Time to start selling "services" instead of goods?
cch...@comcast.net
So how about this:
Anyone doing repros, recreations, *whatever*, offer the *service* of
printing the artwork on a useable media. This artwork can only be sold
to persons who own that particular machine for which the artwork is
for and will sign a release form swearing to that end.
Is it not legal for someone to reproduce an item for a game they own?
Would it not then be legal to pay someone for a *service* that the
owner cannot accomplish on their own?
If the service provider required the buyer to sign a form stating they
they do indeed own the game in question and perhaps limit services to
two items (one for use, one for backup) per customer, would this not
be an "end around" the dingo's incessant yapping?
I really don't know...metallik, you seem to have researched this stuff
quite a bit, what do you think?
-cody
CARGPB4
IMMark
I don't know all of the legal issues....but I agree 100% that the low
life is a boil on the hobby! I will reproduce/repair any artwork that
I own a original of...if my Bally backglass is flaked and I want a new
one...it's mine and I am going to do it! Don't send me any BS C&D
letters...my machines and I am doing what I want. If that butt wipe
spent a fraction of his time doing any good at all for the hobby, it
might be a different story. There are others that I know whom I
trust, and while I won't post everything on an open fourm for the scum
to see, I will work with those people to further this great hobby.
Mark
beaver
Edward Cheung CARGPB26
www.edcheung.com
Mark_in_PA
It is my belief we are "allowed" to restore our games and that
includes getting others to help with the service. I would argue it
goes even beyond that and I'll be glad to get involved in a lawsuit to
help end this foolishness.
Someone send me something you are afraid to sell and I'll sell it for
zero profit as long as a portion goes to the PHOF.
Fred Kemper
a "no" in the context that you've described.
In the end, a "product" is still the result.
Certainly *for yourself* is fine on your own
game.
"Sharing _your_ skills" is fine as well. Telling
someone_how_to do something. (Providing
*that* info isn't copyrighted...)
Probably gets even muddier when you get into
the "Restoration" business. Those guys are, and
have been doing as you describe for some time.
Muddier yet, the folks that retail reconditioned/restored
games as well. They "own" the games, yet often must
make pieces for "their own" games. Not legal for them!
Too many interpretations to nail this down without a
copyright specialist at hand. ($$$$$!)
--
Fred
TX
CARGPB#8
******************
<cch...@comcast.net> wrote
cch...@comcast.net
The point I was trying to make is this:
You own the game, so you own *one* copy of the artwork, if I
understand correctly (IIUC).
You may make a copy of this artwork to repair your damaged game, IIUC.
You may make a copy of this artwork to keep as a "backup" in case of
future damage, IIUC.
Since you own one copy of the intellectual property, why would it be
illegal to pay someone for the service of reproducing all or part of
that artwork in a format that can be used for repairs to your game?
I am not talking about producing bulk products for retail sales. I am
talking about taking an order for service for an individual, then
providing a service that provides artwork that they already "own" one
copy of. As long as the buyer signs a form swearing that is the case,
what is the problem (I'm not saying there is no problem, I'm really
asking what prevents this from being legal)?
-cody
CARGPB4
PS: Fred, are those two games you're going to work on today your games
on route?
---- Feb 10, 10:45 am, "Fred Kemper" <pbgar...@davlin.net> wrote:
> Although I do see your point, I'd have to give it
> a "no" in the context that you've described.
>
> In the end, a "product" is still the result.
>
> Certainly *for yourself* is fine on your own
> game.
>
> "Sharing _your_ skills" is fine as well. Telling
> someone_how_to do something. (Providing
> *that* info isn't copyrighted...)
>
> Probably gets even muddier when you get into
> the "Restoration" business. Those guys are, and
> have been doing as you describe for some time.
>
> Muddier yet, the folks that retail reconditioned/restored
> games as well. They "own" the games, yet often must
> make pieces for "their own" games. Not legal for them!
>
> Too many interpretations to nail this down without a
> copyright specialist at hand. ($$$$$!)
>
> --
> Fred
> TX
> CARGPB#8
> ******************
> <cchu...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
>
> > Is it not legal for someone to reproduce an item for a game they own?
> > Would it not then be legal to pay someone for a *service* that the
> > owner cannot accomplish on their own?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
metallik
>
> So how about this:
>
> Anyone doing repros, recreations, *whatever*, offer the *service* of
> printing the artwork on a useable media. This artwork can only be sold
> to persons who own that particular machine for which the artwork is
> for and will sign a release form swearing to that end.
have to read up on case law and precedent to see what was possible.
To put it in some kind of perspective, here's a range of scenarios and
my opinion on legality:
Plainly legal: you tough up art on your own game
Plainly legal: you scan/touchup/print replacement art for your own
game
Plainly legal: you go touch up art on a friend's game for free
Likely legal: scanning parts from someone else's game to make parts/
reproductions for only your game
Likely legal: you print reproduction art for a friend's game for free
Likely legal: you touchup a friend's game for money or other
compensation (non-professional work here)
Maybe legal: you hire a commercial artist to touch up your game for
you (professional work)
Maybe legal: you give reproduction art files to a friend with the same
game so he prints out his own replacements
Not legal: you put those files on the web for anyone to download
Not legal: you sell reproduction art to your friends (but you'll
easily get away with it)
Not legal: you sell reproduction art to anyone who asks
A big key to achieving fair use status is non-commercial use. If you
charge money, you are profiting from someone else's art, and it will
be tough to get that past a judge regardless of other circumstances.
Personal use is just about guaranteed fair use: it's my game and I can
do whatever I want to restore it for myself, period. Hiring someone to
touch up one machine is somewhat grey area, because it's not really a
reproduction, and it's only *one* machine (quantity of copying counts
in fair use), so the monetary aspect here isn't the killer it would be
normally.
Jim D. in TN
on legislative history and case law. The section on "fair use" ran
498 pages. If you'd like a copy, see http://williampatry.blogspot.com/
2007/01/my-treatise-is-now-available.html. A copy is ~$1450.
Jim D. in TN
Jim D. in TN
a trademark or a copyright symbol and manufactured prior to 1989 gain
the protection of copyright law?
Jim D. in TN
greatw...@hotmail.com
My interpretation: How many companies are touching up or restoring
games for sale. Either theirs or outside sources. Whether it be
missing paint, missing text over light inserts, etc. What's the
difference in repairing your playfield with patches, paint, overlays
or rescreening art to playfield. None, you are the owner & someonelse
is helping you restore the original game you own. This isn't making
additional playfields for the mareket, it's restoring the playfield
you own. So time to stop all the bullshit from the greedy parties,
that think they own all the rights & can screw you over for a
buck(many!).
Fred Kemper
They belong to a local op. I service all of their "problem child"
games, as they have no competent technician. I do not operate
games, but I do lend my games to operators that need fill in pieces
from time to time. Also, when I wish to see a game "finished off".
(AFM) :D
Fred
TX
CARGPB#8
-------------------------------------------------
cch...@comcast.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's good to hear you're doing what you can for route pinball. I hope
to be doing something myself very soon!
And that was a cruel comment about Marz...:) Funny, but cruel...
-cody
CARGPB4