Scans of old RQ box covers?

[skarl]

Copyright. If you can't even spell it, we can't be expected to take your opinions on it seriously.

Copies were asked for on a public forum.

Let's put it another way. Let's say someone was asking for a pdf of the latest BRP book, and was asking in a forum, and I was openly saying, "sure, I'll send you it". Would the site owners be concerned? Yes. It wouldn't be made any worse by their actually hosting it.

It's pretty ridiculous to be openly asking for and offering scans of the covers to be sent to you, and then getting nervous only when people ask you to post them up.

Don't ask me, I wasn't the one who started this thread, or who asked for scans to be sent to my email address. Those honours fall to trifletaxor, and Colin Chapman. Nor was I the one copying and distributing those files, which honour falls to Atgxtg.

In any case, the cover of an rpg is not like a song in an album, which is like a chapter in the rpg. The cover of an rpg is more like the cover of an album. While its copying and distribution may be copyright violation, the history of the internet shows that companies are unlikely to take action, since it has a promotional effect on their material. You can't listen to an album's cover, all you can do is get curious about it; likewise you can't play an rpg with just the cover, you just get curious about it.

Again, I don't see why it's all happy and chummy through private emails, but is suddenly a horrific sin on a forum. Either is a copyright violation, and neither is likely to be acted on.

So either report this thread to a moderator as piracy, or else quit being a cocksmock and post the damn covers up already.

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

Robert E. Howard

[Atgxtg]

Quite agree - and the only thing I'd add is that, irrespective of the specific legal niceties, quite a lot of cover art etc. that people blithely copy and pass around the internet is art work produced by a living artists and I personally feel one should ask permission and properly attribute ownership of such pieces simply out of respect for the creator...

Cheers,

Nick

True. But on the other hand the art was commisioned to advertise/promote the product within. Pretty much every on-line store uses images of covers to improve sales, and the companies behind the product not only encourage it, but participate in it. FOr instance, the cover's) for BRP were made available to us fans here, and with good reason. If nothing else it makes it easy for us to find the book on the shelves.

Personally I belive that an artist has no right to gripe if he sells an image to be usedas a cover and it shown/copied to promote said product. Most such use would be covered under the "Fair Use" law in the U.S. Otherwise no one could ever write a review and/or show the cover without getting into hot water.

[Atgxtg]

Copyright. If you can't even spell it, we can't be expected to take your opinions on it seriously.

Glad you didn't take it seriously, I'm pleased to know you were smiling when you typed that.

Copies were asked for on a public forum.

Let's put it another way. Let's say someone was asking for a pdf of the latest BRP book, and was asking in a forum, and I was openly saying, "sure, I'll send you it". Would the site owners be concerned? Yes. It wouldn't be made any worse by their actually hosting it.

It's pretty ridiculous to be openly asking for and offering scans of the covers to be sent to you, and then getting nervous only when people ask you to post them up.

Again you miss the point. Lets look at a more serious crime, say murder. Now it might not be a bright idea to talk about it with someone at the locale coffee shop,.

Actually bringing the corpus delicti with you to Starbucks, is definitely going to increase the chances of others taking notice of the act-significantly.

One other big factor in not doing anything on a public forum is that there is less chance of some third party being rude and insulting.

I know you don't take my opinion seriously, but I do take yours seriously. Others have mentioned that being rude doesn't help in getting your points across--Unless being rude is your point.

So either report this thread to a moderator...

I think Triff knows already.

[RMS]

I know you don't take my opinion seriously, but I do take yours seriously. Others have mentioned that being rude doesn't help in getting your points across--Unless being rude is your point.

It's pretty obvious that the whole point of the original post was to be rudely condescending...playing the old internet game of trying to make oneself feel better by belittling others, it appears. I always read these types of posts with a chuckle at why someone feels so threatened as to feel the need to post that way.

As to sharing said pictures on the internet: they would almost certainly fall directly under Fair Use, though you'd have to go to court to argue it if anyone cared to pursue it. The basic fact of the matter is that there's no reason for anyone to hassle you about sharing the cover art, even if it did not fall under Fair Use. OTOH I can completely understand why someone running a board, such as this, prefers not to have any chance of dealing with it. Hence the idea of sharing via email is a good common sense suggestion.

[sdavies2720]

...As to sharing said pictures on the internet: they would almost certainly fall directly under Fair Use, though you'd have to go to court to argue it if anyone cared to pursue it.

Is that really true? I've never looked it up, but I thought what constituted fair use was pretty limited, and I definitely didn't think it included making a copy for someone else, even in private.

Steve

[Atgxtg]

Is that really true? I've never looked it up, but I thought what constituted fair use was pretty limited, and I definitely didn't think it included making a copy for someone else, even in private.

Steve

Actually the Fair Use law is more of a vague guideline than a narrowly defined rule. Judgment is based primarily upon the following factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In this specfic instance:

1) The "use" is for non-profit.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work was to draw attention to, and promote the sale of the product it adorned.

3) Only a very smalll portion of the work (the cover) has been used in comparison to the body of the work.

4) The effect on the market value for the product is negligible. Triff is aware of and has the products in question already, so it isn't going to keep him from buying it.

Now considering that US courts have generally allowed parts of works to be reproduced to replace missing or damaged material (for instance, it's okay for a library to photocopy the last paged of a mystery novel and paste it in the back of a book missing said page), I'm pretty secure that this would probably be considered "fair use" under US law.

One problem with the "fair use" law in the US today, is that few companies like it or want to acknowledge it. For instance the major sports franchises in the US claim that reproducing any part of a game is prohibited, and have even gone after TV News programs for showing excerpts of games.

