Classic Arcade Grafix now selling Proto Defender artwork... :-(
Alpha1
What a bunch of tossers.
Wonder how many proto defenders will pop up now..
They suck.
/o
william...@yahoo.com
probably would put an end to this. LucasArts is VERY protective of its
intellectual rights. Wouldn't hurt to let Williams/Bally to know about
this as well. As someone who owns one of these early versions, I don't
see this as a threat but I don't appreciate it either. It will be
pretty obvious if someone has repro art vs. the original on it.
Mark
RedWolfJC
bon...@aol.com
Maybe the guy who bought Pat Danis's machine recently (last
spring/summer?)
Pat D.
here occasionally and I don't think he would "sell" out to that crowd.
Perhaps they took the photos of the cabinets that are on the websites
and cut and pasted them together.
Besides, I didn't have the front artwork.
Pat D.
william...@yahoo.com
at LucusFilms. I also let the seller know that this correspondence was
sent. Let's see if anything comes from that. A lawyer once told me that
copyright violations have to be enforced vigorously. If the holder of
the copyright doesn't then it weakens their ability to enforce the
copyright. We'll see if this is the case.
Alpha1
This ary will let scumbags sell defenders as proto's.
See the real picture for a moment before you rant your mouth off.
/o
"Cyrus Cosmo" <sirus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163101102.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why do you give a fck what they are producing? Are you the copywrite
> police? Are you a Lucas Arts attorney? While you're at it why don't
> you turn in every person out there that is helping keep the hobby going
> by repro'ing parts, artwork, etc to the appropriate authorities you
> pillow biter.
>
gsrogers
over-valued proto Defender does not make it cool for you to get high
and mighty. What about all the other reproed stuff out there? I do
not think this will affect the value of your machine so why stick your
nose in it. To be honest, I like my Defender the way I remember
playing it....production artwork. I would not be interested in
purchasing these but I would not report them. Chill....
Cyrus Cosmo
william...@yahoo.com
your panties in a bunch about something with which you have absolutely
no skin in the game. I own one of these and after I get two emails from
collectors who know I have this game asking me if I am going to dump it
because of it, it ticks me off. And further it pisses me off because
its being done by the inkjet scabs who steal scans of stuff off the
internet or scans of repro art that was already done. If this was one
of the reputable repro guys or a fellow collector, I wouldn't give a
damn. But this is being done by someone who has been called out by
numerous people on the group. Just Google it.
The fact that you are standing up for ArcadeGraphix or whatever name
they are operating under lately calls your motives into question into
my mind. And if LucasFilm was pissed enough to make Williams pull this
artwork originally, the likelihood they will tell these guys to stop is
pretty good.
So take you idiotic comments and juvenile insults somewhere else
jackass.
gsrogers
My position is not for or against this particular seller.....just the
fact that you seem hipocrytical that you are now upset that this
particular artwork has surfaced. It is like someone that owns a "home
use only" Ms. Pacman with perfect original sideart getting mad that
there is reproed sideart decals. The value to a true collector is
still there because they want original and to be honest, any prospect
for your game will know the difference... I feel the value of your
machine is secured and this will not change it. This is my opinion
just like you are entitled to yours....I just think emailing Lucas is a
bit much.
Cyrus Cosmo
Just because I don't own a prototype means I can't inject what an
elitist ass you are? Your last post made it obvious that you just
don't LIKE the person doing the repro. So, since you don't like this
person or their work you're trying to get them into legal trouble and
fuck with the someone's livelyhood and potentially screw up repro
business for all the others in the hobby?
My motive is simple - don't rock the fucking boat because you're not
the only one in it. Just because it doesn't benefit YOU and YOUR
insignificant desires don't go fucking it up for the rest of the people
who might want this art and also fucking up someone who might make a
buck or two off of it.
And no - I don't WANT this art and I think it's ugly as hell. Bringing
unnecessary attention to OTHER people that repro parts and art for the
hobby could potentially be affected too is what I (and a probably most
everyone in the hobby) I'm motivated by.
