|Xangles > frangles > legal||
You may generally use, read, and download Frangles, Xangles, and Blorkk material for personal, nonprofit use, but may not distribute it on a large basis, even for free. If you want to use any Xangles / Frangles / Blorkk (etc) wallpaper artwork for professional use (we have high quality, high resolution fractal artwork that could serve many professional purposes), or have any publication or marketing interest, please contact us.
THE RIP-OFF NATURE OF FRANGLES
Frangles rips off everything ever written to death. Morally, it can do this, firstly, because every sci-fi/fantasy book ever written after Asimov and Tolkien likewise rips Asimov and Tolkien off to death, not to mention ripping off all the books between it and them that likewise also ripped off Asimov and Tolkien. Cumulatively, ad infinitum, there're really nothing left to do but rip off Asimov and Tolkien and everyone who ever ripped them and those who ripped them off, off some more, until the cows come home and the pigs fly back to Narnia (as they say). Hence purely out of peer pressure, Frangles adopts the standard sci-fi/fantasy mandate of ripping off everything else before it in as many creative new ways as possible before someone notices and wakes Asimov and Tolkien from the dead to file a joint copyright lawsuit against the entire body of sci-fi/fantasy.
The difference between most sci-fi/fantasy and Frangles, is that Frangles takes great lengths to draw massive attention to its rip-off nature (which is either a brilliant and/or completely brain dead and masochistic idea; time will tell), by sticking its tongue out at everything to date, paradoxically engaging in the safety of "rip-off prose" while feigning creativity. And while this approach of ripping off sci-fi/fantasy is definitely nothing new (Frangles of course rips off the idea of ripping off rip-offs, from Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett), no one has ever thoroughly ripped off Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett; a neccessary step in the evolution of sci-fi/fantasy before anyone can creatively beat the dead horse of ripping off rip-off rip-off rip-offs. Because clearly, you have to beat a horse to death before you can beat a dead horse.
Legally, Frangles can do this through the safety of Right of Parody, since there isn't much Right of Rip-off law. Hence Frangles adheres closely to United States Fair Use Copyright law, by inflating its original purpose of allowing miniscule excerpts for the right of educational commentary or review, to an interpretation practically allowing full word for word plagarism of any work ever written, with the following bullshit reasoning, worded all legally shmegally to feign the illusion we know what we're talking about.
Whenever Frangles might allude or make use of external copyrighted material, it does so within strict bounds of United States copyright law and the Fair Use Act of 2007. Frangles considers all such usage to fall within all relevant test factors for whether such usage constitutes fair use, such as being a promotional, respectful, non-offensive, and non-defamatory influence on the original work to the extent it is possible to do so in the art of parodying others' work (half the point of Frangles), influencing its value positively by promoting the work(s), or at the least neutrally (as no offense is ever intended in poking fun at another's work, as Frangles writers love and respect and promotme all of them)--for creative purposes in contributing new things to the general pool of public art. In its frequent usage of paroyding and/or alluding to others' works, it can sometimes grant the illusion of a copyright nightmare. This illusion is created from many misconceptions as follows. On the contrary, we claim Frangles remains within the absolute safetest boundaries of moral and legal right of parody.
Firstly, for the most part, when Frangles alludes to any kind of copyrighted material, it does so by commenting on the original work rather that quoting or involving it, which falls outside of copyright law entirely (one could write a paper, thesis, website, news article, or song, about Lord of the Rings, without quoting a single sentence or writing the holder for permission). The subtly with Frangles it that it does this frequentlyfrom within a fictional medium, which can create the illusion of using material, when in fact, it's simply mentioning its existence and/or commenting on the external work(s) or material. When this allusion does borderline quoting excerpts of other works or directly parodying an established character, it does this well within established moral and legal Fair Use boundaries, while keeping in mind especially the Right of Parody Fair Uses cases in particular in the courts, which have looked more kindly upon the parody of someone's work, rather than using someone's music or prose or lyrics for their own purposes to comment on something else. Any extent to which Frangles directly quotes or involves minimal copyrighted material or known characters is entirely intended for the former purpose rather than the later.
Note that the illusion of inserting others' characters or concepts for Frangles purposes is sometimes created because of the unique nature of Frangles to directly point out the fact that this or that world or character or plot, is similar to some other particular world or character or plot (or plethora of them). Literally stating "Why Jebb, I'm afraid you seem like a direct rip off of Frodo, Rand, Shea, Pug, and Eragon!" within a story, is of course meant to be ironic. A critic could obviously make this statement in a review article without obtaining permission to use the words "Frodo," "Rand," "Eragon," etc, just as he could quote whole sentences for the purposes of commentary. A character might mention the Urgg are "Vogon rip-offs" from within a story just like a critic might state in a review, when in fact the Urgg evolved from a passed note in high school biology about a green slimy monster that crawled out of the bio tank, and evolved to be no more like the Vogons than any other slimy green alien is just like the races before it.
