Question: Copyrights? Please don't get aggressive in this thread.
Jesse
I have a plain old question. I know a little about copyright laws as far as music, etc. But want to
know more about pinball/arcade stuff. I've seen reproduction spinner decals, playfield overlays,
plastics, cabinet decals, apron decals, backglasses, cpo's, side art, etc, etc on Ebay and the web.
Do these people have a right to sell this stuff? Are there royalties that are paid to the copyright
owner? Is there any legal mumbo jumbo that allow or deny the sale of these products?
Remember, please do not get aggressive or personally attack anyone for their opinion on the matter.
I know it can be a touchy subject to some.
Curious..
--
Jesse
S*B, E*BD, T*Z
Dave Bishop
try to sell covertly. ;-)
DB
"Jesse" <dre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%1xP8.90255$X9.32...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Matt Hoy
copyright holder. However, the people who actually own the copyrights on this stuff are out of
business, for the most part. I think that the people doing repro stuff are providing a much needed
service to the community. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...
Copyright law is badly in need of some reform. Our founding fathers never intended copyright to be as
far reaching as it is today. The original term of copyright was 14 years. Today, it has been extended
to "life of the creator plus 70 years". For corporate works, or "works for hire", the term is extended
to 95 years from creation. That means that our favorite mid-90's pinballs won't enter the public
domain until around 2085. By that time, anyone who actually remembers playing them will be in a
nursing home gumming mush. Anyone who knows how to reproduce the parts for them will be long gone.
And that's a a shame, because copyright law was originally created to ensure that things would NOT be
forgotten.
The framers of the US constitution created the copyright clause for one reason:
"to promote science and the useful arts"
Notice that there is no mention of lining the pockets of corporate America? The framers wanted to
ensure that the public would have access to new creations. So they engineered a compromise. Artists
were given a short-term, government sponsored monopoly on their creation. In exchange, they agreed to
give up all rights to that creation after the copyright term expired. The work would enter the
"public-domain", where anyone could use it for any purpose. This seems like a equitable deal. The
artist has a certain amount of time to profit off of their work, and the public receives the benefits
of that work on a slightly delayed schedule. But it wasn't enough for some people...
Thanks to major corporations like Disney, copyright term has been extended again and again over the
last 40 years. If it weren't for the relentless lobbying of Disney et al, Mickey Mouse would be
entering the public domain next year. But, Disney knows that as soon as their copyright on Mickey
expires, they will lose control of him as a "brand spokesman". The American people have held up their
end of the bargain: Disney has had more than 80 years to capitalize on Mickey. But when is Disney
going to hold up their end of the deal and give us what we've paid for?
I think copyright, in its original short term form, is useful and necessary. But why on earth do we
think that an artist of creator needs almost 100 years of monopoly on their creation? The only entity
to benefit from extended copyright term is a corporation.
If copyright term today were returned to it's original length, there would be a great deal more
activity in the public domain. There would be many more books and plays and pictures that could be
freely distributed over the net without fear of the copyright police. There would be more music to
download and enjoy. Sure a few major corporations might take a hit in the pocketbook, but the
benefits to the general public far outweigh the needs of a few corporations. And that nicely sums up
the original intent of copyright. The public interest far outweighs the greed of a corporation.
Sorry for the rant. I just finished my undergraduate thesis on this very subject last month.
Matt
Christian Nyegaard
Copyright today as we know it is way out of hand, but
most people seem to think it's ok.
Sucks all ass :(((
-Chris
"Matt Hoy" <ho...@uwec.edu> wrote in message
news:3D0F4A1A...@uwec.edu...
Christian Nyegaard
They turn the people braking these laws into diehard
criminals, spreading false information and ruining peoples
lifes...
Take the recent Operation Bucaneer..
Think DoD was distributing anything via www.drinkordie.com as
the media has been saying for the last 6 months?
Hell no.
Bleh :(.
-Chris
"Christian Nyegaard" <chri...@REMOVETHISnyegaard.com> wrote in message
news:dsIP8.3564$yj7....@news4.ulv.nextra.no...
Jesse
So what is the likelihood of someone getting "busted" and have cease and desist order taken against
them?
I guess I want to know how long we will have all of these great repos around....
--
Jesse
S*B, E*BD, T*Z
"Matt Hoy" <ho...@uwec.edu> wrote in message news:3D0F4A1A...@uwec.edu...
