(Topic ID: 222335)

FairUse... being challenged... again


By Zitt

8 months ago



Topic Stats

  • 53 posts
  • 25 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 8 months ago by RonSS
  • Topic is favorited by 1 Pinsider

You

Topic Gallery

There have been 5 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

Disney ripoff (resized).jpeg
D5029E40-1E39-4160-957B-4915BD84556E (resized).jpeg
Grinch2 (resized).jpg
Grinch1 (resized).jpg
Oh-the-places-youll-boldly-go11-768x354[1] (resized).jpg

There are 53 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 2.
#1 8 months ago

I've been vaguely following the Dr Seuss vs Mashup court proceedings... if you haven't; basically the copyright lawyers are claiming copyright defense for a mashup book which doesn't use a single owned Seuss character or story line. They are basically suing to protect the "look" of Seuss which as far as I can tell is anything that rhymes with hand drawn art.

The whole thing is just disgusting to me. Regardless; one of the creatives has done an interview entirely in rhyme which is pretty impressive in itself:
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2018/07/31/oh-the-answers-i-boldly-got-about-the-dr-seuss-star-trek-mash-up-interview-with-glenn-hauman/

Oh-the-places-youll-boldly-go11-768x354[1] (resized).jpg

#2 8 months ago

Too bad the Artist couldn't have done something original.

#3 8 months ago
Quoted from Zitt:

basically the copyright lawyers are claiming copyright defense for a mashup book which doesn't use a single owned Seuss character or story line.

I guess I don't get the argument. It might not use a single Suess character but the title is a rip-off and the look is a rip-off. If I owed the copyright I would probably do the same thing. When I first clicked on the thread and the picture loaded I thought....A Dr. Seuss Star Trek book. You shouldn't be able to steal someone's look and design. This interview is kind of impressive though. Well done there.

Quoted from phil-lee:

Too bad the Artist couldn't have done something original.

Exactly.

#4 8 months ago

..

#5 8 months ago

So essentially, this is a lawsuit that asks the question, is it ok to imitate “the style of”. If Seuss wins this case (which I doubt will happen), it would severely hinder creativity. No more artist would be able to paint “in the style of” Picasso or Warhol...write a book about wizards?.. nope... been done so you can’t do that any more. That movie was filmed using the same style as Michael Bay.... lawsuit.

Then the courts would have to constantly make decisions on whether a certain “style” is different enough which is purely subjective. Just not going to happen.

15
#6 8 months ago

If copyright expired the way it was supposed to none of this would be an issue.

#7 8 months ago
Quoted from phil-lee:

Too bad the Artist couldn't have done something original.

Like some of the johnny come lately pinball artists of today? lol

#8 8 months ago

This is a very slippery slope.

Think of the Homebrew community... a Retheme would no longer be considered FairUse because it's based upon the geometry of the original PF. Now this is all "mute" as long as the Homebrew doesn't try to go into production... but they could easily get an enforceable C&D in the mail.

While I understand the desire to prevent copycatting or "Style theft"; it really isn't an good argument that this having Dr Seuss sue them based upon it. If they win; it'll have far reaching implications across the board.

#9 8 months ago
Quoted from o-din:

Like some of the johnny come lately pinball artists of today? lol

Came here for this, leaving now. Just like clockwork, you keep doing you O.

#10 8 months ago
Quoted from Zitt:

This is a very slippery slope.
Think of the Homebrew community... a Retheme would no longer be considered FairUse because it's based upon the geometry of the original PF. Now this is all "mute" as long as the Homebrew doesn't try to go into production... but they could easily get an enforceable C&D in the mail.
While I understand the desire to prevent copycatting or "Style theft"; it really isn't an good argument that this having Dr Seuss sue them based upon it. If they win; it'll have far reaching implications across the board.

If it moves on beyond 'mute' it may even become 'moot.'

#11 8 months ago

Ok, so this...

Grinch1 (resized).jpg

and this...

