Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: Piru on September 06, 2010, 04:25:20 PM
-
Commodore USA has now used two different versions of the picture. One without his name and the AMIGA logo, and one with "AMIGA" logo and his name restored.
They put Marko's name back now, but they still don't seem to understand that you need a permission to use someone else's work (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html).
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8594/commodoreusaphotoshop1.gif)
**EDIT** In case someone has hard time understanding the copyright law: The image is reproduced here under 'fair use' clause, specifically use for 'commentary'.
-
The amount of comedy, drama and soap opera surrounding anything Amiga lol... will it never end?! :)
I hope he got a license from Hyperion to use that image in the first place.
-
And another post containing copywritten material that also complains about people posting material under copyright hits amiga.org.
-
I don't know why they even bothered with that case design. IMHO, it's nothing special to look at.
Their replica line would be, judging by name, based on original designs, and anything else I presume would be slimmer and more modern looking than that Fantasy case, which looks early 90s...
-
And another post containing copywritten material that also complains about people posting material under copyright hits amiga.org.
Another silly post from someone who doesn't grasp the copyright 'fair use (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fair_use)' clause.
-
The amount of comedy, drama and soap opera surrounding anything Amiga lol... will it never end?! :)
I occasionally try to relate the level of tragedy-comedy in this arena to non-Amiga friends, but the growing look of horror in their generally eyes puts me off. ;-)
I hope he got a license from Hyperion to use that image in the first place.
A license from Hyperion-Entertainment for what? They don't own "Amiga," "Fantasy," as Trademarks, nor anything to do with classic hardware; the screenshot looks pretty generic (in fact, looks more like Dopus than AmigaOS/Workbench).
-
Quick crosspost, here's a reply from the CEO (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=578528&postcount=183), also covering this issue.
Frankly I'm amazed by the level of arrogance. Apparently the CEO knows very well that this is a blatant copyright infringement, but just doesn't give a damn.
-
(in fact, looks more like Dopus than AmigaOS/Workbench).
Nah, more like ToolManager dock and various MUI stuff, all in MagicWB style.
-
Holy crap Piru. If you're so worried about it why don't you sue Commodore on Marko's behalf? What's one more lawsuit in in this freakshow called "Amiga"?
-
I hope he got a license from Hyperion to use that image in the first place.
I hope you're joking.
Hyperion have nothing to do with it at all. Hyperion don't own the image to license, Hyperion don't own the Amiga or Commodore name to license. Hyperion isn't Amiga.
Frankly I'm amazed by the level of arrogance. Apparently the CEO knows very well that this is a blatant copyright infringement, but just doesn't give a damn.
Most business owners I know are cocky and arrogant. This is small potatoes compared to what I see many small business owners in Florida doing.
-
The website is a joke, looks like a knock-off site. In case he's reading. Here are some free tips I should charge you for this...
A) Use a photographer (not your own digital camera)
B) Use original product copy
C) Hire a web designer
D) Oh and whatever you do when releasing product don't use fanboy concept art for product mockups
These are things you learn first day at a community college web design course...or as a small business owner... even in south Florida.
-
Has Marko Hirv said anything about this? I've heard several people say it is easy to find him and listed his company, but no comment from the man himself.
I'm betting he knows and doesn't care. I'm betting the "Amiga Copyright Maffia" (as someone else put it) has their panties so twisted that even if Marko came to this site and told them to relax and knock it off they still wouldn't.
WHOOOOO FREEAAAKINGGG CARRRREEESSSS ANNYYMMMOOORRRREEEE!!!!!
seriously most of the copyright and other IP holders have looooooooong since moved on. They do not care or wish to be bothered by stupid questions about a hobby they had 15 to 20 years ago. I have some art I produced on the amiga and pc 15 years ago and you can have it. In fact I don't want to be credited with most of that stuff.
This crap is getting so far out of hand it really appears that we don't want anything "amiga" or "commodore" to succede. Any before you pull out the "this is a hobby" BS let me point out that there are thousands of hobbies out there based on long defunct companies. I just saw a show on tv last night about a guy that collects and rebuilds steam vehicles including a stanley steamer. (he bought parts from someplace)
Model cars, model trains, vintage automobiles, old radios and tv's.
Oh no the Amiga is dead noone is allowed to profit on it in any way or they are "humping a corpse"
How about they are enjoying their hobby and helping other to also. You can buy a pc case with an alien head on it ut god forbid you get the rights to put a commodore logo.
-
How about they are enjoying their hobby and helping other to also.
The "I'M JUST DOING THIS TO MAKE MONEY, SCREW ALL YOU AMIGA FILTH" sentiment in Barry's reply does not indicate this.
I'm waiting for the Commodore branded toilet from Barrydore. That guy's so full of shit, I bet he knows a good toilet when he sees one!
-
The "I'M JUST DOING THIS TO MAKE MONEY, SCREW ALL YOU AMIGA FILTH" sentiment in Barry's reply does not indicate this.
I'm waiting for the Commodore branded toilet from Barrydore. That guy's so full of shit, I bet he knows a good toilet when he sees one!
after the emails and phone calls he has received I'm suprised it isn't worse. Not to mention the storm of armchair stupidity he has unleased here and elsewhere.
-
btw I reread his message to us, and I don't think it is arrogent, I think it is realistic. He doesn't think the amiga crowd is big enough to concern himself with. He is probably right. Its a bussiness of corse he is doing it for money, what the heck is wrong with that?
-
The "I'M JUST DOING THIS TO MAKE MONEY, SCREW ALL YOU AMIGA FILTH" sentiment in Barry's reply does not indicate this.
I'm waiting for the Commodore branded toilet from Barrydore. That guy's so full of shit, I bet he knows a good toilet when he sees one!
That would be the Commode Door?
... well someone had to say it... :D
-
btw I reread his message to us, and I don't think it is arrogent, I think it is realistic. He doesn't think the amiga crowd is big enough to concern himself with. He is probably right. Its a bussiness of corse he is doing it for money, what the heck is wrong with that?
Well, there is this thing called business ethic, and it appears this guy has never heard of it. Perhaps this is a matter of cultural differences too? I find it totally unacceptable business practice to steal and abuse art work.
-
Well, its pretty simple:
If a man is willing to lie (AROS support), bully (lawsuit threats) and steal (copyright infringement), odds are he won't have your best interests in mind elsewhere either.
So why should I give him money?
What if the PC turns out to be dodgy components or otherwise defective?
What if I receive a pirated OEM copy of windows with it?
Are there any reason whatsoever to buy from this guy ?
-
Are there any reason whatsoever to buy from this guy ?
No.
-
Are there any reason whatsoever to buy from this guy ?
Good question. No.
-
btw I reread his message to us, and I don't think it is arrogent, I think it is realistic. He doesn't think the amiga crowd is big enough to concern himself with. He is probably right. Its a bussiness of corse he is doing it for money, what the heck is wrong with that?
Errr, the amiga/commodore 8bit retro crowd is pretty much is ONLY potential customers. No one else would pay a premium for a Cybernet PC with a retro label slapped on it, except a minority of hobbyists who like the novelty. You don't really think these products will make store shelves in national chains, do you?!?
-
I don't know why they even bothered with that case design. IMHO, it's nothing special to look at.
If it's something he enjoyed doing, then there's no other reason needed than that. I thing it's a bit nicer than the A1200. Could someone do better? Perhaps. But that's all subjective. I prefer brunettes, that doesn't make me right or wrong compared to someone that likes blondes...
-
Well, there is this thing called business ethic, and it appears this guy has never heard of it. Perhaps this is a matter of cultural differences too? I find it totally unacceptable business practice to steal and abuse art work.
I think it is a cultural difference.
The line of thinking probably went like this: maybe the image creator will never see the image and nobody will recognize it, therefore no problem. If it is recognized the worst that will happen is the creator will request that CUSA stop using it - once again no problem. CUSA is not yet selling anything, so it would be difficult even in the case of a lawsuit to claim damages. No money lost==okay.
Here in FL at the very least businesses will not only skirt the laws but will full on push them to the breaking point if they feel they can get away with it. The usual motivation is profit, but there are also a good number of egomaniacs running businesses here who just enjoy the feeling of power or getting away with something. Ethics rarely comes into the picture. Self-entitlement is king.
-
Well, there is this thing called business ethic, and it appears this guy has never heard of it. Perhaps this is a matter of cultural differences too? I find it totally unacceptable business practice to steal and abuse art work.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you work with Windows on a regular basis? If so, it would seem that business ethics only matter to you when it doesn't mean money in your pocket. If that is the case, you seem to be confused about what ethics mean.
Personally I think you are wrong about this CUSA, and do not think you are unethical for using Windows to make money, but you don't get it both ways. Either using Windows for work is unethical, or this guy is not.
-
Either using Windows for work is unethical, or this guy is not.
..or you're trying to make mashed potatoes out of dog turds and Pringles.
-
..or you're trying to make mashed potatoes out of dog turds and Pringles.
Or chicken banana ultra walk board phone????
Yes, I can string random words together too. That doesn't change the fact that if you consider a company that commits copyright violations too unethical to do business with, you are a hypocrite for taking a different stance with other companies just because you can make a buck off of it.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you work with Windows on a regular basis?
I have several Windows XP Pro virtual machines and Windows 7 Pro virtual machine for work (mainly for Office Live Meeting). I don't see the relevance though.
If so, it would seem that business ethics only matter to you when it doesn't mean money in your pocket. If that is the case, you seem to be confused about what ethics mean.
Uh what? You're right, I don't get it. You totally lost me.
Personally I think you are wrong about this CUSA, and do not think you are unethical for using Windows to make money, but you don't get it both ways. Either using Windows for work is unethical, or this guy is not.
Really, what are you on about? What does this Windows usage have to do with anything?
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Windows or Microsoft.
-
Geesh, why can't you let this go? This is the second thread you've started about this nonsense. Why don't you do us all a favor and contact Marko and let him deal with HIS artwork. Stop acting like it's YOUR art work. He probably doesn't even care that Commodre USA has used it. If he does care he hasn't said anything about it. And to use the words "steal" and "abuse" is certainly stretching it. How was it "abused"? Did he take it out and spank it? Please stop all the b;tching.
-
I have several Windows XP Pro virtual machines and Windows 7 Pro virtual machine for work (mainly for Office Live Meeting). I don't see the relevance though.
Uh what? You're right, I don't get it. You totally lost me.
Really, what are you on about? What does this Windows usage have to do with anything?
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Windows or Microsoft.
The point is that Microsoft is well known for violating copyrights. In fact, in DOS 6.0, they didn't even bother to remove the Stacker copyright notice. They drove Stacker Inc. out of business even though Stacker was a product that was in high demand at the time. That is just one example of where MS was blatantly violating copyright. So, by your definition, they are a totally unethical company, and people should not do business with them.
Given that, what does that say about you and your use of Windows to make money?
-
Stop acting like it's YOUR art work.
I am not acting like it's my work.
He probably doesn't even care that Commodre USA has used it.
He might not. But that's beside the point.
If he does care he hasn't said anything about it.
He doesn't need to say anything. Until he does give explicit permission, the artwork cannot be used outside of "fair use" clause. Anything else is copyright infringement.
And to use the words "steal" and "abuse" is certainly stretching it.
No, it really isn't.
How was it "abused"?
1. It is used commercially for marketing purposes, without any permission from the author.
2. It's used as a design for a computer model, without any permission from the author.
3. The artwork has been modified, without any permission form the author.
4. At one point the author's name was removed from the artwork.
Please stop all the b;tching.
I will continue to discuss this issue until either a) the unauthorized use ceases or b) the author gives his permission for the usage.
-
I am very impressed by your idealism Piru !
-
I am not acting like it's my work.
He might not. But that's beside the point.
He doesn't need to say anything. Until he does give explicit permission, the artwork cannot be used outside of "fair use" clause. Anything else is copyright infringement.
No, it really isn't.
1. It is used commercially for marketing purposes, without any permission from the author.
2. It's used as a design for a computer model, without any permission from the author.
3. The artwork has been modified, without any permission form the author.
4. At one point the author's name was removed from the artwork.
I will continue to discuss this issue up until either a) the unauthorized use ceases or b) the author gives his permission for the usage.
So, did you post that from your Apple computer? You know the one made by the infamous trade mark violators?
-
@Belial6
Yeah, Piru is certainly going overboard with this picture business and the way Commodore USA used Marko's picture on their web page. With all the other copyright infringement that goes on in this world, one has to wonder why he's so angry about this case. Could be that he just doesn't like AROS? That's my opinion for what it's worth. MorphOS has missed the boat by being ported to a a new architecture. Maybe Commodore USA is cutting into his sales of MorphOS by offering PCs pre-loaded with AROS?
-
@Belial6
Yeah, Piru is certainly going overboard with this picture business and the way Commodore USA used Marko's picture on their web page. With all the other copyright infringement that goes on in this world, one has to wonder why he's so angry about this case. Could be that he just doesn't like AROS? That's my opinion for what it's worth. MorphOS has missed the boat by being ported to a a new architecture. Maybe Commodore USA is cutting into his sales of MorphOS by offering PCs pre-loaded with AROS?
Will all due respect, that is quite a stretch.
-
@Belial6
Yeah, Piru is certainly going overboard with this picture business and the way Commodore USA used Marko's picture on their web page. With all the other copyright infringement that goes on in this world, one has to wonder why he's so angry about this case. Could be that he just doesn't like AROS? That's my opinion for what it's worth. MorphOS has missed the boat by being ported to a a new architecture. Maybe Commodore USA is cutting into his sales of MorphOS by offering PCs pre-loaded with AROS?
Given the owner of Commodore USA has flat out stated that he doesn't give a **** about AROS, I imagine this isn't the case.
-
I am not acting like it's my work.
He might not. But that's beside the point.
He doesn't need to say anything. Until he does give explicit permission, the artwork cannot be used outside of "fair use" clause. Anything else is copyright infringement.
No, it really isn't.
1. It is used commercially for marketing purposes, without any permission from the author.
2. It's used as a design for a computer model, without any permission from the author.
3. The artwork has been modified, without any permission form the author.
4. At one point the author's name was removed from the artwork.
I will continue to discuss this issue up until either a) the unauthorized use ceases or b) the author gives his permission for the usage.
So who made you the Copyright Police? You can continue to post about this until the cows come home but I think most people are already tired of it and wondering why you're so pissed at Commodore USA with all the other infringement that goes on elsewhere. You've made your point and most people on this board are tired of hearing you whine about it.
-
In the meantime I will continue to sell WhichAmiga from street corners :laughing:
-
So who made you the Copyright Police? You can continue to post about this until the cows come home but I think most people are already tired of it and wondering why you're so pissed at Commodore USA with all the other infringement that goes on elsewhere.
No one did. As I've stated numerous times before I've been interested in copyright issues for a long time. I've posted about these things on a.org way before Commodore USA, for at least 5-6 years or so, probably longer.
Here's something from 2006 for instance:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=321605
And similar from 2007:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=321605
Some post from 2008:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=384389&postcount=34
As for some suggestions that I would be doing this because I'd feel threatened by AROS: Oh please, while you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you want that is just way idiotic (or should I say intellectually dishonest). This has absolutely nothing to do with AROS or MorphOS.
As for Apple being the evil empire: Yes, they do have some policies and methods I find disgusting. Probably one of the reasons I've never paid Apple a single euro. I do like some of their HW though.
You've made your point and most people on this board are tired of hearing you whine about it.
You feel confident about speaking in behalf of other people. I try to stand behind my own words and actions.
If some of you really feel tired of hearing about these things, just skip the threads I post to.
