Commodore USA puts Marko Hirv's name back

[Piru]

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.

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.



**EDIT** In case someone has hard time understanding the copyright law: The image is reproduced here under 'fair use' clause, specifically use for 'commentary'.

[Piru]

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' clause.

[Piru]

Quick crosspost, here's a reply from the CEO, 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.

[Piru]

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.

[Piru]

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.

[Piru]

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.

[Piru]

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.

[Piru]

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

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 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.

[Piru]

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.

[Piru]

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)

[Piru]

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

[Piru]

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.

[Piru]

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.

[Piru]

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]

@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).



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".