Grinch2 (resized).jpg

In my opinion this is not fair use. It is ripping off the original artist. Normally I lean on the side of fair use. However this is too close to the original, and they intended it to be just like the original they were ripping off. I hate that our laws keep things locked up forever, but they do.

#12 8 months ago

If I buy a pinball machine I can retheme and sell it with no issues as long as I own the new art rights.

Just like mods. Buy a toy, put leds in it. That’s fair use too.

That guy is trying to profit from Seuss’ unique and recognizable style. That includes book format, poetic style, color palettes and characters’ traits. That’s called ripping it off not fair use.

By the way...
Warhol sued for copied styles back in the day. Piccasso didn't invent his style. There are about a dozen Spanish artists of the same era that most people can’t separate.

-1
#13 8 months ago
Quoted from DaveH:

Ok, so this...
[quoted image]
and this...
[quoted image]
In my opinion this is not fair use. It is ripping off the original artist. Normally I lean on the side of fair use. However this is too close to the original, and they intended it to be just like the original they were ripping off. I hate that our laws keep things locked up forever, but they do.

It's not ripping off - this would be if it was an exact copy (or, say, they just changed the colors and it's otherwise identical). This is a parody. Which is very clearly protected: See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

-1
#14 8 months ago

Actually... when you put the pics side by side like that... you can see that the top red area is a 100% match... looks like it was photoshopped....

That is not fair use...though maybe they can argue it a parody

#15 8 months ago
Quoted from Scorch:

Actually... when you put the pics side by side like that... you can see that the top red area is a 100% match... looks like it was photoshopped....
That is not fair use...though maybe they can argue it a parody

Not 100% match, very very close, but not 100%.

-1
#16 8 months ago
Quoted from pinballkim:

Not 100% match, very very close, but not 100%.

Well, it was definitely photoshoped... they did not draw those red lines by hand themselves.

#17 8 months ago
Quoted from Scorch:

Well, it was definitely photoshoped... they did not draw those red lines by hand themselves.

That’s about the only part of the picture I could draw. They certainly intended to mimic the original though.

#18 8 months ago

How about this one they did, compare D5029E40-1E39-4160-957B-4915BD84556E (resized).jpeg

#19 8 months ago

Geez, that Sneech page is horrifically brazen. It's not so much an "homage" or "interpretation" or "parody" or "inspired by", as it is an outright copy with Star Trek characters. I mean, the "artists" couldn't be bothered to draw an all-new machine with similar-but-different proportions and controls? It's not like "lumpy and crooked pseudo-organic" is terribly hard to draw!

Get the general proportions, embellishments and random details close enough and you can create something original that still honors and recalls its inspiration. THAT is how great parodies, both the obvious and subtle ones, work... incidentally it's how they drew the Star Trek characters, so it's not like it can't be done!

But geez, that page is completely lame: SAME machine... SAME shadows... SAME flourishes. It's a cynical, lazy, photoshop meme copy-paste job.

I'll all for creative appropriation in the spirit of fair use, but man. This is not fair use. What is? Ugh, subjectively defined like pornography as "I know it when I see it".

Keep the text (because prose, rhyme, and meter are constructs free to all, and who hasn't tried to write parody Night Before Xmas, Seuss, or "Weird Al" stylings), but send the "artists" back to the drawing board.

#20 8 months ago

Dr. Suess died in 1991. Do we really want a society where the estate of a long dead artist can sue people who /obviously/ do an homage to Seuss? Fistful of Dollars is a total ripoff of Yojimbo, should that not have been made?

The other problem is that copyright enforcement is unevenly applied. The artists of the book may well lose because the Seuss estate has millions and can afford the best lawyers. Meanwhile look what a Disney contractor, and by extension Disney itself did, and the French artist who did this work recently and who is still alive has zero chance of winning:

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/unnamed_colorcorrected-2.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all&w=700

Disney ripoff (resized).jpeg
#21 8 months ago
Quoted from PinRob:

How about this one they did, compare

I know about the Sneetches, but what's that one on the right, the pinsiders on the beaches?