-
So who made you the Copyright Police? You can continue to post about this until the cows come home but I think most people are already tired of it and wondering why you're so pissed at Commodore USA with all the other infringement that goes on elsewhere. You've made your point and most people on this board are tired of hearing you whine about it.
Actually, I would hazard a wager that people are more tired of the "everybody does it, so it is okay" nonsense. Standing up for friends, colleagues, industry compatriots, or other people for that matter, is a necessity in this world. One should not, and does not, need the authority of a uniform or political credibility to do so. Would you sit quietly while someone robs your neighbor's house while he is on vacation?
I find it more amusing the amount of resistance to Piru's and others' brand of ethics and morality, and I have yet to read anything compelling to support the stance against.
I think it is a cultural difference.
I request elaboration.
The line of thinking probably went like this: maybe the image creator will never see the image and nobody will recognize it, therefore no problem. If it is recognized the worst that will happen is the creator will request that CUSA stop using it - once again no problem. CUSA is not yet selling anything, so it would be difficult even in the case of a lawsuit to claim damages. No money lost==okay.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Commodore USA has shown that it will with great vigor defend itself against perceived disrepute and other potentially negative publicity. But in the same move it ripped off a complaint letter with absolutely no bearing on the situation, and the very site it defended is using artwork copyrighted by merit of creation for commercial gain. In the case of a lawsuit, the mere violation Mr. Hirv's copyright is enough to garner at least a punitive reward.
Here in FL at the very least businesses will not only skirt the laws but will full on push them to the breaking point if they feel they can get away with it. The usual motivation is profit, but there are also a good number of egomaniacs running businesses here who just enjoy the feeling of power or getting away with something. Ethics rarely comes into the picture. Self-entitlement is king.
At the very least. Shady businesses exist everywhere, not just in Florida. At lot of the ones I deal with have been out of New York, California, and the Peoples Republic of China. I noticed Florida has been mentioned twice in relation to poor business acumen; I am curious about the sour grapes which apparently fester in Florida.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you work with Windows on a regular basis? If so, it would seem that business ethics only matter to you when it doesn't mean money in your pocket. If that is the case, you seem to be confused about what ethics mean.
Personally I think you are wrong about this CUSA, and do not think you are unethical for using Windows to make money, but you don't get it both ways. Either using Windows for work is unethical, or this guy is not.
Of course, Microsoft was sued by the United States Department of Justice and found guilty on many counts spanning 200+ pages. It also paid fines and settlements for its many transgressions therein. It was taken to task for the Stacker debacle, the direct result being DOS 6.22, as well as the deliberate crippling of Windows 3.x running on top of non-Microsoft DOS. It has paid through the nose for its various infractions, and in our system it has paid its debt to society. I believe the EU also has counts against it, some still in litigation. I would say that sets Microsoft and Commodore USA well apart from each other.
So, did you post that from your Apple computer? You know the one made by the infamous trade mark violators?
No, it was posted from his Linux computer. You know, the operating system full of code stolen from Unix. :hammer:
All in all, I think this thread could use a healthy dose of this,
-
No, it was posted from his Linux computer. You know, the operating system full of code stolen from Unix. :hammer:
I hear that lawsuit went really well for SCO.
Wait, whats the opposite of well ? :lol:
-
If some of you really feel tired of hearing about these things, just skip the threads I post to.
Or, if someone really gets on your nerves, there's always the ignore (http://www.amiga.org/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist) feature :lol:
-
@Karlos
Yeah, maybe Piru should just ignore Commodore USA and Barry. Everybody else is.
-
If some of you really feel tired of hearing about these things, just skip the threads I post to.
Maybe someone should start a poll about this...
Someone else can make up the question but here are some potential answers...
1. I like watching Court TV.
2. I'd rather have my eye poked with a sharp stick.
3. I'd rather have my eye poked with a sharp stick and the wound packed with salt.
4. I enjoy a nice evening deposition in the company of my loved ones.
5. Copyright discussions on Amiga.org make "Young and the Restless" look like a situation comedy.
6. I should really lighten up and not take things so seriously before my heart seizes up and I have a stroke rendering me no longer capable of writing code for my Amiga.
-
They drove Stacker Inc. out of business even though Stacker was a product that was in high demand at the time. That is just one example of where MS was blatantly violating copyright. So, by your definition, they are a totally unethical company, and people should not do business with them.
I'm not a big MS fan either, but I do like getting the facts strait....
Stacker - Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit)
And I'm not sure sure about the demand. I spend my days as a tech warning people not to use it and then charging them to recover their data when they did. It had a short life. At the time I thought MS stealing their stuff and the subsequent suing was the best revenue generator Stac could have hoped for.
Plaz
-
PIru
Ah, thats good news. Now I see what you meant on irc. i remember when that artist put that pic on aorg years ago!
-
Why was Windows brought to topic ? This is off-topic...
The line of thinking probably went like this: maybe the image creator will never see the image and nobody will recognize it, therefore no problem. If it is recognized the worst that will happen is the creator will request that CUSA stop using it - once again no problem.
Then let me tell you the line of thinking is not ethic... What would happen if every company (or pseudo company...) in the whole world was acting like this ? "Ok, let's put some shot here, if they warn us, we'll just remove it".
And it's not like he was actually working on bringing this fantasy design to life, having contracting someone to actually produce a working prototype, no... It's just here to get the attention of some Amiga lover...
So to sum up:
- un-authorized use of someone's design with the only purpose to get people into buying other products
-
@Karlos
Yeah, maybe Piru should just ignore Commodore USA and Barry. Everybody else is.
Ignore copyright violators? Should we ignore people who sell pirate software on eBay or elsewhere?
-
@Karlos
Yeah, maybe Piru should just ignore Commodore USA and Barry. Everybody else is.
Actually, I was implying that you could simply ignore Piru if his objection to CUSA's unsolicited use of other people's copyrighted work bothers you.
1. It is used commercially for marketing purposes, without any permission from the author.
2. It's used as a design for a computer model, without any permission from the author.
3. The artwork has been modified, without any permission form the author.
4. At one point the author's name was removed from the artwork.
^ this.
If the finished product resembles the design then you are getting even deeper into the violation. However, when you consider that the finished product will probably look nothing like it, there's also false advertising to consider too :lol:
-
The amount of logic fail here is astounding....
-
Maybe the artist is just waiting for Barry to make some money from this debacle, so he could actually gain something from litigation. That would make me smile.
-
I'm not a big MS fan either, but I do like getting the facts strait....
Stacker - Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit)
And I'm not sure sure about the demand. I spend my days as a tech warning people not to use it and then charging them to recover their data when they did. It had a short life. At the time I thought MS stealing their stuff and the subsequent suing was the best revenue generator Stac could have hoped for.
Plaz
Before you take that as the final word, I would suggest getting your hands on a copy of DOS 6.0. Then do a dump. I don't remember the exact file name, but Stacker's copyright notice is in the file. MS did far more than violate a patent.
-
Commodore USA has now used two different versions of the picture. One without his name and the AMIGA logo, and one with "AMIGA" logo and his name restored.
They put Marko's name back now, but they still don't seem to understand that you need a permission to use someone else's work (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html).
He actually has to also understand that you can't slap pictures of random Amiga/Commodore related pipe dreams/rehousing projects on your website when you are not actively building a machine, or even a bespoke empty case, looking remotely like that one pictured. I believe here in the EU we call this fraud ;)
-
He actually has to also understand that you can't slap pictures of random Amiga/Commodore related pipe dreams/rehousing projects on your website when you are not actively building a machine, or even a bespoke empty case, looking remotely like that one pictured. I believe here in the EU we call this fraud ;)
Well, according to their press releases, "Commodore USA, LLC designs, produces and markets a series of all-in-one Commodore branded keyboard computers, and other unique form factor computers and consumer electronics."
-
Ignore copyright violators? Should we ignore people who sell pirate software on eBay or elsewhere?
What does the unauthorized use of a clip art image have to do with pirated Amiga software on eBay?
Pirated software on eBay <> unauthorized use of an abandoned piece of clip art. As for Amiga software of the 68K variety being pirated, you've got to be kidding?? Most of the publishers of 68K Amiga software went out of business long ago and the only way anyone living in this century can get many of the titles if they want to investigate classic Amigas is to make copies of someone's existing library or buy originals from someone willing to sell. I won't sell my originals and since they can't be bought anymore, I allow people who want to get into the hobby of classic Amigas to copy some of my titles. Is that piracy? I don't think so.
I have original boxed versions of Aegis Draw and Sonix. I've made copies of it and given it to friends because it's no longer available....Aegis went under years ago. My friends couldn't find copies on eBay or elsewhere. Is this piracy? I really don't think so. And even if my friends were lucky enough to find a boxed set on eBay or elsewhere, the diskettes are so old that they're defective 99% of the time. You can't infringe on a copyright if the copyright holder no longer exists.
And if you guys are so freakin' worried about Marko's clip art, then why aren't you attempting to locate him to let him know that his work was used without his permission? Maybe Marko doesn't really give a rat's @ss if his art is being used or not. Maybe that's why he hasn't responded to Barry's or anyone else's attempts to contact him.
By opening 2 separate threads about this issue and b;tching about it, you've given Commodore USA a 100 fold increase in publicity, which is the exactly opposite of what Piru intended. And like they say in Hollywood, even bad press is good press. It would have been better to just ignore Marko's picture and not give Commodore USA all the free publicity.
I'm not saying that Commodore USA was right to use that image. I'm just saying that you should let Marko take care of Marko's business and get lives of your own. But I'm sure you'll disagree and keep giving Commodore USA more free publicity. Way to go.....
-
What does the unauthorized use of a clip art image have to do with pirated Amiga software on eBay?
Both are trying to make money with copyright infringement. Commodore USA isn't just using the image, by their own admission they're also using the design. This isn't just some random web page stealing clip art.
I won't sell my originals and since they can't be bought anymore, I allow people who want to get into the hobby of classic Amigas to copy some of my titles. Is that piracy?
Yes it is. However, since you're not basing a business on this, I don't care.
You can't infringe on a copyright if the copyright holder no longer exists.
You're wrong here.
List of countries' copyright length (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length)
If some company goes under and no-one picks up the rights then they return to the original authors.
Assuming Marko lives to be 70 years old the copyright will expire around 2110 (or 2090 if the 11.11.1992 copyright law (http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=en&id=1233) applies)
Maybe Marko doesn't really give a rat's @ss if his art is being used or not. Maybe that's why he hasn't responded to Barry's or anyone else's attempts to contact him.
You keep repeating this and you don't seem to understand that this is irrelevant. Until he gives the permission the copyright law applies.
