Copyright is not given like handouts, its bought and patented. You can't copyright something that is conflicting with other copyrights, in this case Hasbro. Try go to court with that hippie logic of yours and see how far you'll get. happy holidays from a lawyer.
dude i've met the artist and met the actresses of mlp i've asked them about the art work of my friend in the convention they did not have a problem with it. so i don't see why are you attack him. they love the fan art
Through the Berne Convention copyright is technically automatic and does not need to be bought. In countries that adhere to the Berne Convention applying for the copyright just makes it easier to defend it in court as you have proof for it. With the Berne Convention in place the Creative Commons formed to let people easier get past all the legal jumbo and claim a simple and free copyright license in a few different forms. It's not hippie logic, it's international law.
Using Google for 2 whole minutes isn't research. I honestly don't know if you even read about the Berne before responding to me, because it doesn't in any way apply to this topic, at all. Only way it is ever used, is to counteract a copyright claim, filed by a odd party/company if you have proof that you created the property first. That doesn't mean anything here when Toxic obviously didn't create any of his characters in his comics, nor their visual style & design recognition or writing & personalities of said characters.
"If a person buys a McDonalds cheeseburger and then replaced the paper wrapping of the burger with tinfoil, he'll be copyright owner of that burger!" ...that's basically how stupid you sound.
Someone else used the same source to back the same argument. It's all legal jumbo to me, but I think the relevant parts are 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1.
If you look carefully, you would see that Toxic-Mario actually did create his art-style, it is not identical to that of the show and all the parts are hand drawn. There are some subtle by distinct differences. None of the parts are direct physical copies of an existing work, only the idea behind the characters, which is mentioned in the pseudo-copyright notice. Toxic Mario put significant labor and original content into his works, so as long as the original copyright doesn't forbid it, which it might not depending on the rights Hasbro gave, then his copyright is valid de facto.
Your attempt at straw-manning my argument fails as, using your metaphor, Toxic Mario isn't claiming copyright on the burger, he is claiming copyright on the particular arrangement of placing the tin foil upon that burger, while admitting the burger itself is copyrighted by someone else. If you knew anything about mmemetics you would realize pretty much every creation is just an original spin on something that already exists created through analysis and synthesis. Ideas evolve, they aren't contained. That's were the idea of intellectual property diverges from reality.
First off at all: I don't know who 'someone else' is
Secondly: If it's legal jumbo to you, then why do i even need to defend against your arguments?
Thirdliest: TM didn't create his own art style what so ever. Yes, he quite obviously didn't trace the characters digitally, but he traced their design completely by eye, everything is meant to look exactly like the show and if TM was a more competent artist, he would have drawn them to look exactly like the show from his very first fan art. further more, he STILL wouldn't be able to claim copyright for it even if his style was visually different from the shows, unless it was completely abstract and beyond brand recognition, which is critical to copyright. For example, Lets say a famous artist like Michaelangelo still lived today and he drew a My Little Pony, he would not ever be able to sell his picture commercially unless he had a contract agreement with the copyright holder, Hasbro.
QuadDamage: Another example. Imagine yourself being in china, you go to a cheap local video store and pick up a DVD cover with photos spliced together of marvel's Thor and Game of Thrones. [link] Would your reaction be "wow what a unique art style they created"?.. because if that is so, then i'm afraid that there is no hope for you.
Some Number: I try to use metaphors because the very simple nature of Copyright law, the very first rule of all, seems to be lost to you. Copyright can never be filed, given or claimed no matter how hard you try, if it is conflicting with another copyright already existing. Not that hard to understand.
Final Fantasy: Everything in the world is an idea evolve? True, but you can't copyrighted everything in the world. Do you think wood is copyrighted? no, of course not. But to those people who evolve their ideas based on something already existing, their product are either far beyond brand recognition of previous product that inspired theirs, or they file and pay for a copyright agreement with the original inventors of previous product to enable them to sell theirs own. In TM's case, he took a copyrighted idea, changed absolutely nothing about it and claimed he owns it. Fan art, can and never ever will be copyright on its own right. It's quite simply the Law.
Second, I don't follow what you are saying. What I got from skimming through it to the sections on obtaining the rights is that people in the countries get the rights informally and for free, which goes directly against what you said about them needing to be purchased.
Third, TM isn't selling this commercially, so how is that thing with Michelangelo relevant?
Fourth, that poster is beautiful. It should be in an art museum.
Fifth, The Law changes. The reasons many things aren't copyright is because they existed before copyright laws existed or changed. The word of the law changes with the season as new ones and are written and old ones are tossed, and the meaning of the law changes depending on who is interpreting it. The Law is not absolute. Just because fanart isn't copyrightable now doesn't mean it won't ever be. With the raise of the internet the idea of intellectual property as it was is dying and the giants are throwing out all they have into trying to preserve the laws and keep the power they have, but the social attitude is changing and no matter what they are going to loose their power if the current trends continue. Anyway, the internet is a fairly lawless place, it follows it's own rules. Here Copyright means a different thing than it might in Law. Here it more about courtesy and respect as few people are going to take anything to court and respect is more important than money here, and the entire thing operates on a different level than it does elsewhere, enabling a hierarchy of copyrights different from one based on law as the idea of copyright is different here. The entire community is a fanbase, but it still has artists who invest effort into their work and art thefts, so the idea of who created it is important to prevent art theft and exists on a seperate hierarchy from the legal copyrights. Here Copyright is being used more as originally intended, protecting more of exact information than general ideas in order to promote creativity and thwart art, not idea, theft,.
Actually according to law Copyright is automatically given to the creator upon creation. This is different from patents and trademarks which must be applied for. That's why whenever you submit something on deviant art you can place a creative commons at the bottom.