#22 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

Do we really want a society where the estate of a long dead artist can sue people who /obviously/ do an homage to Seuss?

Yes. Are you arguing that the copyright laws are too long after a creators death, or that this is fair use?

Copyrights are enforced by the owner, so of course they will be applied unevenly. There are many examples of people getting the shaft on both sides of the arguments, that's life.

But to me, this is an obvious cut and paste of existing artwork which is a copyright violation.

#23 8 months ago

Reminds me of Garbage Pail Kids which were clearly a parody, but a parody meant to make money by selling cards/gum to kids on the back of Cabbage Patch Kids phenomenal success selling creepy plastic headed dolls. This included mimicking the font and art/design of the Cabbage Patch Kids. They were sued and ultimately settled with agreement to change the art and logo. Not proof of anything here, as I'm sure they were motivated to settle so they could continue to monopolize on a fad which would surely only last until the next big thing popped up.
In my mind it is parody and likely fair use and I think we have more art/books/music to suit different tastes because of it. I don't think it's right that chord progressions, guitar licks and beats in music can be protected/used to extort money from modern artists. Art has always been about creating new things but also equally valid is creating new interesting things out of existing things.

#24 8 months ago
Quoted from Black_Knight:

Yes. Are you arguing that the copyright laws are too long after a creators death, or that this is fair use?
Copyrights are enforced by the owner, so of course they will be applied unevenly. There are many examples of people getting the shaft on both sides of the arguments, that's life.
But to me, this is an obvious cut and paste of existing artwork which is a copyright violation.

I make money from selling my own copyrighted works, so I am a big fan of copyright. But I have a huge problem with people making money from an artist’s work decades after the artist died who had F all to do with the production of the work.

Copyright is meant to create a window of exclusivity so the creator(s) can benefit from their labor. Not to create effectively infinite revenue streams for trust funds or corporations.

As an artist I assure you that we need the ability to borrow, steal and copy the works of the greats that came before us. As a businessman I offer a similar assurance that this has to happen after a work has had a good long run of sales.

We need a fair middle ground. That’s what copyright was when it was enacted.

Now I haven’t really seen the book in question so it’s hard to say, but it looks like a legit parody of a Seuss book using Star Trek characters. If the target market is adults, it also doesn’t seem to be threatening book sales of the original. It’s clearly not a counterfeit.

If you’re doing a parody, you /want/ to mimic the style closely. That is part of the point. It wouldn’t work as a parody if the pictures weren’t extremely similar. Weird Al tries to make the songs sound exactly the same, he just changes the words.

We should apply sanity to copyright. With respect to pinball, it seems reasonable to extend copyright on any pinball part for twenty or thirty, maybe even fifty years, but only as long as the manufacturer or current license holder makes that part available to the public for purchase at a reasonable price. It makes sense that if a part is being made by a licensee, anything substantially similar should carry a license fee during that period of protection, too.

We should not allow ancient dragons to sit atop hoards of intellectual property and breathe fire in the form of lawsuits.

#25 8 months ago

The beauty of a corporation is that is has an infinite lifespan.
Works and effort on behalf of the corporation will have infinite lifespans also.

It really is an interesting issue.

#26 8 months ago

Impersonation is the highest form of flattery. No rip off here but just a parody of a beloved childhood franchise. No press is bad press and both books will likely uptick in sales from this bit of legal spotlight.

#27 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

As an artist I assure you that we need the ability to borrow, steal and copy the works of the greats that came before us.

If you need to steal and copy previous work, then you are in the wrong line of business.

I understand parody - Garbage Pail Kids were parody and included all original art and copy.

Quoted from Brijam:

If you’re doing a parody, you /want/ to mimic the style closely.

The example pages above are mimicking, they are literally a cut and paste of art Dr Seuss did. The Very Particular Machine is an exact copy. If this guy was creative he would have recreated them to match his theme, while paying his homage to Seuss. But he didn't, he just right clicked. If he took the time to recreate these elements, he could probably print his book.