Someone might perhaps comment that "Kyle Kirby" is a "Kyle XY" rip off simply because of the name Kyle, when in fact anybody would draw those types of connections of any two characters who happen to have the same name, given the isomorphism that young prodigy or superpowered protagnoists intrinsically have a lot in common (Peter Parker, Harry Potter, Robin, and Frodo, all could have been named "Bob"). In defense of the remaining charge--the name itself--the fact remains there are simply thousands of teenage protagonists out there and a name (or character style) is going to overlap occasionally. E.g. consider the movies Dark City and the Matrix. Some people say Dark City was a Matrix rip off, before they find out that it actually came first. While in this case Kyle Kirby follows Kyle XY, it's still claimed the name was derived mostly from an original thought process. Kyle Kirby was possibly named for the same reasons that Kyle XY was named--that "Kyle" happens to be a cool name for a current day male teenage protagonist--but not because Kyle XY made the name sound cool for a teenage prodigy/superpowered male character.
The problem that creates the illusion of borderlined copyright issues is that Frangles itself points these similarities out to make fun of the fact that they exist, from within a fictional medium juxtaposed the original characters. This can create the illusion or feel of actually writing Frodo, Rand, Pug, Kyle XY, the Vogons, etc, into the story. This especially happens when little is known about a character (especially if little is posted on him or her); human imagination can start filling in the details of what a character or place might look or sound or feel like if they're compared to something well known, when in fact those details haven't been revealed yet.
This is very important for a potential agent or publisher to understand sans the full feel of the depth and originality of all Frangles characters and worlds. Frangles of course builds on other fiction but no more than anything else does, for instance how the Wheel of Time built on the fantasy world initiated by Tolkien but through its own very rich, in-depth and creative universe. To the extent that Jebb (or any character) comes off an intentional parody of Frodo, Eragon, Pug, etc--or if Jebb does something to specifically parody Frodo ("Hmmm, what should I do with this power-ring over here?")--again any involvement or mentioning of Lord of the Rings or Tolkien is considered to be direct parody falling well within established Fair Use boundaries.
Of course, naturally, in the unending sci-fi/fantasy endeavor of ripping off Asimov and Tolkien it would be quite hypocritical not to encourage the ripping off of Frangles. Hence, if any of the Frangles concepts or material inspires you as a writer or publisher or agent in your own work or marketing techniques, and you would like to start the rip-off process earlier rather than later, please simply keep in mind common morality and legal courtesy of using ideas to be creative rather than closely mimicking Frangles formats or content or writing techniques. This should of course be morally and legally obvious anyway in the exponentially increasing art of ripping off the art of ripping off rip-off rip-offs.
STEAL OUR STUFF FOR FREE
Collectively, we consider ourselves--in all glorious Pulitzer-worthy humility--to be packed full of endless brilliant ideas (whether or not we're just taking credit for some Microsoft intern we kidnapped and stuck in a cellar). So naturally we've had the debate of whether or not it's financially profitable to just give all our ideas and stuff away without charging anything. This debate includes two main issues: great ideas, and great final products. Firstly, we egotistically (err, humbly that is) [could someone fix that typo and delete the parenthetical? Orbo?.. orbo!?] believe a lot of our ideas could be billion-dollar ideas (there are companies who actually claim to have invented the frisbee*), so if any of our ideas turn into frisbees before we scribble "frangles.com" on one and toss it into the US copyright office, there goes that billion dollars (which could have bought Chip a few good C# books at the least).
[*note that even using the word "frisbee" is gray area fair use as "frisbee" is actually a patented term! This has created massive headaches for sports involving frisbees, such ultimate frisbee, which is called "ultimate" for short rather than "frisbee" mainly for this reason, also why "frisbee" is often replaced with the word "flying disc").
The other end is final products such as a finished novel or program, which we most certainly have strict claim to under copyright law, but then, it's a gray area to what extent we own that sort of style. This is often a hard area to pin down; for how long should Pert Plus own the mind-boggingly idea of a 2-in-1 shampoo & conditioner before someone else can say, "Well, I probably would have thought that up by now given the increasing need for great hair and fast-paced ADHD portability?" There are fresh ideas that change the world that are mimicked and copied and expanded on for long after the lifetimes of the original thinkers. An abacus spawns a calculator which spawns a computer which spawn DOS, then infinite DOS applications, then Windows to organize the applications, then soon HyperWindows 7000.7, and quickly a race of artificial intelligent beings led by Hal-Win-7000 which owes its entire existence to Bill Gates and Pope Sylvester II. (Something the cylons were clearly pissed about).