[Atgxtg]

It's pretty obvious that the whole point of the original post was to be rudely condescending...playing the old internet game of trying to make oneself feel better by belittling others, it appears. I always read these types of posts with a chuckle at why someone feels so threatened as to feel the need to post that way.

I7m not so sure. It could be that the guy just lacks tact. I recall an incident on another board where there was a guy who used "trash talk" all the time. Not to be rude, but because that was how all his friends acted and he just didn't know any better. Kyle has always been outspoken, andnever seems to tread lightly. So I'm not sure if he means to be offensive, or is he is just "extremely self assured" and it is coming out in his text. Or maybe, he is doing it all tongue in cheek.

I'd like to give Kyle the benefit of the doubt, especially as thing don't always come out in type the way we had intended them to.

As to sharing said pictures on the internet: they would almost certainly fall directly under Fair Use, though you'd have to go to court to argue it if anyone cared to pursue it. The basic fact of the matter is that there's no reason for anyone to hassle you about sharing the cover art, even if it did not fall under Fair Use. OTOH I can completely understand why someone running a board, such as this, prefers not to have any chance of dealing with it. Hence the idea of sharing via email is a good common sense suggestion.

Yeah, it most cases it would be counter productive for the copyright holder to act on it anyway, as it isn't hurting sales, and for a "live" RPG, actually can help to increase them. It is essentially free advertising. Also, going after someone in a case like this can generate a fan backlash.

Paramount fou8nd this out the hard way about ten years back when they started going after Star Trek sites. What ended up happening was that many fans simply moved on to other shows, who'se producers were more than happy to recieve the increased attention--and ratings.

P.S. It's nice to know the board's schoolteacher doesn't disregard my opinion over spelling errors. :thumb:

Doubt you'd be able to grade a term paper under that restriction.

[skarl]

Sometimes pictures shared over the internet are altered, printed in some format, and show up in flea markets lacquered onto really tacky little boxes and "treasure chests".

This happened to an illustrator who happened to be at a big flea market in Florida a year or two back, other people were making money from his work. He started a huge flap, and the people were forced to destroy what wasn't already sold and pay restitution.

A couple thought it was a harmless way to make money; downloading high resolution fantasy art and making a little money at flea markets. That is the sort of thing that monkeys like to do; make a little profit off of someone else's work. I am not implying that the original poster was meaning to do this. But once a picture gets out there and makes the rounds who can say that this won't happen? I would rather not be a part of it or contribute in any way. It is tough enough not to tell Quinton about his dragons in the Middle-Earth bestiary. He isn't the sort of chap that you want to see angry.

[Atgxtg]

Skarl,

Yeah, it is possible for an image to be misused that way. Any tool can be misused. In the case of cover images though, the images are already out there. Places liek Amazon or DriveThru.RPG put op the cover art for virtually everything the sell, as does anyone wo sells an item on eBay.

All is legal under the laws of the US and many other countries as part of the rights of the seller/end user.

By selling art to be used on the cover to promote a product, an artist looses some or all rights to the art and how it is used (depending on the terms the art was sold under).

It sort of has to be this way, otherwise the people who buy a book or vidoe would not be allowed to look at or read it.

Now talikng an image form a product and using it for something else (to adorn little boxes, for example) isn't the same thiung, nor would it be covered under the Fair USe law.

[skarl]

I believe that there are watermarks and/or low resolution images with most online vendors.

An illustrator only "loses" the rights to an image that they agree to in the contract, and any good contract includes publicity. I know of no contract that includes third parties to make scans of the work whenever they feel like it since it is impossible to enforce low resolution scans.

If you think that fair use laws are always implied try pushing this theory with Games Workshop.

[Solardog]

I believe that there are watermarks and/or low resolution images with most online vendors.

waynesbooks:

Runequest (Chaosium/Judges Guild)

Runequest - 3rd Edition (Avalon Hill)

[skarl]

Yes, low resolution pictures, they were covered in my reply.

[Trifletraxor]

The review section has images of the covers of the various supplements that are reviewed. Both Mongoose and Chaosium uses high-resolution scans to promote their products, but this falls squarly in under "fair use" the way I see it.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

The review section has images of the covers of the various supplements that are reviewed. Both Mongoose and Chaosium uses high-resolution scans to promote their products, but this falls squarly in under "fair use" the way I see it.

SGL.

Gee, look at all the "trouble" you caused me, "bug".

If you think that fair use laws are always implied try pushing this theory with Games Workshop.

skarl,

just becuase a company doesn't like the fair use law, doesn't mean it doesn't apply.The law exists, but companies don't have to like it, and don't draw attention to it.. LIkewise, even when it does apply, that doesn't prevent a company from making char5ges and trying to sue someone in court for damages-typically more money than the accused has.

That's why a lot of sites will remove stuff the moment they get a cease & desist letter and a threat to sue them for gazillion dollars. Its usually better to take down something, even if you are in the right, than go to court and take the risk of losing everything you have over it. Unfortunately, the US legal system is a lot like a Poker game. People with more money have a good chance of "raising" thier opponents out of the game.

I7ve actually been in a similar situation, and despite the fact that I was completely in the right (I didn't even do the thing I had been accused of), and had the proof to back it up, I was still intimidated by the legal resources being thrown against me (in this case, Warner Brothers).

So companies do make claims and threats even when the law is not on thier side.

[Trifletraxor]

Gee, look at all the "trouble" you caused me, "bug".

Bugs will rule the world. Just wait...

[Atgxtg]

Bugs will rule the world. Just wait...

Now that makes sense. By the time they do I7ll be dead. Unless the bugs are planning something soon and are going to keep some humans around to do menial tasks like telemarketing.

Knowing humnas, though, I suspect they will invent some pesticide that wipes out all the bugs in spite. Or mabe we'll crack the mantel and finsd a way to get the planet to go all liquid again. If we can't have it no one can!