-
W
I have original boxed versions of Aegis Draw and Sonix. I've made copies of it and given it to friends because it's no longer available....
And did you modify the disks in a way that make it seem like they were your own creations ?
Thats were all claims about "just trying to find the orginal author" or "fair use" went down the drain.
-
I allow people who want to get into the hobby of classic Amigas to copy some of my titles. Is that piracy?
Yes.
Unauthorized copying of software = software piracy.
Whether you think it is moral, amoral or immoral, is irrelevant.
-
Yes.
Unauthorized copying of software = software piracy.
Whether you think it is moral, amoral or immoral, is irrelevant.
Yes, It's software piracy. You can tell by the bright colours apparently.
But I tend to agree; If other Amiga users get use out of a product that is no longer purchasable or supported then why not pirate it? (Illegal but usefull)
Piru’s pointing out of art theft is to be honoured and praised. Well done.
-
"You're wrong here.
List of countries' copyright length (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length)
If some company goes under and no-one picks up the rights then they return to the original authors.
Assuming Marko lives to be 70 years old the copyright will expire around 2110 (or 2090 if the 11.11.1992 copyright law (http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=en&id=1233) applies)
You keep repeating this and you don't seem to understand that this is irrelevant. Until he gives the permission the copyright law applies.
All you've done is give a list of countries and when their respective copyrights expire. That doesn't prove that anyone has been infringed upon. Those determinations are made by courts, not by accusations posted on obscure boards frequented by arm-chair lawyers living on the fringe. And what if Marko is dead and he didn't leave his estate to anyone? As I said earlier, if the copyright holder no longer exists (aka dead), you cannot infringe upon him.
What if the original authors are dead or simply don't care? Then Piru is supposed to take up their banner and become "Super Copyright Man", rushing in to enforce the law because the law is the law? Either enforce the law by taking Commodore USA to court or be stop whining about it. We have a saying here, "Either sh;t or get off the pot". It applies here.
As I said earlier, if you feel so strongly about Marko's art, then be proactive instead of whining about it. Obtain legal power of attorney from Marko or his estate and sue Commodore USA in a US court. Whining never fixes anything. Or do you expect from all the posts and whining that someone in the US will feel so strongly that they'll take it upon themselves to spend their time and money to pursue Commodore USA in court? Keep dreaming.......
-
@ferrellsl
Uhm... and what is it you are doing with your posts here? :)
-
trying to bring some sanity to this asylum but the lunaticsehave been left in charge
-
All you've done is give a list of countries and when their respective copyrights expire.
In response to your "You can't infringe on a copyright if the copyright holder no longer exists.", which clearly is not the case.
That doesn't prove that anyone has been infringed upon.
Of course not. I didn't claim it would.
Both CEO and CTO of Commodore USA admit that they use the picture without authorization.
-
Who want to bet on whether those fantasy images were rendered using a cracked and patched pirated version of LightWave? I'd say yay :)
-
Was the image even copyrighted to begin with?
-
Was the image even copyrighted to begin with?
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
(source: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork)
-
Ignore copyright violators? Should we ignore people who sell pirate software on eBay or elsewhere?
If you're not the owner of the copyright, yes, you should ignore them. If you're not prepared to defend yourself against claims of libel, making false statements, etc. it's best to keep your mouth shut. Hell, your "notice" could even be construed as a DMCA takedown notice, in which case the "infringer" is entitled to statutory damages as a result of any action taken against them, as you're not the owner of the copyright.
EDIT: You're advocating for intellectual vigilantism. And for what it's worth, I think out-of-court settlement agreements with alleged infringers are nothing more than extortion. Threaten the guy that downloaded your song, and the government turns a blind eye. Threaten the guy that abused your daughter, and the government throws you in jail.
-
George Romero would probably differ with that opinion. Since there was no copyright on the original prints of "Night of the Living Dead" that movie has been in public domain since soon after its release.
-
Since there was no copyright on the original prints of "Night of the Living Dead" that movie has been in public domain since soon after its release.
At that time US copyright law was different. It changed in 1989 after which point it was no longer necessary to mark your copyright in any way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Copyright_notices
-
At that time US copyright law was different. It changed in 1989 after which point it was no longer necessary to mark your copyright in any way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Copyright_notices
You are remarkably well informed.
Does this mean that anything we create that requires technology to be viewed is copyrighted? If that's the case, then even our messages (on forums like this) would appear to be covered.
-
@Iggy
In the United States, anything you create is automatically copyrighted, and that copyright extends to all signatories of the Berne Convention. This is why it's humorous whenever someone says something like "downloading copyrighted works is illegal." Unless explicitly placed in the public domain, everything is copyrighted. If you couldn't download copyrighted works, you couldn't receive Ethernet frame headers, which could arguably be copyrighted by the entity that produced them.
Forums like this one may have terms of service that alter ownership or create specific license terms for copyrighted content, but typically, yes, anything you write is copyrighted.
-
Does this mean that anything we create that requires technology to be viewed is copyrighted?
That indeed is the case.
If that's the case, then even our messages (on forums like this) would appear to be covered.
They are. Others can quote them because of the fair use clause.
There also are some limitations as to what can be considered protected work. It gets fairly complicated here and the law differs regionally.
-
That boggles my mind, Trev. Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a distinct improvement over the copyright protection I grew up with.
Does this affect Marko Hirv's illustration?
-
That boggles my mind, Trev. Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a distinct improvement over the copyright protection I grew up with.
Does this affect Marko Hirv's illustration?
I think Piru covered it already, but if it's not explicitly in the public domain, or if it wasn't created prior to certain copyright law changes and extensions, the work is copyrighted. With respect to Commodore USA, however, only the copyright holder can ask them to take the image down, altered or otherwise. Marko's from Estonia, right? I have no idea how copyright works there.
Some things, like names, can't be copyrighted. Trademarks cover the exceptions, and not everything can be trademarked.
-
Marko's from Estonia, right? I have no idea how copyright works there.
From my experience, walking around in the markets of Tallinn, Tartu and Pärnu - it doesn't. At least it didn't back in 2000, I'm sure they cleaned up some since joining the EU :)
I bought some Tanya Grotter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter) books there a few years ago, just for kicks :)
-
No points for C=USA for this. It's also bad business behaviour. They should be more professional, now they are far from it IMO.
-
No one did. As I've stated numerous times before I've been interested in copyright issues for a long time. I've posted about these things on a.org way before Commodore USA, for at least 5-6 years or so, probably longer.
Here's something from 2006 for instance:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=321605
And similar from 2007:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=321605
Some post from 2008:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=384389&postcount=34
As for some suggestions that I would be doing this because I'd feel threatened by AROS: Oh please, while you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you want that is just way idiotic (or should I say intellectually dishonest). This has absolutely nothing to do with AROS or MorphOS.
As for Apple being the evil empire: Yes, they do have some policies and methods I find disgusting. Probably one of the reasons I've never paid Apple a single euro. I do like some of their HW though.
You feel confident about speaking in behalf of other people. I try to stand behind my own words and actions.
If some of you really feel tired of hearing about these things, just skip the threads I post to.
You use this "intellectually dishonest" line a lot. I think I was the last person you called this, but after my reply you just shut up. I never got an apology.
-
I find much of what Piru says to be 'intellectually dishonest'. I don't know if you (Piru) are claiming outrage over the letter of the law, or over the non-legal idea that ideas belong to people and shouldn't be used without permission.
If you are aguing the first, then to be anything but a hypocrite, you cannot be violation any other similarly laxly enforced laws. I highly doubt that is the case. Do you really refuse to sing happy birthday in public places? Do you show the same moral outrage when other people do? Do you make the same accusations against kindergarden teachers who read stories to their class as you do against CUSA? While it would take a lawyer and court case to prove, I'm pretty sure that reposting another persons artwork in it's entirety is still a copyright violation (as you have done), does not fall under fair use.
If you are arguing the moral stance, then you have already shown yourself to be a hypocrite by using other peoples works without their permission right here in this thread.
-
Legal issues and shouts of hypocrisy aside, stealing a picture someone else drew and erasing the artist's name from it to attempt to generate interest in a non-existent product is cheesy, and re-adding the artist's name (but leaving other changes made to the picture) after being caught is just comical. Anyone lame enough to do that deserves whatever criticism they get.
-
Legal issues and shouts of hypocrisy aside, stealing a picture someone else drew and erasing the artist's name from it to attempt to generate interest in a non-existent product is cheesy, and re-adding the artist's name (but leaving other changes made to the picture) after being caught is just comical. Anyone lame enough to do that deserves whatever criticism they get.
I don't know if what he is doing with the picture is legal or not but the behaviour really does speak for itself. I wonder if his business partners are starting to think twice?
-
@ssolie
Look at who his "buisness partners" are:
- some obscure licencing company holding a dated trademark
- the Bill&Barry-Show
- some chinese manufactors/dealers who will by next week start shipping the next wave of tamagotchies instead of crappy screenless laptops.
If the do think twice it's most likely along the line of "how can we suck some (more) money out of that fool".
-
Legal issues and shouts of hypocrisy aside, stealing a picture someone else drew and erasing the artist's name from it to attempt to generate interest in a non-existent product is cheesy, and re-adding the artist's name (but leaving other changes made to the picture) after being caught is just comical. Anyone lame enough to do that deserves whatever criticism they get.
So, you are calling Piru a theif then?
-
I'm pretty sure that reposting another persons artwork in it's entirety is still a copyright violation (as you have done), does not fall under fair use.
So, you are calling Piru a theif then?
You still seem to have hard time grasping the concept of fair use.
-
Some touchy (or possibly daft?) people here, hold on to those grudges :)
-
So, you are calling Piru a theif then?
No, but I'd be interested to know how you got the idea that I was.
-
Posting someone elses artwork in it's entirety without permission is NOT 'fair use'. Posting a modified version of it in the same post does NOT make it 'fair use'. The fact that it is not for profit does NOT make it 'fair use'.
Piru, you have not stated which angle you claim as your rational for calling other people names when you do the same things yourself.
tone007, you claim that using other people's artwork without permission is 'stealing'. Piru has done this, so, by your definition, Piru would be a thief. Or does it only count when it is someone that you have randomely decided to attack?
-
tone007, you claim that using other people's artwork without permission is 'stealing'. Piru has done this, so, by your definition, Piru would be a thief. Or does it only count when it is someone that you have randomely decided to attack?
Piru simply compiled proof of the stupidity of the man trying to make money off of someone else's artwork. If you don't appreciate the difference there, you're hopeless.
No one is randomly attacking Commodore USA. They asked for it.
