in my subjective perception none of them are improvements? This seems as much like a bad translation than a deliberate derivative product.


It also strikes me as ironic that sortof redrawing rosamund is 'appropriating a character' on what's apparently a very flimsy legal basis, while photographing a person's image wholesale is creative art and will net you court-defensible exclusive rights to the derivative.

any way you slice it, or surround it by words.... it is still a blatant rip off of somebody's work and intellectual property... you might not believe in that kind of property, but the court system in America does...

i would love to re-use some fascinating open heart surgery research papers from WW II for my Thesis paper... save me a lot of work if i can just re-type it and change a word or two and then claim it as my own.... however it is plagiarism and stealing... our world works on ownership of various things... utopia doesn't exist and seems highly unattainable as well as the communist view of sharing/ownership... there are always some animals "more equal than others"

*EDIT* you're right, it's not an improvement... i don't really like either of them and emily emo always kind of annoyed me...

[Raza]

any way you slice it, or surround it by words.... it is still a blatant rip off of somebody's work and intellectual property... you might not believe in that kind of property, but the court system in America does...

Fortunately, I'm not responsible for American law. Justice shouldn't be just about finding someone to blame for every agitation, and this is a good example of that discrepancy between law and reason.

i would love to re-use some fascinating open heart surgery research papers from WW II for my Thesis paper... save me a lot of work if i can just re-type it and change a word or two and then claim it as my own.... however it is plagiarism and stealing...

The point of a thesis paper is to learn from writing it, and thus is beaten if you copy it. If you needed a paper on the subject for another purpose, such as informing an audience, there'd be no such reason to not quote existing works that you found adequate. If the purpose of drawing emily the strange had been an educative creative exercise, then obviously this would have meant failure - but this doesn't seem to be the case, so it's really comparing apples and oranges.

our world works on ownership of various things... utopia doesn't exist and seems highly unattainable as well as the communist view of sharing/ownership... there are always some animals "more equal than others"

Our world works on the laws of physics; only the people on it order it by ethics. I am one such person, and I choose to order it by a system I find more desirable than those held by many of my peers - I do not require their consent to act on what I believe, or to reject what I do not, and in doing so I'll have created my part of utopia.

[SyntheticShock]

I love the originality behind this...its spewing creative differances, Emilys dress is black, there are less cats, and of course, the name is differant, genius.

[soma_stardust]

^.^;
i kinda like emily...
well... mostly i like her kitty...
eh heh. *tard*
that sucks...

[VoldtaEngler]

^.^;
i kinda like emily...
well... mostly i like her kitty...
eh heh. *tard*
that sucks...

I bet Emily's cats are pierced.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

If the creator of Emily is making moohlah off of this, then yeah, it doesn't matter what country you're from, that's BULLSHIT.

Art is always subjective, but money made from art should be cut and dry. Same with inventions...That's why they're patented. If a creation you have made helps you make a living then why the fuck should somebody else copy that and then take away your earnings? I'm sure as shit that everytime somebody steals a picture off Blueblood and puts it on another site that makes money, Amelia and Forrest don't just think, "Good for you." They're pissed as shit.

[soma_stardust]

I bet Emily's cats are pierced.

[Wickedanima]

This is making me lol...

So the WHOLE of the Emily empire is a rip off because there is another little Wedneday Addams girl? Or is the whole of Emily a rip off because someone read about Rosemond and did one single tribute/rip-off of her pose/prose?

The ranting vile seems a little bit silly. To me anyway. Its just a morbid little girl, who is a rip off of all little morbid girls that ever did exist. Or do the lawyers say, "Homage" ?

And Emily isn't Emo dear, you're doing it wrong.

[Mindgames]

Or do the lawyers say, "Homage"

The only person still allowed to use the word "homage" is Francois, a slightly-built art gallery proprietor with a cravat and pencil-thin mustache.

To the lawyers of the world, every possible bit of stuff other than the air you breathe is owned by someone, and homage is merely a greek dip. Rightly so, because the stuff we're talking about is how the artists of the world are paying their food bills.

[Morning Glory]

It also strikes me as ironic that sortof redrawing rosamund is 'appropriating a character' on what's apparently a very flimsy legal basis, while photographing a person's image wholesale is creative art and will net you court-defensible exclusive rights to the derivative.