Cyrus Cosmo
guinn...@gmail.com
repros of all kinds off the shelf. Personally I like tapping into my
discerning senses about what is good and what is bad and I don't call
the cops when I don't like the bad.....because it could lead to a
future quality repro project to not happen......and I'm not talking
about any particular artwork.
tim (NH)
Shred
attention to the hole repo industry and can hurt everyone.
Dave
big dog
I really dont know what to say about that artwork being made. I think
it looks like shit to begin with, not to mention their version is shitty
inkjet and a even shitter company. I can see the point of the folks who
spent lots of money on the original protos, it could lessen the value.
I however dont think it will as most folks dont like that art and those
who do and are in the know, would still value the original and pay the
price for one. It is like anything else though, I cant even count up
the ammount of money I spent on machines with nice art etc only to see
the art be reproduced. Then there were other shitty machines I have
that look nice now due to reproduced art, so I never let it bother me.
I have lost and won;0
Mark Capps
Cyrus Cosmo wrote:
> HI SAL!
>
william...@yahoo.com
way Cosmo has expressed them, but that just files him under the "Don't
do business with" file. I'm sure he will do the same with my "elitist"
ass as well.
todd...@yahoo.com
artwork that I spent hours scanning, retouching and vectorizing. I can
tell because it has the same defects that I didn't fix. Nobody paid me
for it or even acknowledged the work I did. The first example of this
is the Space Invaders control panel artwork. I scanned my control
panel and worked on that artwork for days. It's since been reproduced
and someone made money from that. Don't assume that arcadegraphix are
the only "scumbags" who repro artwork they didn't create or retouch.
It's been suggested that Lucas asked Williams to stop using the artwork
on the so-called "Defender Prototypes" but there's no proof of that.
It's only speculation. The artwork on those cabinets is not
copyrighted by Lucas, even if it resembles some of their work. There
was no legal proceeding held between Williams and Lucas regarding this
artwork. Nobody in this newsgroup holds the copyrights to the artwork
either.
There are more than just the 5 or 6 so-called "prototype" Defenders.
I've seen more than the 5 or 6 and I've seen them in rotting and
seemingly un-repairable condition. I never did understand all the
hoopla over the perceived "prototypes". I think that's a bunch of BS.
There has also been at least 2 auctions of that artwork before this,
listed as NOS.
My best guess is that the artwork being auctioned was likely created
from an electronic copy I have. I've passed it along to several people
so it's hard to say how it ended up being printed and sold on e-bay. I
also had copies of the original Joust artwork that I passed along to
someone who does repro's. Would you rather I kept this stuff to myself
or share it?
As for the auction, in the words of Art: "What's wrong with selling
something for profit? That's capitalism."
prOk
poke the sleeping giant.. Ok, so you may or may not want the proto Defender
art done (which personally I think sucks, but i'd also never repro something
that's rare due to the odd factor), but what happens if Lucasfilm really
does open the eyes? What happens if they start to see all the other Star
Wars stuff being done out there and decide to pay attention? No cockpit
art, no sideart, no marquees.. all of it could be C&D'd by lucasfilm.
/b
<todd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163107087.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tom
news:1163107087.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Unfortunately I've seen all of the shops that make repro's selling
> artwork that I spent hours scanning, retouching and vectorizing. I can
> tell because it has the same defects that I didn't fix. Nobody paid me
> for it or even acknowledged the work I did.
I have stopped contributing to localarcade for that specific reason. Once I
saw my files being sold by a certain ink-jetter, that did it for me. I have
done several pieces over the last year. I plan to offer some of the files
to the community. I also plan to offer up ready to install Zoo Keeper
marquess at some point. I have a couple of prototypes out to friends. I
need to fix one small part of the art though. I really should update my
site.
-Tom
Steve Muccione
decision not to enjoin Williams from selling the infringing artwork. It
didn't need to go that far as Williams changed it on it's own.
However, if someone decided to produce that artwork NOW, then Lucas could
very well go after them for infringment on this artwork... irregardless of
anything that Williams did.