#28 8 months ago
Quoted from Black_Knight:

If you need to steal and copy previous work, then you are in the wrong line of business

What line of business are you in?

Quoted from Black_Knight:

The example pages above are mimicking, they are literally a cut and paste of art Dr Seuss did. The Very Particular Machine is an exact copy. If this guy was creative he would have recreated them to match his theme, while paying his homage to Seuss. But he didn't, he just right clicked. If he took the time to recreate these elements, he could probably print his book.

Are you speculating or do you have proof to back up this claim? I haven’t done any forensic work to compare the original with the parody. Perhaps they were cut and pasted. If they literally were, that does change things.

But last time I looked, the sneeches weren’t wearing Star Trek uniforms in the original. That lends credence to the artist being capable of mimicking the original close enough to fool most people.

#29 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

If they literally were, that does change things.

See post #18

#30 8 months ago

Yeah, I saw that. That isn’t a cut and paste. Look closely.

#31 8 months ago

There's parody and then there is plagiarism. Using the style of the original artist is parody/homage. Using the style AND story AND composition is plagiarism. The mashup artist is a hack and could have done this right without exactly copying the composition and background/foreground artwork.

#32 8 months ago
Quoted from kbliznick:

There's parody and then there is plagiarism. Using the style of the original artist is parody/homage. Using the style AND story AND composition is plagiarism. The mashup artist is a hack and could have done this right without exactly copying the composition and background/foreground artwork.

I'm not sure you understand what plagiarism is, which incidentally has no legal meaning.

Parody can be really hard to determine, and we have no standard for mashups which are relatively new. However, the words of the book, and therefore the whole spirit of it, are utterly different. The audience is totally different. The art is wildly different in some places, and the words are vastly different on the only examples I've seen. I see what they were going for.

Of course, I don't even know if this book is a parody or not. It sure seems like it is, and the artist contends that it is, and that's at least been partially supported by a judge in court. But I haven't read it, nor have any of you, because it isn't available.

But I don't see this as any different than using music samples to create a new song.

#33 8 months ago
Quoted from Aurich:

If copyright expired the way it was supposed to none of this would be an issue.

Disney's going to have a cow when the earliest Mickey Mouse extended copyright finally expires in a few years. TONS of legal unlicensed product will flood the market - and a LOT cheaper.

#34 8 months ago
Quoted from vireland:

Disney's going to have a cow when the earliest Mickey Mouse extended copyright finally expires in a few years. TONS of legal unlicensed product will flood the market - and a LOT cheaper.

It’ll never happen. Our dear leaders will keep extending copyright infinitely.

#35 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

It’ll never happen. Our dear leaders will keep extending copyright infinitely.

I think it will be a much harder sale this time around than the last two. It gets hard to say it's not unfair when the originator is long dead and the copyright is around 100 years old. Letting it go at that point is beneficial to art and commerce.

#36 8 months ago
Quoted from vireland:

I think it will be a much harder sale this time around than the last two. It gets hard to say it's not unfair when the originator is long dead and the copyright is around 100 years old. Letting it go at that point is beneficial to art and commerce.

I deeply and sincerely hope that it doesn’t get extended again, but I fear that Disney has only grown in power and influence since the last time around.

#37 8 months ago

I actually once had a job researching all of the old Disney copyrights. Even back in 199(4?) there was already one that had fallen out of copyright—I believe it was a Silly Symfonie.

IANAL, but my understanding after doing all that research is that the copyright is only for the actual movies themselves. The characters are trademarked, so nothing can be done with them outside of the context of the films. Think cheap collections of short films on DVDs at the grocery store. That’s the extent of what I would expect to see when the films go into public access.

#38 8 months ago
Quoted from phil-lee:

Too bad the Artist couldn't have done something original.

Exactly. Dr. Seuss should've come up with something original instead of copying Lord Byron and Lewis Carroll.

