»

[jkirk]

ther is one issue that is being skirted around here. the copyright holder should be the one complaining about infringement not the users. after all who else would know if this was legal or not. if they do not care about their product being reproduced then who are we to judge?

if we see something potentially illegal we should notify the copyright holder. we should not take this into our own hands.

[paulvm]

I designed my avatar image myself.- gee i remember neil diamond sue by the makers of e.t. about heartlight song just inspired by the movie. neil lost.

as for pics on amiga org
1.Fair Use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)
they are not of lesser quality you click on them their full size and not link(full size image) to artist website. limiting the artist ably to sell those images again. example sachs pics.

2.By not limiting the time images are in libirary in time stored they might violate these.
Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin's death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the "heart" of the film. (Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. (Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y. 1996).)
Not a fair use. A television station's news broadcast used 30 seconds from a fourminute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work and affected the copyright owner's ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)

. Internet Cases

Not a fair use. Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)
Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet (see previous case). Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F. Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)

As for photographs submitted do you know the person submitting the photo is the taker. Their is no way a website can know this.

A swag i was refencing the t-shirt amiga org is selling it contains 2 images copywrighted by Amiga inc. the checkmark and the ball. Amiga might allow to use logos on your website nonprofit, but selling a t-shirt is a profit business. no way it can be underfair use.

I am not a lawyer but neither or you guys. I am just making the point unless you are and own the rights to items in question or a laywer for them. you have no right to say what violiates copyright. All you know the owner might have given premission. If you have a problem report it to the owner not ebay. Ebay has no idea whos contacting them or why? If you own the right to item in question or not. The better question if you mess up a legal sell of a item because author does have the copywright or ownership can you be sued and not only for value of item for damage of his online business? I the case of those demo i think it would be too difficult to prove who made them most writers used fake names and were involved in groups that cracked games at the time. If they used a fake name It would be near impossible to prove it is them now.

[weirdami]

ll the demos are freely (and legally) downloadable

Freely available does not mean free to profit from and does not mean public domain.

[Piru]

The pics on amiga.org. You need to make a distinction between actual copyrighted pictures, and pictures of copyrighted work (something else than a picture). These are two different things.

Naturally uploading copyrighted picture as-is is not fair use. However, screenshot of demo / game is.

A swag i was refencing the t-shirt amiga org is selling it contains 2 images copywrighted by Amiga inc. the checkmark and the ball. Amiga might allow to use logos on your website nonprofit, but selling a t-shirt is a profit business. no way it can be underfair use.

It is copyrigth infrigiment only if the images are really copyright someone else and there is no license to use them. Somehow I doubt amiga.org would be selling the stuff if there were any copyright/license issues... But following your own advice, you've already reported the infrigiment to Amiga, inc. right?

most writers used fake names and were involved in groups that cracked games at the time.

Irrelevant. This is no way connected to copyright of other works. Even if you're a criminal you don't lose the copyright of your own work.

If they used a fake name It would be near impossible to prove it is them now.

Actually even if you make your work under pseudonym, you're rewarded the copyright regardless. So, really, I don't see what the problem there is: It's the same anyway, you still need to prove you're the author...

[Lando]

weirdami wrote:

Freely available does not mean free to profit from and does not mean public domain.

No, it's the fact that the demos were released into the public domain by the authors, distributed by Public Domain libraries on disks with "Public Domain software" printed on them in big black letters, reviewed in the "Public Domain" sections of Amiga magazines, distributed as public domain for over a decade, included on numerous Public Domain CD compilations, distributed as Public Domain on the internet, on BBS's, and by mail swappers that made them public domain.

If they weren't public domain the authors should have done something about it then and sued Future publishing, ACP & TCP, 17-bit, Almathera, PDSoft, Amiga BBS's, and all the rest. Not have a few people who know nothing about it abritrarily decide on their behalf 15 years after the fact that they weren't public domain after all.

[Lando]

Incidentally, acp & tcp are still selling the 'Scene Archives' CD collections (approx 1000 scene demos / intros per CD) at 10 Euro each, and Vesalia is selling the Amiga CD Sensation - Demos are Forever compilation for 3 Euro.

So, if those of you who say you are against this on principle, and aren't just applying your rule selectively, you can drop them a line (contact email addresses on their respective websites) and let them know what dirty pirates they are.

And, of course, the links to their sites can be deleted from Amiga.org (just as the link to the DVD the guy was selling originally was).

[j_tramiel]

Jesus, I can't believe they are still harping on about this!

Funny how some people have absolutely no life at all.

Anyway, just looking back at what that idiot Piru has posted:

You need to make a distinction between actual copyrighted pictures, and pictures of copyrighted work (something else than a picture). These are two different things.

Hmm, well that equates to my DVD: I am not distributing the code (which is what any copyright would apply to), but moving images of the output from the code, a bit like a screenshot of a game (yep, fair use then!)

Also,

Pictures of hardware are copyright by the person taking the photo.

So, I used my hardware to take a moving 'photo' of the demos, therefore I own the copyright to the 'moving photos' (videos).

haha, he is talking absolute cack, and has basically just agreed that I hold the copyright to the videos I made.

(as I suspected, the guy's a tool!)

PS: Thank you lando... you are about the only person around here that is displaying any common sense whatsoever.