Interesting that you should mention that, it makes me think of many native peoples of the late 19th and early 20th century that felt taking a photograph of them to be literally stealing their identity.

[Mindgames]

redrawing rosamund is 'appropriating a character' on what's apparently a very flimsy legal basis, while photographing a person's image wholesale is creative art and will net you court-defensible exclusive rights to the derivative.

The former is derivative of an original which is a creative work, and hence copyrighted. The latter is not, unless you assume your God will sue for the design of human beings. You cannot copyright your body under US law, partly because it's just plain silly and partly because there's no definable act of "fixation" (although the concept of an image right does exist in some legislatures via trademarking), so a photo of that body cannot be derivative in itself.

You can of course photograph a scene which is derivative (by setting up a copy of someone else's composition using your own models) but it's the composition which infringes, not the people within it.

[Morning Glory]

cloned man sues his clone for identity theft.

[Raza]

The former is derivative of an original which is a creative work, and hence copyrighted. The latter is not, unless you assume your God will sue for the design of human beings. You cannot copyright your body under US law, partly because it's just plain silly and partly because there's no definable act of "fixation" (although the concept of an image right does exist in some legislatures via trademarking), so a photo of that body cannot be derivative in itself.

I would say that copyrighting stuff in general qualifies as 'just plain silly', so moving on from that point, I think this is a glaring gap in IP law. Biology aside, there's definitely a lot of my own design in what I look like. Hair, body mods, choices that went into gaining or maintaining a figure, skintone, nail care - and that's before clothes and accessories. A look is a composition off and by itself, with many overlapping creative processes involved before the final image is achieved. If that isn't ackowledged as a 'creative work', while an exact wholesale visual replica of it captured photon for photon by a machine at the click of a button is, that's a pretty gross inbalance.

[Wickedanima]

Rightly so, because the stuff we're talking about is how the artists of the world are paying their food bills.

So... the rights of artists have to do with a tenuous link to a strange little girl with cats?

I mean... We live in a world where Elvira can win a lawsuit against Vampira because, 'likeness' means actual representation of another person's appearance, and not simply close resemblance."

I think that a thirty-year-old book character has an even more tenuous grasp on 'copywright', let alone be the source for a lawlsuit.

[00goddess]

I mean... We live in a world where Elvira can win a lawsuit against Vampira because, 'likeness' means actual representation of another person's appearance, and not simply close resemblance."
.

No we don't. We live in a world where Vampira sued Elvira and lost.

I understand that it might be hard for non-creators to understand this, but when an artist creates something, it's like our child in a way. It's a part of ourselves that we care for. And for many of us, it's also our livelihood.

I think it would bother you if someone took credit for the work you do at your job and got paid for it. Try looking at it this way.

[Mindgames]

I think this is a glaring gap in IP law.

It's actually a result of anti-slavery and the US Constitution. Copyright law is fundamentally a protection of property (intellectual or otherwise, it has to be an item "of value" that is "owned" by someone). You cannot own a human being, period - not even yourself.

The image rights mechanism used by some celebrities to control 'likenesses', and hence photographs, is via trademark law, not copyright law. Trademarking does not necessarily require the same fundamental notion of property ownership, but as I said it only works in some countries.

Don't get me wrong; there can be parts of you open to copyright - for example the design of a tattoo, but your flesh and bones is nobody's to argue over.

As to the age of the Rosamund artwork - US copyright law has a fixed term, and it's within that term, so it's as protected as something drawn yesterday. Agree or not, that's how the system works and there's no escaping from it.

[Wickedanima]

No we don't. We live in a world where Vampira sued Elvira and lost.

Yeah, that's what I meant. My brain just expressed it wonky.

[Wickedanima]

No we don't. We live in a world where Vampira sued Elvira and lost.

I understand that it might be hard for non-creators to understand this, but when an artist creates something, it's like our child in a way. It's a part of ourselves that we care for. And for many of us, it's also our livelihood.

I think it would bother you if someone took credit for the work you do at your job and got paid for it. Try looking at it this way.

And by the way, I am an artist, and I am a creator. Don't assume. ^_^