In any case, we've finally settled on the general attitude Frangles will indefinitely be free online material usable for personal, nonprofit use (at least until we get a PepsiCo contract to market "Frepsi"), and that any general concepts or ideas presented by Frangles aren't worth the trouble of trying to greedily hoard (nor would it likely be legal to hoard a general idea unless a good amount of work has been put into fleshing the idea out), making the vague ideas of Frangles extra free for nonprofit use and free in general anyway under US Copyright law. I.e. the law should be supplemental to the moral principles which create it; hence we've decided our indefinite general attitude here will be a free and friendly sharing environment of ideas & works, rather than to struggle with the law to build up an empire of pointless patents for fractal mildew removers. and fern-shaped city squares. While greed is perfectly legal with the right corporate lawyer, Squish has given us a significant kick from considering greed as a directive into the preferable clouds of morality from the nightmares he's given us just complaining about the horrors of Bank of America's discriminatory crimes against ADHDers, (like charging $390 at one point for going literally $20 under your checking account because you bought ten !@#$ing packs of gum which cost $39 each purchase and can you tell I'm the one editing this page right now!?! Orbo, !@# off; I can tangent if I want, I'm editing this note, not you!! Go to hell. No, not literally, duhr....Yah? Make me, tin ball. What's a bot orb going to do, bonk me over the head?....Where in the hell did you get an urgg vapo-ray?...Oh, I told you to go to hell so that's "where in hell you got the urgg vapo-ray", yuck, yuck, yuck. Well, I can catch a half-second static discrepancy like nobody's business, and I was looking right at you, so you couldn't possibly have blinked to hell and back, because even that would require a temporal alteration subroutine to return to the mot you left which I happen to know you don't have., so pbblbl to you and your fake replica urgg vapo-ray you picked up at the kiddie toy store yesterday. I--ohhhghgcrap it actually works. Okay, look, before you derez me for Insertion of Personal Bickering violation, at least let me tell everyone about Probity! Probity is a kickass online checking account with no overdraft and fees and no like anyfees and they're the nicest most moral bank on the face of the Earth currently so--ohh,,CRALGHugh@#agh#h@#)
Anyway, here are a few other main factors in the selection of our marketing attitude.
1. *Free stuff sells!!* Given, $0.00 isn't a very profitable income, but we think it better to build up an open, welcoming environment and worry about the issue of money long term than simply dive in and start charging for our prose, wallpapers, software, etc. Granted we haven't really written enough solid prose to be sellable (and haven't even started on the software), but already we have enough hi-rez Xangles / Frangles / Blorkk wallpapers worth charging for. (A lot of them aren't posted yet, but trust us, we basically have enough material for a decent sized fractal wallpaper paper purchasing site if we wanted to go that route.) So you can consider that an example of the large free open environment of multiple mediums (prose, art, software, etc) we'd like to eventually offer you.
2. Half the most visited sites on the net are free services. (E.g. Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Wikipedia, Ebay, Fox News, Weather.com, etc etc etc.) Clearly these are profitable professional enterprises, so (we figure), there must be a very key relationship between giving away all your stuff for free and making lots of money! (Though if you can figure out exactly what the !@#$ that is, give us a call. Orbo's fried a dozen chipzits trying to figure that one out). Profitable or not, though, these types of sites--that is, friendly places where a lot of people can go to do and share a lot of different things--are what we'd like Frangles to eventually become (whether big or small an example of those types of places; even a small, friendly chat board is a great example of such an open and free place.)
3. Even we wanted to, we just don't have the time, motivation, will, or money to go develop and register or patent every single stinking idea that comes up off the tops of our heads, as ideas and projects need to be thoroughly developed in order to have something worth claiming as intellectual property. Nor would it be fair to do so just for the sake of hoarding *ideas*, as anyone should be able to be *inspired* by the works of others for their own creative projects without worrying about ripping other people off. Even historically, it seems a little unfair that the first person to publish a theorem or theory goes down in history forever as the one who thought it up. How many people might have ended up famous if they'd simply published their work or theory in March instead of April?
4. Frangles strongly promotes the spirit and principles of the US Fair Use Act in regards to copyright and use of others' material, and hence they should be a founding point for our own philosophies. In particular, we support the general copyright violation test factor of how creative/original and independent a work in question is from the accuser in question. That is, selling a bit by bit plagiarization of the game Fable is entirely illegal, but using the ideas of Fable to create your own nonlinear fantasy game leans much more toward allowable. Hence even if we *wanted* to be asses and hoard all our infinitely-humble noel prize brilliance, it would probably be more legal trouble than it would be worth. The sharing of ideas and concepts in global human society should be a friendly town pool open to anyone. (Obviously finished works or thoroughly developed/fleshed-out concepts are a different story. Frangles' hopes to inspire, but of course that doesn't mean anything we post is in the public domain; all posted Frangles material is copyrighted under US law, and its free use is limited to whatever restrictions we're put on that material at that time. As a rough general rule, may read and download material for personal use but not distribute it or profit from it unless otherwise noted.)
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Obviously copyright laws may vary significantly in content from country to country and planet to planet, so please just be nice and respect the general guiding moral principles outlined ad nauseum here and likely nobody will have to implode anybody else's planet, galaxy, or ku. Thanks!