Dear Watchers,

I will begin this day by clarifying a few things I believe have been misunderstood by deviants at large. The issue of parameter copyrights is misleading. I have come to the conclusion that many people are assuming that artists' rights to parameter ownership in the world community are under fire; this is not true. It might hold true for a few specific persons, but not to me or most others. The ownership battle is one being fought in deviantART amongst deviants, Admins, and Help Desk personnel. Parameters are already protected by international copyright law (I will prove this just as soon as I find the text again) and artists ought to be worry-free about this topic. However, on deviantART the battle rages on because a few select big wigs believe parameters should be freely used without proper credit being given to the originating fractal artist. The reason the word copyright has been thrown into the mix so often is because deviantART's authority types say that parameters aren't copyrighted and they, therefore, do not have to investigate supposed parameter theft by deviants.

Now, I will clarify parameter theft. We, the fractal artists, like to see the behind-the-scenes work of a fractal, so that we can deconstruct it and learn the how's and why's of the fractal creation process. Many fractalists will share these parameters with interested fractal artists with the understanding that the parameter is read-only and not to be duplicated for submission on deviantART or elsewhere. When this trust is violated, it is art theft. This is what everyone is in an uproar about.

Also, fractalists will submit flame starter packs with the idea that these are starting points for new artists and old alike to jump off from and create their own fractals. Tweaking or manipulating of these starter flames is a given and okay to do, unless, otherwise noted by the original artist. This practice is not under fire. All you tweakers of flame starter packs let out a sigh of relief and calm down.

To the people who have said: "It's not like fractal artists are making their livelihood off of fractals, so who cares?" I don't make money off of freedom and I don't want that taken from me either. Money isn't the issue, the little piece of our hearts we put into a fractal is, so respect that or go back to your hole.

The official US Copyright Law pertaining to general copyright:

102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible* (see footnote) medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

This last part is a bit tricky, but after much reading of the dictionary, I have deduced that parameters are NOT a procedure, process, system, etc. because they are not a step-by-step procedure on how to make a fractal, they ARE the fractal.

And here is some official US Copyright Office legislation for you pertaining to the manipulation, tweaking, or derivation of an other artists' work:

Derivative Works

A “derivative work,” that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an “original work of authorship.” Derivative works, also known as “new versions,” include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version.

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.
Examples of Derivative Works

The following examples show some of the many different types of derivative works:

* Television documentary (which contains some archival footage and photographs)
* Motion picture (based on a play)
* Novel in English (a translation of a book originally published in Russian)
* Sound recording (CD in which two of the ten selections were previously published online)
* Sculpture (based on a drawing)
* Drawing (based on a photograph)
* Book of maps (based on public domain maps with some new maps)
* Lithograph (based on a painting)
* Biography of John Doe (which contains journal entries and letters by John Doe)
* Drama about John Doe (based on the letters and journal entries of John Doe)
* SACD (inwhich all the tracks were previously released in a CD and have been remixed
* Words and music (some of the words are from the Bible)
* Words and musical arrangement (arrangement is based on a piece by Bach)
* Musical arrangement (based on a work by Bach)

Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work

The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material.

One cannot extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work. A work that has fallen in the public domain, that is, a work that is no longer protected by copyright, may be used for a derivative work, but the copyright in the derivative work will not restore the copyright of the public domain material. Neither will it prevent anyone else from using the same public domain work for another derivative work.

In any case where a protected work is used unlawfully, that is, without the permission of the owner of copyright, copyright will not be extended to the illegally used part. Which means, art thieves, you don't own what you're stealing.

Notice of Copyright

Before March 1, 1989, the use of copyright notice was mandatory on all published works, and any work first published before that date should have carried a notice. For works published on and after March 1, 1989, use of copyright notice is optional.

Although not required by law, it is perfectly acceptable (and often helpful) for a work to contain a notice for the original material as well as for the new work. For example, if a previously registered book contains only a new introduction, the notice might be:

© 1941 John Doe; introduction © 2002 Mary Smith

For more information about copyright notice, see Circular 3, Copyright Notice.

*Tangible: 1. Composed of or relating to things that occupy space and can be perceived by the senses. 2. Having verifiable existence.