-
Posting someone elses artwork in it's entirety without permission is NOT 'fair use'. Posting a modified version of it in the same post does NOT make it 'fair use'. The fact that it is not for profit does NOT make it 'fair use'.
Fair uses include commentary, education and of course parody.
His use of the work is to show the original unmodified work and the later modifications. That could easily come under either commentary or possibly under educational use.
He has provided information on the subject of copyright along with citation, he has provided commentary within this thread.
You are making an accusation of copyright infringement. The onus is on you to back it up.
Piru, you have not stated which angle you claim as your rational for calling other people names when you do the same things yourself.
He's not doing the same things himself. Unless you can now prove that Piru is in fact using the artwork outside of fair use, specifically to sell a product.
What's that? You can no more prove that than you could your accusation of everyone here being a hypocrite for disagreeing with you?
Damn, who saw that one coming...
Obvious troll is obvious.
-
@tone007
If your arguing the letter of the law, then there is no difference. If you are not arguing the letter of the law, only the original artist can claim that CUSA deserves it.
@theleander
Fair uses CAN include commentary, education and of course parody, but they are not the only criteria. Piru posted the entire work. He did not post a piece of it. While he certainly added commentary, claiming 'educational' is a pretty big streach.
Posting the entire Avatar movie online and putting a comment on the bottom is not 'fair use'.
Posting entire Harry Potter books online and putting a comment on the bottom is not 'fair use'.
Posting an entire copyrwritten picture and putting a comment on the bottom is not 'fair use'.
If adding a commentary under a copyrwritten work was all it took to circumvent copyright, then every warez and abandonware site on the internet would be in the clear overnight.
-
@tone007
If your arguing the letter of the law, then there is no difference.
I am not, as I prefaced my previous post.
If you are not arguing the letter of the law, only the original artist can claim that CUSA deserves it.
A little more of your flawed logic. If we're not going by the law, why would the right to take exception at Commodore USA's actions be reserved for the original artist? Try to keep up with yourself.
Obviously, enough people think what Commodore USA is doing is pretty ridiculous, and are enjoying lampooning them. They're allowed to do that.
-
Piru posted the entire work.
I did not. It's much smaller resolution and less colors. I did no changes to the artwork other than scale it down and reduce the colors.
To quote wikipedia: "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original image. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as counterfeit artwork, pirate versions or for uses that would compete with the (potential) commercial purpose of the original artwork."
The entire scaled down image was needed to demonstrate the changes Commodore USA made. It would very hard to do so without displaying the image in question.
If you try to accuse me of something, please at least get your facts straight first.
-
@Piru
You did reduce the quality a bit, but certainly not enough to keep it from being able to compete with the (potential) commercial purpose of the original artwork. You also did not need to post the entire image to comment on it, or to even show what you were commenting on. Just the altared pieces would have sufficed. I am sure that YouTube would like to be informed that reducing resolution and color depth is all that you need to do to circumvent copyright. They could get away from having to deal with those pesky take down notifications.
You still have not answered whether you are throwing around insults over the letter of the law, or over the non-legal idea that he is 'stealing' property.
-
@tone007
Since you are not arguing the letter of the law, then you are just being an ass to the guys at CUSA. What you are doing is not 'lampooning' them. You are outright and seriously calling them theives. You are doing this because they used some really old image that the author likely doesn't even care about.
-
@tone007
Since you are not arguing the letter of the law, then you are just being an ass to the guys at CUSA. What you are doing is not 'lampooning' them. You are outright and seriously calling them theives. You are doing this because they used some really old image that the author likely doesn't even care about.
I called them cheesy. If that makes me an ass, so be it. I think they're asses. They also admitted to using the picture without permission. Sounds like stealing to me. Let me know if you find out that it isn't, but if someone decided to use something of mine without asking (yes, it has happened,) I'd consider it stealing. Oh, and don't presume to know why I'm posting against them. I started long before they used the image.
Also, please learn to spell thieves, your typos are hurting my eyes, Befail9.
-
@Piru
You did reduce the quality a bit, but certainly not enough to keep it from being able to compete with the (potential) commercial purpose of the original artwork.
The original is 1504 x 1152 24bit.
The version in the embedded animation is 627 x 480 256 color with heavy dithering (due to shared animation palette).
(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9856/qualityreduction.png)
If that isn't quality reduction I don't know what is.
You also did not need to post the entire image to comment on it
The changes would have been difficult if not impossible to explain without. There were already confusion earlier regarding how the image was modified.
Posting a quick reduced quality animation makes it easily obvious what I'm talking about. This falls within fair use.
I consider this matter closed.
Commodore USA however still continues to use the image in their marketing material under the label "Introducing our all new, all-in-one Commodore 64bit computers for 2010" and "2.66 GHz Intel Core I7 processor, NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 512 MB, 2 TB hard drive, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, BLU RAY drive. Available late 2010".
-
Commodore USA has changed the products page.
Now it says: "Taking the styling cues and inspiration from the futuristic rendering above by Marko Hirv, and the contemporary elegance of our Phoenix model below, to the classic retro design of the original C64, we'll be introducing a complete line of Commodore and Amiga branded computers in the months ahead."
google cache of the old page (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aJi6O68rG_cJ:www.commodoreusa.net/products.html)
-
sounds like he is trying...
anyone happy yet?
yeah, I thought not.