Matt Hoy
(That's another thing that burns my ass. How does that "promote science and the useful arts"? If you
created something, you get the copyright on it. You shouldn't be able to transfer it to someone else.)
I think we have a situation similar to that faced by people who collect out of print books. These
things are no longer being produced, so people copy them. The copyright holder can't claim they're
losing money, since they aren't selling these anymore. I don't think there will be a rash of "cease and
desists" in the pinball repro community. There's nothing to be gained by shutting reproers down.
Nobody's losing any money, so nobody is going to hire a lawyer to put a stop to it.
As long as the hobby stays pretty low-key and off the radar screen, I don't think we have anything to
worry about.
Pinhead
> Not sure. Did Williams sell the copyrights to their stuff to someone
else?
> (That's another thing that burns my ass. How does that "promote science
and the useful arts"? If you
> created something, you get the copyright on it. You shouldn't be able to
transfer it to someone else.)
>
On one hand, people are asking for less regulation, but here, you ask for
more ("shouldn't be able to..."). Kind of a double edged sword, isn't it?
Christian Nyegaard
Actually, most collectors wouldn't touch a copy ;p.
But then again, the people I worked with in my last job
collected $100k first editions, maps & prints ;).
<snip>
Christian Nyegaard
So there it is;
-Chris
"Christian Nyegaard" <chri...@REMOVETHISnyegaard.com> wrote in message
news:RYKP8.3687$yj7....@news4.ulv.nextra.no...
Bret Pehrson
From what I understand, if I legitimately own the game (which presumably
includes a single-use license for the copyrighted art works on the
game), then I have the right to keep an archival copy for restorative
purposes.
Comments?
--
Bret Pehrson
http://www.vaps.org/members/nv/br...@classicade.com.html
mailto:br...@classicade.com
NOSPAM
Christian Nyegaard
This only means though that you can legally make
your own copy, it doesnt legitimize the sale nor
mass manufacturing of unauthorized copywritten material.
So the way I see it, you can buy as many NOS stickers
as you'd like, but only one un-authorized repro..
Or rather, you could keep said retro. Buying it would
probably not be legal as the item in question isn't legal.
Now this is merely my speculation, I don't know these laws
as well as I (or WE for that matter) should.
Also, I don't belive for a second ANYONE would EVER
bother you if you had 10278 million repros of the
same sticker in your home. Gene might get a bit upset
if you start selling them, but I also doubt that a LOT.
-Chris
"Bret Pehrson" <br...@classicade.com> wrote in message
news:3D0F7BF0...@classicade.com...
Matt Hoy
It's the transfer of copyright coupled with term limit extension. What I'm mad
about is that years after an artist/company has died/gone out of business,
someone still "owns" their work. If the artist/company is "dead", they can no
longer produce new works. Therefore, copyright law can no longer "promote
science and the useful arts" by giving them exclusive rights . How can they
create new works if they're dead? And what good are exclusive rights to them?
I get angry because of things like Michael Jackson "owing" a bunch of Beatles
songs.
http://www.snopes2.com/music/artists/jackson.htm
Why should be be profitting off things that should be "public domain" by now?
Maybe I'm just to idealistic.
Matt
Christian Nyegaard
You'r just not blind like a LOT of other people.
More power to you my friend.
-Chris
"Matt Hoy" <ho...@uwec.edu> wrote in message
news:3D0F7DB0...@uwec.edu...
Matt Hoy
stuff. But you can't sell backup copies to other people on greed-bay.
JLatimer
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
My comments:
1) if you give them away (plus a nominal shipping and handling fee)
you are not "of a commercial nature"
2) You could make a slight error so it is not exactly like the
orignal, say the little Bally numbers on EBD plastics. Parody Repros!
3) Is the copyright for the entire collection of graphics as a whole?
BG, plastics, etc. Reproducing a slingshot only would not violate as
it is a small piece of the whole work.
4) The copyright holder would have to prove your repros would hurt
their market. If they are not ever going to reproduce, then there is
no market effect.
http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html
is a good none legal source. Interesting note, you can not sue unless
your copyright is registered with the gov. Of course it will cost you
to find out if the copyright was ever issued.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ22.html
So the C&D order would be the only thing stopping me, and it may never
come!
John!
"Jesse" <dre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<%1xP8.90255$X9.32...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
>
Christian Nyegaard
to register the copyright in order to take legal action
against violation against John Doe making repro
plastics?
If so, good! :)
-Chris
"JLatimer" <jlat...@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:c6c3d65d.02061...@posting.google.com...
