This is an incredibly ironic argument, given that derivative works are not violations of copyright.
To be 100% blunt: WotC is wrong, card alters (as in you bought the card, you painted on it, you are now selling it) are 100% illegla and do not violate copyright in any way, shape, or form. And this statement is coming from an intellectual property attorney (although primarily patents).
The catch, as it were, is that WotC can afford to send lawyers after you anyway, and if you are selling alters as a source of income you probably can't afford to defend yourself.
But, as long as you re not creating the card yourself, or making proxies, you are not violating the law. Its a small moral victory I suppose, when considered along with the fact that you can still get blocked form doing it.
This isn't true. Derivative works are always infringing unless permitted by the copyright holder. Additionally, they can be infringing based on the extent from which they depart from the original work.
Two modifications of works that are not infringing are either de minimus (too insignificant to be considered a derivative work), or significant enough to fall under the analysis I posted above. If de minimus, first sale doctrine can also protect the seller.
Edit: another consideration, more broadly, is what WotC defines as the 'work'. I think it can be argued that magic as a whole is the work, and therefore all alterations are de minimus.
Two modifications of works that are not infringing are either de minimus (too insignificant to be considered a derivative work), or significant enough to fall under the analysis I posted above. If de minimus, first sale doctrine can also protect the seller.
Modifications of a work that do not reproduce the work are not copyright violations in and of themselves, because you are not copying anything. that falls under first sale. In the US authors have minimal (if any) moral rights to the work, and dictating what you can and cannot do once you've purchased it is extremely difficult.
The catch, that occurred to me after I posted, and caused me to delete my post, is that if the alterer is using other aspects in the alteration (for example, painting a mana symbol on a basic land), those other aspects could be copyright violations.
Something like a border extension, or painting an anime girl on a land, would not violate WotC's copyright. A border extension would be a derivative work, but still be fine. An Anime girl on the card arguably wouldn't even be a derivative work (assuming its a generic anime style girl and not copied from an actual show/movie/manga).
Edit: And good god, there were a lot of typos in my original post.
Derivative works are de facto infringing unless given permission or if you sucesssfully claim an affirmative defense, not the other way around. While I agree that most alters are not infringing on copyright, this is an important distinction to make.
Border extensions, IMO, would be de minimis enough (I.e. don't change then character of the original work enough) to fall under first sale
Anything OTHER than a simple extension would, IMO, be significant enough to constitute a derivative work. In this case, the alter would have to be a significant departure (see works like BigUp's alters) to qualify under fair use. Once again, see the test I posted a few posts ago.
A side note: Are WotC artists co-authors of their works, or is it work for hire and WotC grants them a lisence to resell the work and stuff like that? I think this isn't the case, but any confirmation would be helpful in analysis.
Edit: I'm sure that at least a handful ofnakters can also fall under parody.
Derivative works are de facto infringing unless given permission or if you sucesssfully claim an affirmative defense, not the other way around. While I agree that most alters are not infringing on copyright, this is an important distinction to make.
Border extensions, IMO, would be de minimis enough (I.e. don't change then character of the original work enough) to fall under first sale
Anything OTHER than a simple extension would, IMO, be significant enough to constitute a derivative work. In this case, the alter would have to be a significant departure (see works like BigUp's alters) to qualify under fair use. Once again, see the test I posted a few posts ago.
I disagree that altering a physical (authorized) card in that manner would represent copyright infringement at all. Assuming the alteration does not include other material subject to Wotc's copyrights, you have not *copied* anything, therefore it cannot be a violation of copyrights. It's more akin to buying a painting and painting over part of it and reselling it. That's not a violation of copyrights and falls squarely under first sale, as long as what you actually painted doesn't violate copyright.
The key to the analysis is what the alter artist has painted (or sharpie'd or whatever'd). I could take kodama of the north tree and alter it to show a beautiful tree that is planted in my backyard. As long as my painting on the card did not include any material under copyright, I would be free and clear to sell it under first sale.
WotC does *not* maintain control of the physical item after it is sold. The issue of copyright only properly comes up when the alteration I am performing includes me reproducing elements (or all) of the material under copyright.
A side note: Are WotC artists co-authors of their works, or is it work for hire and WotC grants them a lisence to resell the work and stuff like that? I think this isn't the case, but any confirmation would be helpful in analysis.
Thats entirely up to the contract the artists signed. I would imagine going back at least to when Hasbro took over they would be works for hire, but thats pure speculation. I know that initially they were not, and that is why they need to do different arts when using them online -- WotC did not acquire the rights to digital reproduction, and now the artists can (intelligently) renegotiate with a full understanding of the value of that particular artwork.
Your tree painting example could fall under a fair use claim, however., as could any substantial reinterpretation of the card, but make no mistake - these are simple permissible violations of copyright.
If you're arguing that every alter is de minimis and isn't a derivative work (and therefore isn't subject to copyright law) you're going to lose. Its not a question of opinion, but of massive precedent to the contrary.
Apologies for any typos, I'm out and replying on my phone
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Enough of the topic. As stated before, in case people has no official information and/or proof of what they state and keep just giving their opinion, the thread would be locked. Rules weren't followed. Thread is closed.
This isn't true. Derivative works are always infringing unless permitted by the copyright holder. Additionally, they can be infringing based on the extent from which they depart from the original work.
Two modifications of works that are not infringing are either de minimus (too insignificant to be considered a derivative work), or significant enough to fall under the analysis I posted above. If de minimus, first sale doctrine can also protect the seller.
Edit: another consideration, more broadly, is what WotC defines as the 'work'. I think it can be argued that magic as a whole is the work, and therefore all alterations are de minimus.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
The key wording there is *can be*, not *are*. Just because something is derivative, does not mean it is a copyright violation.
Modifications of a work that do not reproduce the work are not copyright violations in and of themselves, because you are not copying anything. that falls under first sale. In the US authors have minimal (if any) moral rights to the work, and dictating what you can and cannot do once you've purchased it is extremely difficult.
The catch, that occurred to me after I posted, and caused me to delete my post, is that if the alterer is using other aspects in the alteration (for example, painting a mana symbol on a basic land), those other aspects could be copyright violations.
Something like a border extension, or painting an anime girl on a land, would not violate WotC's copyright. A border extension would be a derivative work, but still be fine. An Anime girl on the card arguably wouldn't even be a derivative work (assuming its a generic anime style girl and not copied from an actual show/movie/manga).
Edit: And good god, there were a lot of typos in my original post.
Border extensions, IMO, would be de minimis enough (I.e. don't change then character of the original work enough) to fall under first sale
Anything OTHER than a simple extension would, IMO, be significant enough to constitute a derivative work. In this case, the alter would have to be a significant departure (see works like BigUp's alters) to qualify under fair use. Once again, see the test I posted a few posts ago.
A side note: Are WotC artists co-authors of their works, or is it work for hire and WotC grants them a lisence to resell the work and stuff like that? I think this isn't the case, but any confirmation would be helpful in analysis.
Edit: I'm sure that at least a handful ofnakters can also fall under parody.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I disagree that altering a physical (authorized) card in that manner would represent copyright infringement at all. Assuming the alteration does not include other material subject to Wotc's copyrights, you have not *copied* anything, therefore it cannot be a violation of copyrights. It's more akin to buying a painting and painting over part of it and reselling it. That's not a violation of copyrights and falls squarely under first sale, as long as what you actually painted doesn't violate copyright.
The key to the analysis is what the alter artist has painted (or sharpie'd or whatever'd). I could take kodama of the north tree and alter it to show a beautiful tree that is planted in my backyard. As long as my painting on the card did not include any material under copyright, I would be free and clear to sell it under first sale.
WotC does *not* maintain control of the physical item after it is sold. The issue of copyright only properly comes up when the alteration I am performing includes me reproducing elements (or all) of the material under copyright.
Thats entirely up to the contract the artists signed. I would imagine going back at least to when Hasbro took over they would be works for hire, but thats pure speculation. I know that initially they were not, and that is why they need to do different arts when using them online -- WotC did not acquire the rights to digital reproduction, and now the artists can (intelligently) renegotiate with a full understanding of the value of that particular artwork.
Your tree painting example could fall under a fair use claim, however., as could any substantial reinterpretation of the card, but make no mistake - these are simple permissible violations of copyright.
If you're arguing that every alter is de minimis and isn't a derivative work (and therefore isn't subject to copyright law) you're going to lose. Its not a question of opinion, but of massive precedent to the contrary.
Apologies for any typos, I'm out and replying on my phone
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo