Commodore USA puts Marko Hirv's name back

[Golem!dk]

@ferrellsl

Uhm... and what is it you are doing with your posts here?

[ferrellsl]

trying to bring some sanity to this asylum but the lunaticsehave been left in charge

[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.

[kolla]

Who want to bet on whether those fantasy images were rendered using a cracked and patched pirated version of LightWave? I'd say yay

[kedawa]

Was the image even copyrighted to begin with?

[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)

[Trev]

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.

[Iggy]

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.

[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

[Iggy]

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.

[Trev]

@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.

[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.

[Iggy]

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?

[Trev]

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.

[kolla]

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 books there a few years ago, just for kicks

[Bamiga2002]

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.