#39 8 months ago
Quoted from DaWezl:

I actually once had a job researching all of the old Disney copyrights. Even back in 199(4?) there was already one that had fallen out of copyright—I believe it was a Silly Symfonie.
IANAL, but my understanding after doing all that research is that the copyright is only for the actual movies themselves. The characters are trademarked, so nothing can be done with them outside of the context of the films. Think cheap collections of short films on DVDs at the grocery store. That’s the extent of what I would expect to see when the films go into public access.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2003’s Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. that you can’t use trademark law to extend an expired copyright.

Making some new Mickey Mouse thing might be easier arguing fair use than public domain, though. Fair use covers transformational use for commentary, parody, education and many other uses.

#40 8 months ago

I wish pinside had an attorney. I would gladly pay $50 for heart ++ if it included legal advice\opinion in threads like this where I’m interested but don’t understand the current laws on it very well.

#41 8 months ago
Quoted from tacshose:

I wish pinside had an attorney. I would gladly pay $50 for heart ++ if it included legal advice\opinion in threads like this where I’m interested but don’t understand the current laws on it very well.

Google up Fair Use, there are some very good primers out there.

#42 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

As an artist I assure you that we need the ability to borrow, steal and copy the works of the greats that came before us.

It is true there is nothing new under the sun. That which came before should be used as inspiration to create new interpretations. Support of stealing earlier works is fine until someone does the same to you. A respect for copyright began to crumble during cassette tape sharing days and turned into an avalanche with illegal streaming/ sharing which our current younger generation grew up with. They feel music should be free. They go to Art shows and photograph original paintings and photographs to enlarge at home, Art should be free.
I have had photographs stolen and posted on the internet, I used to sell these as enlargements, but the system has made them free.
I have had original lyrics from songs written and posted in the early days of Soundclick stolen and used in someones new song. Same with certain guitar licks.
What this does is squelch creativity, which is evident now with lousy music being released and lousy copycat so-called "Art" like this Seuss ripoff.
It is the responsibility of the Copyright holder to protect their creations, but who can afford all the Attorneys it would take? That is why when people here ask for Mod ideas or game ideas I no longer share as they could be "Gleaning" free million dollar ideas which no credit to the originator will be given should it go into production.
So steal Bally/Williams art and reproduce cheap plastics-aprons-backglasses and call it a parody. Just change a color or line,see how that works out.

#43 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

Google up Fair Use, there are some very good primers out there.

Yeah I’m just saying this stuff seems to come up on pinside non stop and instead of armchair “attorneys” mouthing off I would love some real professional opinions.

#44 8 months ago
Quoted from phil-lee:

It is true there is nothing new under the sun. That which came before should be used as inspiration to create new interpretations. Support of stealing earlier works is fine until someone does the same to you. A respect for copyright began to crumble during cassette tape sharing days and turned into an avalanche with illegal streaming/ sharing which our current younger generation grew up with. They feel music should be free. They go to Art shows and photograph original paintings and photographs to enlarge at home, Art should be free.

Yeah, I wish I got paid for every use of my art too. As an artist you have to tolerate it - it comes with the territory. But I’ve also read a lot of studies that show copying increases your chance of selling your work. That’s because the challenge is still all about being seen, assuming you do quality work.

And most of the music copying and sharing back in the day had to do with the fact that music was stupidly expensive and there were no easy ways to stream or buy digital. Generally people would rather pay with time or money. If it’s too hard or expensive, they’ll find another way.

Quoted from phil-lee:

I have had photographs stolen and posted on the internet, I used to sell these as enlargements, but the system has made them free.
I have had original lyrics from songs written and posted in the early days of Soundclick stolen and used in someones new song. Same with certain guitar licks.

Quoted from phil-lee:

It is the responsibility of the Copyright holder to protect their creations, but who can afford all the Attorneys it would take?

Sorry to hear that your lyrics and guitar licks were stolen. Have you talked to a copyright lawyer? Some of them will take cases with no money from you.

Quoted from phil-lee:

What this does is squelch creativity, which is evident now with lousy music being released and lousy copycat so-called "Art" like this Seuss ripoff.