Matt Hoy
larger copyrighted whole. I think you'll be waiting a long time for that cease and desist. :)
JLatimer
http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html
Do a search for the manufacturer or the specific game.
From our beloved Gov't:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
My comments:
1) give them away! (plus a nominal fee for shipping and handling)
3) if the entire game is copyrighted then reproducing a slingshot
would be okay as it is a small part of the whole.
4) if there is no market, no harm can be done.
As an aside, unless the copyright has been registered, the owner can
not sue.
SO until the C&D order with the copyright number comes from....
John!
"Jesse" <dre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<%1xP8.90255$X9.32...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
Herb Schanke
thread and read it again in 20 years. You'll be amazed at how your
attitudes change as you get older and more experienced.
Herb Schanke
"Matt Hoy" <ho...@uwec.edu> wrote in message
news:3D0F7DB0...@uwec.edu...
Matt Hoy
of things, but I don't think this is one of them. I did a lot of research last
semester, and I was amazed and appalled at the number of works that should have
entered the public domain by now, but haven't. Did you know that Mickey Mouse
was due to become a public domain work next year? Disney bought themselves a 20
year extension. The only problem is, all the other things that were due to come
into the public domain got pushed back by 20 years too. That means that a lot
of great works from the 30's are slowly rotting and disappearing, and we might
lose them altogether because it's "illegal" to copy and save them.
I'm not advocating a return to the original 14 year copyright term, but a happy
medium of maybe 25 years. If corporations demanded longer terms let them pay a
fee for renewal. Say, $10000. That way, if a company if out of business, their
works will go into the public domain. If they're still making money on their
stuff, $10,000 is a pittance. The renewal fees could be used to fund the
copyright office, making it a self-sustaining system.
But enough about what I think. What are your feelings on copyright? Do you
think the current system is really working?
Fred Smith
says...
<snip>
>My comments:
>
>1) give them away! (plus a nominal fee for shipping and handling)
>
>3) if the entire game is copyrighted then reproducing a slingshot
>would be okay as it is a small part of the whole.
>
>4) if there is no market, no harm can be done.
>
>As an aside, unless the copyright has been registered, the owner can
>not sue.
>
>SO until the C&D order with the copyright number comes from....
>
>John!
Don't be so quick to jump on the "Fair Use" bandwagon. I'm afraid it isn't as
easy as you imply.
I suggest the following site as a starting point to uncover some myths about
copyright:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
--FS
Matt Hoy
anybody, you're not going to hear the law knocking on your door.
"While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new
creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is
unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The
author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual
damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual
money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by
the defendant."
So, yeah, you might be asked to stop, but if you're not charging anything, they
can't sue you for damages.
Matt
JLatimer
in a nutshell. Without getting personal or naming names... has any one asked the said
owner of the previously mentioned copyrights about the possibility of obtaining
permission to use those same copyrights? I remember reading about AM's departure.
John!
Jesse
Keep chalking...
--
Jesse
S*B, E*BD, T*Z
"JLatimer" <jlat...@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:c6c3d65d.02061...@posting.google.com...
Jesse
After reading all of the good points in this thread, I have another question... Is it legal or
illegal to sell something with a Bally logo, Williams logo, or Gottlieb logo? They are present on
most backglasses that are reproduced. What about a Midway logo, etc on video game overlays?
--
Jesse
S*B, E*BD, T*Z
"Jesse" <dre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%1xP8.90255$X9.32...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Rick B
without the
permission of the owner. So, as stated in this post, whether there is anyone
that will
or is in a position to enforce any of this is a different matter. From a
similar experience
in another collector indutry, what I found was that what usually happens is
that the
'owner' of the rights tracks down the main revenue generating suppliers who
already
have revenue and investment, and then rather than cease and desists, there
is more of
a templated revenue sharing that the vendor is obligated to accept. From
what I've
seen with IPB looking to reproduce what is not being reproduced by others is
a good
sign.
Rick
"Jesse" <dre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZVSP8.90385$X9.33...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
JLatimer
Now you are getting into Trademarks! Another area entirely.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm
I think you can use the symbol as long as the trademark symbol is included.
John!
"Jesse" <dre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ZVSP8.90385$X9.33...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
Jesse
How do you know that? I couldn't find it on the website.
--
Jesse
S*B, E*BD, T*Z
"JLatimer" <jlat...@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:c6c3d65d.02061...@posting.google.com...