<todd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163107087.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
william...@yahoo.com
implications for things like other Star Wars art or the multi-game
kits, etc. I was just so pissed that a couple of collectors are sending
me emails to the effect of, "I told you that you should have sold it to
me. Now look ArcadeGrafix is making the art. Haha." I've never offered
mine up for sale or trade. I've just refused the private offers that
were made. And like I said earlier, the cherry was that this was
ArcadeGrafix was the repro'er. I sincerely meant that I wouldn't care
if it was Darin, Brian or one of the other collectors who did this.
They bring value to the hobby while making some measure of profit from
their art. ArcadeGrafix are merely opportunists who have a record of
stealing the work of other collectors on the boards.
So, I am sorry to all that this may have effected negatively. On the
plus side, the likelihood that LucasFilms will do anything about it is
probably nil.
todd...@yahoo.com
Perhaps that's your impression Steve but nothing in the drawing appears
to be copyright of Lucas. If the artwork said "Star Wars" or had an
exact character or other work of art from Lucas then they might have a
leg to stand on. I seriously doubt it though as it would be argued
that the work in its totality is not identical to any Lucas trademark,
logo or other copyrighted work. Does Nintendo have a copyright on any
monkey that's drawn? Even it if resembles Donkey Kong? How closely
does it have to resemble DK to be infringing? DK is an even tighter
example because the monkey in itself is a defining icon of Nintendo.
The infringement you mention has always been an assumption on the part
of some people in RGVAC.
prOk
artwork that too closely resembles someone elses copyrighted work.. The tie
fighters and xwings on that art apply and lucasfilm had a case and enforced
it. Same thing with nintendo, not only can you not use the donkey kong
name, you can't use a likeness that is too similar to the nintendo character
without nintendo having a case. Many times it is grey whether it really is
infringement or not, but if its you vs nintendo you back down in a hurry.
Read up a bit on copyright law.. you'll quickly realize just how off your
statements are.
<todd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163114960.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Matt Mac Donagh
LOL!
Matt
"Cyrus Cosmo" <sirus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163105598.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> HI SAL!
>
Steve Muccione
You can't reproduce even PART of a copyrighted item without infringing...
There is just SO much case law to even start with...
"prOk" <bso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-JednU79SqNCJs7Y...@comcast.com...
Raven
Wouldn't you rather have it out in the open like this so that you can
call attention to fake ones that might show up? Or would you rather
have the scans (and you KNOW they exist) stay underground and have
fakes trickle onto the market?
Well-made, silkscreened artwork on a low number machine is going to
hurt you much more than inkjet stickers slapped on a rebuilt cab. This
stuff is just there for the folks who want a colorful game....not the
people who would spend the money on the real deal.
Tim O
<game...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Fred! Love you Richard! Fuck you Artie!!!
>
>LOL!
>
>Matt
Areeva darchi cock suckers!
Great to know other fans are here, it is. LOL.
todd...@yahoo.com
I've seen nothing to substantiate that. Lucas didn't invent the
concept of air/spacecraft that resemble xing or tie fighters. Do some
research on aviation history to see all the crazy stuff the US military
has tried to fly. I don't see anything in that artwork that represents
a possible infringement.
I also have a lot of experience with copyright law. I write software
for a living, which is different from art but the same copyright law
applies to both. Copyrights protect authorship. Something you produce
in a physical, tangeable medium. Copyright law explicitly does not
protect concepts or ideas. The concept of an aircraft is not
protected, meaning that you can draw an aircraft of any type that can
be dreamed up. As long as the drawing does not depict an icon, symbol
or other exact representation of a protected work. Donkey Kong is
protected as a copyrighted, well known icon. A gorilla is not. You
could create an entirely new game based on a gorilla and be free/clear
of any possible infringement.
By law, every work you create is automatically copyrighted but it
likely won't hold up in court unless it's officially registered. Lucas
would need a copyright on the exact image on the Defender prototypes in
order to declare an infringement. In the cases I've seen enforced, you
have to have an exact replica of the infringed product and be selling
it in the same market/media. That means you'd have to cut and paste an
exact image of the tie fighters and xwings drawn by Lucas. Drawing
your own space/aircraft that look like tie fighters or xwings is not
infringing. Your drawing is your own according to the government. The
idea or concept of a tie fighter/xwing could be declared as IP but that
would be a patent and not a copyright.
Copyrights last more than the 20 years that some people try to pass off
as "law". That's completely false. Distributing ROM's of games that
are over 20 years old is still illegal. The law varies but a copyright
lasts for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. For an anonymous
work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright
endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication
or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires
first.
You might want to take a look at this:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
The seller could easily be sued by Williams for reproducing their
copyrighted work. I don't think there's any doubt about that. At the
price he's asking, one would assume that he legally obtained the right
to reproduce it. In reality, I think we all know that he hasn't
obtained the rights.
prOk
patent or copyright, either way you cannot so closely replicate someone
elses property without it being subject to legal problems.. I too deal
with copyrights and patents on a daily basis at the company I work for..
been a software developer for years. I can't closely follow anyone elses
work, put my own spin on it and think someone's not going to get involved
legally no matter how much I *think* I know about copyright law. Heck,
people sue each other every day over IP that was never even filed anywhere.
Sure, many times by the strictest letter of the law you may win, you may
not.. but either way it's you vs lucasfilm.. guess who wins.
You do state physical tangible medium is what is protected, you're right
there.. Tie Fighters, Xwings, Mickey Mouse and the like are just that, and
subject to protection. Lucas created the characters, models, movies etc
that are worth far more than any software package you or I would ever build
and he would certainly have the right to protect his property against
copycats or companies trying to capitalize on his investment by making
something oh so close to his property.
http://www.andys-arcade.net/personal/defproto/handcut.JPG
Take a look at that picture and seriously tell me that's not a copy of a
star wars Xwing that if you owned the legal rights to, you would not sue to
protect your property.
/b
<todd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163169532....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Steve Muccione
sounds like the same market to me... and I'm sure everything in there is
copyrighted, including the sideart on the cabs...
and it DOESN'T have to be a cut-paste of the work.
<todd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163169532....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Wade
"How do you know "This art was already stopped once by Lucas' lawyers".
I've seen nothing to substantiate that."
While I like prok and think he does a lot to help the community, I
agree with the above statement entirely. I think the "art was stopped
by Lucas' lawyers" is a good example of people making assumptions on
the groups/forums, and with time it somehow becomes "fact."
The bottom line is:
Does anyone have any proof that Williams was forced to stop the
artwork?
The same goes for the stencils prok sells that were "created form the
original Williams CAD files". I find this statement extremely unlikely
to be true! I think it would be much easier to prove that Williams
didn't use CAD to cut their stencils, than it would be to prove that
Brian somehow got ahold of an ancient file and somehow converted it to
a modern image standard. I don't think CNC machines had even been
invented in 1982, and even if so, it wouldn't be cost effective for
Williams to use it just to cut some trivial stencils. It could be done
cheaper by hand.
Wade
prOk
reality that it DID change before production. Rumor mill says it was
Lucasfilm and I wouldn't be at all surprised as they were involved in games
via Atari.
As for the stencils created from original CAD files.. they were not CAD
files, I didn't say that.. they are modern vector art recreations of the
plots and bezier curves retrieved from original tapes by a company that did
the original metal stencil work for williams. If you know the plotpoints
and the curves you can faithfully recreate the art as originally intended,
in this case a computer did it. Mechanically guided cutting/stamping
machines certainly existed in the 60's and 70's. As long as a
designer/architect provides the fabricator with plot points and curves it
can be made, even if by hand. Metalwork is a craft that's been around for
hundreds of years before computers made it easy :)
Currently, the only file I have that is from the original plots is Joust..
that is all that was retrieved completely from the tape although parts of
Sinistar were there too apparently. Again, the files were not CAD in any
way and I never said they were. This is what I do say on my site: These
stencils are cut using the original machine plots found on a 27 year old
reel to reel computer tape that were interpreted into a modern EPS file!
Just wanted to dispel that myth :)
/brian
"Wade" <wadel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163173055.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
todd...@yahoo.com
Wade wrote:
> The same goes for the stencils prok sells that were "created form the
> original Williams CAD files". I find this statement extremely unlikely
> to be true! I think it would be much easier to prove that Williams
> didn't use CAD to cut their stencils, than it would be to prove that
> Brian somehow got ahold of an ancient file and somehow converted it to
> a modern image standard. I don't think CNC machines had even been
> invented in 1982, and even if so, it wouldn't be cost effective for
> Williams to use it just to cut some trivial stencils. It could be done
> cheaper by hand.
>
> Wade
While I can argue with Brian about the copyright issue and whether or
not Williams was told to stop producing the artwork at issue, I support
his statement that he has the original interpreted files used for
Joust. I was involved in some way in making that happen and yes, his
statement is correct. There is also some other artwork that is
available in that format but it hasn't been passed around yet. It
takes a lot of work to convert those files and make sure they're
correct. The original data files were used to run a machine that cut
stencils.
Hopefully Brian doesn't think I'm just being a jerk to him. I just
dispute that any evidence exists to suggest Williams was slapped on the
hand for using that artwork. Maybe we should try to get a hold of some
people from Williams and find out...?
Matt Mac Donagh
its way OT though.
Who dis?
Matt
"Tim O" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qok8l2lkhiq2q8k2u...@4ax.com...
Wade
> You're right there wade.. nobody has proof of anything legally... just the
> reality that it DID change before production. Rumor mill says it was
> Lucasfilm and I wouldn't be at all surprised as they were involved in games
> via Atari.
Thanks for the clarification, prok. I didn't think there was proof,
and that it was just speculation, but you never know when an authority
(like the guy who owns all that vintage Atari stuff) is going to pop in
with a scan of a C&D letter or something! I think it is agreed by
almost everyone here that the similarity to Star Wars was *probably* a
big factor in why the artwork changed (maybe the only reason). That's
about all we can say about it with any authority.
> As for the stencils created from original CAD files.. they were not CAD
> files, I didn't say that.. they are modern vector art recreations of the
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it was my paraphrasing
what I had in my memory... clearly I shouldn't have used the quotes.
Regardless of the technical details, I still find it hard to believe
that the original data was found. First, I am skeptical that the
stencils were even cut mechanically (or computer controlled). Maybe
someone has some photos or inside knowledge to support this. It looks
like the original cabinets were hand-sprayed - we're talking low tech,
manual labor. Why would they go through the trouble of having a
stencil cut using a relatively high tech device? They could easily cut
the few stencils they'd need by hand, and use them for thousands of
games if made from metal or something else rigid. I find it even more
of a stretch that the data was saved, the tape data survived and
resurfaced, and someone found an ancient machine to read it. It would
be relatively easy for someone to appear with data they claim came
directly from the original source, and with no way (to my knowledge) to
verify it... Let's just say I'm skeptical. ;)
I have no special inside knowledge about how the cabinets were build
and painted, nor whether they were done in-house or not. So I don't
have much to go on here, either. FWIW.
It could be that someone well known who worked for Williams at the time
can provide some pictures of a machine spraying a cabinet, or a machine
cutting some stencils, or even just verbally confirm that there was a
mechanical process for making the stencils, or what not. If that
happens, that's fine, I'll accept it. But I'm naturally a very
skeptical person.
Thanks,
Wade
Tim O
<todd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>While I can argue with Brian about the copyright issue and whether or
>not Williams was told to stop producing the artwork at issue, I support
>his statement that he has the original interpreted files used for
>Joust. I was involved in some way in making that happen and yes, his
>statement is correct. There is also some other artwork that is
>available in that format but it hasn't been passed around yet. It
>takes a lot of work to convert those files and make sure they're
>correct. The original data files were used to run a machine that cut
>stencils.