There’s always been lousy music. Over time only the hits get played, so it gives the impression that music is getting worse.

Also we have vastly more new music to choose from now, therefore more lousy music.

Quoted from phil-lee:

That is why when people here ask for Mod ideas or game ideas I no longer share as they could be "Gleaning" free million dollar ideas which no credit to the originator will be given should it go into production.

Ideas are 0.00000001% of what it takes to bring a product to market. The general rule about an idea is that you should shout it from the rooftops and try to see if people might buy it, and gain valuable feedback in the process. It’s the height of arrogance to think someone creative and passionate enough to do a great job on a product would rather use someone else’s idea than their own. Copycats also produce inferior work.

Quoted from phil-lee:

So steal Bally/Williams art and reproduce cheap plastics-aprons-backglasses and call it a parody. Just change a color or line,see how that works out.

That’s a straw man. Nobody is saying that here.

Do you also think that The Magnificent Seven was a ripoff?

#45 8 months ago

No straw man,a serious legitimate question you evidently can't answer. Also China spends billions to steal ideas,otherwise known as trade secrets, nobody is shouting them from the rooftops. So music is too expensive, ok, that means I can steal it. Art is too expensive as well so I will photograph it, take it to a printer and make 16 x 20's and sell them at Shows. In Industry, all good ideas come from someone else, the passionate creative types are paid salaries and sign non-competitive agreements when they leave, no patents or copyrights for them.
You evidently feel entitled to do whatever you wish with others creative work when the "Reasonable timeframe" you set is over for protection. We are fortunate there are still laws in place to stop this type of ripoff.
Again, there are those tempted to utilize basement production facilities( Blackmarket) to get the unobtanium plastics, aprons and back glasses they need for rare machines, why is this not ok under your reasoning?

#46 8 months ago
Quoted from phil-lee:

No straw man,a serious legitimate question you evidently can't answer.

Questions usually include a question mark, don’t they? Where’s the question in what you wrote? I don’t see it.

I repeat that nobody here is making an argument that a repro Bally apron is a parody, except you.

Quoted from phil-lee:

Also China spends billions to steal ideas,otherwise known as trade secrets, nobody is shouting them from the rooftops.

Please tell me you aren’t arguing that a trade secret is the same as an idea. Because they’re not the same. At all.

Quoted from phil-lee:

So music is too expensive, ok, that means I can steal it. Art is too expensive as well so I will photograph it, take it to a printer and make 16 x 20's and sell them at Shows.

Taking the moral high ground based purely on unrealistic profit expectations has ruined many industries.

As an artist in a free market, I am entitled to what people are willing to pay for my work. Period.

If I set the price too high, people will find other ways. There’s a reason why PIN2DMD was created, and poor man’s stadium lighting.

Case in point: nobody cares about sharing music anymore because streaming it is cheap enough.

This isn’t my position. This is reality. Ignore it at your peril. Bitching about it is futile.

Quoted from phil-lee:

In Industry, all good ideas come from someone else, the passionate creative types are paid salaries and sign non-competitive agreements when they leave, no patents or copyrights for them.

Would you elaborate? This seems orthogonal to what we were talking about. Or at the very least, if as you state all good ideas come from someone else, it would be a very bad idea to have unlimited copyright, woudln’t it?

Quoted from phil-lee:

You evidently feel entitled to do whatever you wish with others creative work when the "Reasonable timeframe" you set is over for protection. We are fortunate there are still laws in place to stop this type of ripoff.

I can’t find a compelling argument for unlimited protection of a copyrighted work, nor have you presented one here.

Art cannot be fixed and static. Unlimited copyright stifles innovation and expression.

Quoted from phil-lee:

Again, there are those tempted to utilize basement production facilities( Blackmarket) to get the unobtanium plastics, aprons and back glasses they need for rare machines, why is this not ok under your reasoning?

I’m finding it hard to understand your question with the double negatives. What are you asking?

Black markets don’t appear in a vacuum. They appear when the price of something is artificially high. The makers of a product can charge what they want. If they charge too much, I guarantee people will pop up to fulfill demand at a lower price point. A wise businessperson sets the price low enough to discourage copycats and high enough to make a profit. That’s usually 8 to 20 percent, tops.

Debating the rightness or wrongness of black markets is futile. Trying to legislate against this kind of behavior is futile. Setting the price to something reasonable is the only way to curtail black markets.

Regarding unobtainium PARTS for products that have not been sold for decades, if a copyright holder refuses to make a part available at a fair price (e.g. COGS + SG&A plus a reasonable profit), what is your problem with someone else making a replacement part?

#47 8 months ago

I wonder if this would have all been fine had the artist paid the T. Geisel estate a percentage?

Seems like the right thing to do IMHO. "I'm going to use your work to create something "new""

Isn't that what they do in the music business?

#48 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

Regarding unobtainium PARTS for products that have not been sold for decades, if a copyright holder refuses to make a part available at a fair price (e.g. COGS + SG&A plus a reasonable profit), what is your problem with someone else making a replacement part?

Because it is still protected by a Copyright. China would love to fill the void up to reproducing entire machines if there is a Market. You have made it clear that you feel entitled to steal others work when you see fit (time constraints, Holder not making use of the Copyright) which is a new trend among younger people, that however does not make it right.
A Pinball machine in my opinion is 90% Art, it sells the machine. A Copyright is a viable property, like gold, jewels or any form of asset. The Owner has the right to do whatever they wish with their property, whenever they wish. An asset is to be protected from theft, much like a burglar coming into your Business or home and stealing,there is no difference.

Quoted from Brijam:

Debating the rightness or wrongness of black markets is futile. Trying to legislate against this kind of behavior is futile.

Fortunately it is not, the laws are in place to protect the person/entity holding the Patent,Copyright,etc and you will get your ass sued when you try to rip it off. Yes,there are many that will try to "Fill the void" when prices are high, such as Asian/Chinese knockoffs of Gibson guitars. Many unknowing innocent customers purchase knock-off watches, purses and everything else under the sun, hurting the Market for the real thing.
Much like the blatant rip off of Dr. Seuss in this thread, rather than create something new and original, the so-called Artist decided to steal the style,appearance and spirit of a Master and make it his/her own for profit.
That doesn't fly in America, no matter how entitled people wish to argue otherwise. Get used to it. Or go Offshore so one can steal others property and profit like many others do/have done.

#49 8 months ago
Quoted from phil-lee:

Because it is still protected by a Copyright. China would love to fill the void up to reproducing entire machines if there is a Market.

Back that up with something concrete, or it's simply a wild and unsubstantiated claim.

Quoted from phil-lee:

You have made it clear that you feel entitled to steal others work when you see fit (time constraints, Holder not making use of the Copyright) which is a new trend among younger people, that however does not make it right.

Please indicate where I indicated that I personally felt entitled to steal. Otherwise you're opening yourself to slander. Let's keep this civil. I am an artist and entrepreneur, and I am strongly for copyright.

This is not a trend among younger people. Black markets are as old as trade itself. Don't fool yourself.

Quoted from phil-lee:

A Copyright is a viable property, like gold, jewels or any form of asset.

No, you are fundamentally confused. Intellectual property is nothing like a liquid asset at all. It cannot be easily bought, sold or transferred. IP carries special protections and restrictions that liquid assets do not.

Quoted from phil-lee:

The Owner has the right to do whatever they wish with their property, whenever they wish. An asset is to be protected from theft, much like a burglar coming into your Business or home and stealing,there is no difference.

Your analogies are tortured to say the least. Copyright owners do not have absolute rights, they are tightly controlled by.... wait for it... copyright law!

A slightly better analogy for protecting IP is a department store. They know there will always be some shoplifting and factor it into their pricing. They take reasonable steps to protect against shoplifting, but at some point the cost outweighs the benefit.