>
>Hopefully Brian doesn't think I'm just being a jerk to him. I just
>dispute that any evidence exists to suggest Williams was slapped on the
>hand for using that artwork. Maybe we should try to get a hold of some
>people from Williams and find out...?
Eugene Jarvis is outgoing and seems pretty available to talk at
expo's, etc. Perhaps someone could get it right from a truly inside
source? I'd also like to hear him comment on how many of these
machines he remembers, because it seems like new ones pop up every
year or so.
Tim
prOk
machines were almost certainly sprayed by hand, but the stencils used were
brass.. The concept of CNC was not around then, but automated die and
milling certainly were.. as early as the 50's automated hydraulic milling
machines that operated on data from punch cards existed.. here's a small
excerpt from a historical document regarding early automated milling:
"Numerical control occurred in 1953. Working for the U.S. Air Force,
researchers at MIT adapted a large vertical miller to a n electronic control
system which received its instructions from drawings programmed onto a
punched tape. Reading the pattern of holes in the tape, the electronic
system then actuated the hydraulic controls of the miller in three
dimensions. Advances in numerical control occurred apace with advances in
electronics, from he use of vacuum tubes to control and amplify electronic
data, to the development of solid state components, such as transistors, to
integrated circuitry (the miniaturization of solid state electronics), to
the introduction of the minicomputer in 1971. Before computer numerical
control, specially designed numerical control circuits were wired to meet
the requirements of a particular machine tool. The circuitry had no capacity
for storing data. A general purpose minicomputer replaced the specialized
circuitry, and system requirements were programmed, not wired, into the
machine. Mini computers still read their instructions off a punched tape,
but these instructions could be stored in the computers memory, and 'played
back' as often as required. Microprocessors completed the development of the
milling machine into the tool we have today."
At the time in the early 80's when williams was a fairly big company
something as trivial as having a 3rd party mechanically cut metal stencils
for cabinet production is far from science fiction.. Probably more of a
necessity as I doubt Williams posessed the ability to cut metal in such a
fashion in house for no reason other than the manufacture of stencils to
paint with, this kind of thing was outsourced. When you are producing
thousands of something, it's very cost effective to have someone else
manufacture something like this. What was retrieved from the tapes is
essentially the 80's equivalent of the 1950's punch card data from a company
that did that kind of machining work as a service. In all reality, the
original stencils weren't the only thing cut out by machines then, the
cabinet parts themselves were cut mechanically. Ever notice how exact they
are from one to the next? If you've never built a cabinet yourself, try
building 2 of them from templates you know to be perfect, you'll see how
difficult it is to get 2 right when you're the only person working on it,
much less 2000. When you're producing thousands of cabinets it's simply not
realistic to cut each one by hand no more than car makers in the 50's
pounded out each fender by hand. I know the 80's seem like an archaic
time, but such technologies existed long before then and were used in mass
production quite commonly.
I wish I could just point everyone to the person that provided the file to
me and the history behind it all as he does read this group, but he asked
that I not say who he is. I was a doubting thomas at first too, until I saw
the file. The precision of the curves is just too much to have been done by
hand, i've done a ton of illustrator work through the years, I couldn't
match it if I tried. I really wish I knew more about the process of
translating the data, as it was explained to me, a custom interpreter was
written to convert the data on the tape to something a modern vector app
could do something with. Of course, it could all be a hose that I fell
for, but it would be a very good one considering that a very good vectoring
of the art was publicly available in addition to the one I redrew from a
scan long before this art popped up.
"Wade" <wadel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163192598.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
prOk
just healthy discussion about a fun gaming topic, nothing more.. No reason
for anyone's blood pressure to go up :) I may be in the minority, but I
really enjoy hearing the differences in people's viewpoints.
I just got done posting a rambling dissertation about the history of
mechanical metalwork and dancing around the origins of the original info and
you post this :) hehe. I feel like Pinky, should I scream NARF! now?
Wade, todd, and whoever else, please don't take anything said in this thread
as being personal or mean spirited. There's no emotion involved, just open
debate on a topic :)
/brian
<todd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163176248....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...