Violations of copyright are not like trademark violations, where every violation must be vigorously defended. You won't lose your copyright if someone publishes fan art using your creations.

Quoted from phil-lee:

Fortunately it is not, the laws are in place to protect the person/entity holding the Patent,Copyright,etc and you will get your ass sued when you try to rip it off.

History has shown this not to be the case for black markets, for which I was arguing will appear no matter what we may want to believe.

Quoted from phil-lee:

Yes,there are many that will try to "Fill the void" when prices are high, such as Asian/Chinese knockoffs of Gibson guitars. Many unknowing innocent customers purchase knock-off watches, purses and everything else under the sun, hurting the Market for the real thing.

See, you're conflating things again. Can you not see a difference between selling a product that is not being sold, and making a counterfeit?

Quoted from phil-lee:

Much like the blatant rip off of Dr. Seuss in this thread, rather than create something new and original, the so-called Artist decided to steal the style,appearance and spirit of a Master and make it his/her own for profit.

It looks like a parody, and at least one judge agrees.

Quoted from phil-lee:

That doesn't fly in America, no matter how entitled people wish to argue otherwise. Get used to it. Or go Offshore so one can steal others property and profit like many others do/have done.

The right to make a parody exists in copyright law, no matter how much you don't understand how or why.

Our copyright system needs to be adjusted to accommodate things that were never envisioned at outset. Mashups, parts for long-dead products, abandonware, 3d printing, server-based games going offline... the list is long.

It also needs to be returned to the original intent: limited protection in the market to encourage innovation and then it goes into the public domain for the good of all. Instead, greed and entitlement has undermined this intent.

#50 8 months ago
Quoted from Brijam:

Back that up with something concrete, or it's simply a wild and unsubstantiated claim.

You said it," If a Copyright holder....."

Quoted from Brijam:

As an artist I assure you that we need the ability to borrow, steal and copy the works of the greats that came before us

Quoted from Brijam:

Please indicate where I indicated that I personally felt entitled to steal

Quoted from Brijam:

Intellectual property is nothing like a liquid asset at all. It cannot be easily bought, sold or transferred.

You are either kidding,naive or need further real-life experiences. Intellectual property is routinely stolen and sold, at least in the Specialty Chemicals Business.

Quoted from Brijam:

History has shown this not to be the case for black markets, for which I was arguing will appear no matter what we may want to believe.

Yes,and it is important to fight this and keep a lid on it,otherwise the substantial investments necessary to develop a Brand become fruitless in a Global Marketplace.

Quoted from Brijam:

It looks like a parody, and at least one judge agrees.

Good,all profits can go to a Charity. Can I create a Parody of your work and sell it on t-shirts? I promise to alter it a little from the original.
Your sophomoric attempts to lecture? FAIL. Keep studying, you will get to the truth one day.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
$ 18.00
Cabinet - Other
Pin Monk
$ 9,999.99
Pinball Machine
Little Shop Of Games
$ 999.00
Flipper Parts
Mircoplayfields
$ 76.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
$ 5,799.00
Pinball Machine
Classic Game Rooms
$ 20.90
Apparel - Unisex
Bright Lights Pinball
From: $ 99.99
$ 48.00
Cabinet - Other
ModFather Pinball Mods
From: $ 175.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Pinball Photos
$ 149.99
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 36.99
Eproms
Matt's Basement Arcade
$ 49.00
Cabinet - Other
Chrome Candy
From: $ 42.00
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 7,499.00
Pinball Machine
Operation Pinball
From: $ 42.00
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 123.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Lermods
From: $ 9.99
Eproms
Matt's Basement Arcade
$ 159.99
Lighting - Other
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 5,599.00
Pinball Machine
Classic Game Rooms
$ 150.00
Playfield - Protection
Republic Of Pinball
$ 254.99
$ 99.00
Lighting - Under Cabinet
Rock Custom Pinball
$ 99.99
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 35.00
Cabinet - Decals
Bright Lights Pinball
There are 53 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 2.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside