massiv direct links of HOL content on EBAY

[Merlin]

My learned colleague is correct in what he says above.

If I can draw a parallel with TOSEC for a moment;-

TOSEC collects ADFs of Amiga software for preservation purposes, just like CAPS. TOSEC allows the information (albeit copyrighted material) into the public domain via torrents on sites like Underground Gamer and Pleasureworld. There are people who openly advertise Amiga collections which are obviously TOSEC material, however, TOSEC can do nothing about it since the original data the ADFs were compiled from were copyrighted material in themselves.

In this case, HOL are in exactly the same position as TOSEC in my case; you cannot complain, since the material you are claiming copyright on is not copyright to you. The images are the copyright of the original publisher/creator/artist that created them.

The best option is to make it all public domain, then grin and bear it if people try to profit from it on the auction sites, that is their problem if it goes pear shaped (for example, Sony could take him to court for using Psygnosis images, since Sony now own Psygnosis).

On the other hand, why should any member make any further contributions to a database, that you lock away and not allow people to make proper use of? All this is leading to is demarcation of the scene as you are not giving back what you receive from the members' submissions.

If it's in the public domain then it's tough, you can't take your bat and ball home just because you don't like what people do with your copied material. You can't change the truth, just because you don't like what it looks like.

Incidentally, I see no disclaimers on HOL stating that all scanned artwork and images are the copyright of the original author/publisher/artist etc., I would strongly recommend that you add such a disclaimer and also cover yourselves for any mis-use or abuse outside of your control.

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by Zetr0

firstly i would to refer your post to the answer you gave in post#14 of this thread that make most of this a moot point.

How is that? I acknowledge that the application of copyright and Database Right in this case is not as simple as is being presented.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

Also in future, when you want to quote the law, please quote it in its entirety as opposed to a few words that could be interpreted in such favour,

You want me to post the entire text? Why? The relevant sections highlight the incorrectness of your post.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

Directive to state a database right in an IP law you would have to state HOL is losing out Financially to some one else publishing HOL's work. Now I can see the point of the argument with bandwidth theft, with this I totally agree... but theft of a common resource....

please thats just a joke. you must be insane to think that could be even remotely exist, unless HOL is no longer a common open source resource ?

Again, I must point you to the actual legal text which does not stipulate a financial loss. Since the HOL does not make any money at all and that there is not actually any financial loss and furthermore the Database Right does not require any financial loss to apply why would I think that there is financial loss?

Acts infringing database right
16. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, a person infringes database right in a database if, without the consent of the owner of the right, he extracts or re-utilises all or a substantial part of the contents of the database.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, the repeated and systematic extraction or re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of a database may amount to the extraction or re-utilisation of a substantial part of those contents.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

whom Owns HOL ? you, the team ? EAB ? or the users ?

The HOL team.

And the HOL is not Open Source.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

Why is there no disclaimer on the site ? what about statement to third party information and their property right.

Disclaimer for what? You mean beyond the copyright messages that are on the site?

Coded by RCK of abime.net - Content © 1998-2008 HOL TEAM - Online amiga database © 2002-2008 HOL TEAM

Originally Posted by Zetr0

I had hoped you would see reason in this, alas you are totally convinced your interpretation of the Law is absolutely correct,

Eh? What fool thinks that their interpretation is totally correct? Different people have different interpretations. The problem seems to be I don't have the same interpretation as you and so I'm apparently in the wrong. Am I now supposed to have the same interpretation as everyone else, which is an impossibility?

Originally Posted by Zetr0

I can only surmise you have not dealt with official legal contracts before.

Oh dear, the fallacy of ad hominem.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

Yes IP is granted on creation in the UK, but the moment you place this in the public domain, in part or in whole, you cannot take it back out. thats UK law

We have NOT placed the database in the public domain. The database is accessible from the Abime server through the HOL website. That is not the same as giving up the rights to it. Putting the database on a unconnected machine is somewhat against the principles of the Internet and websites!

Originally Posted by Zetr0

Database Right`s do not protect content provided by third party... anyway.... this is turning into a troll fest, one should never feed them and my post count is high enough.

please understand cody, the work you and the HOL team have done is legendary, you are indeed my hero's for it... but this retaining of control really is a narrow sighted action...

I just wish you could see that.

Retaining of control? For watermarking images? From your tone of moral indignation from the minority (e.g. about two users here) I feel like I've just murdered a baby. How about taking your crusade to some of the sites which use box scans and screenshots plus generate revenue from adverts? If the HOL, a site which generates nothing but still has server and bandwidth costs to pay, is the great evil for putting a small transparent watermark its content then those other sites must be mass-murderers!

The HOL has actually been created by a very small number of people, both team members and contributors, who spend large chunks of their time to bring this free resource. The site would grow very quickly if we had the level sort of community input that seems to be assumed. All this is doing is exasperating the people who make it happen.

And I've now realised that when creating a website like the HOL being called a thief is par for the course. You can't please everybody and I'm not going to try.

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by Merlin

My learned colleague is correct in what he says above.

Yes, except for all the factual errors.

Originally Posted by Merlin

If I can draw a parallel with TOSEC for a moment;-

TOSEC collects ADFs of Amiga software for preservation purposes, just like CAPS. TOSEC allows the information (albeit copyrighted material) into the public domain via torrents on sites like Underground Gamer and Pleasureworld. There are people who openly advertise Amiga collections which are obviously TOSEC material, however, TOSEC can do nothing about it since the original data the ADFs were compiled from were copyrighted material in themselves.

In this case, HOL are in exactly the same position as TOSEC in my case; you cannot complain, since the material you are claiming copyright on is not copyright to you. The images are the copyright of the original publisher/creator/artist that created them.

You seem to ignore the fact that we do have copyright on the database content, including, for example, arrangement and selection of screenshots.

Originally Posted by Merlin

The best option is to make it all public domain, then grin and bear it if people try to profit from it on the auction sites, that is their problem if it goes pear shaped (for example, Sony could take him to court for using Psygnosis images, since Sony now own Psygnosis).

Actually, most of the comments here about auction site came from non-HOL team members. The HOL team doesn't actually have a problem with its screenshots being used on auction sites.

Originally Posted by Merlin

On the other hand, why should any member make any further contributions to a database, that you lock away and not allow people to make proper use of? All this is leading to is demarcation of the scene as you are not giving back what you receive from the members' submissions.

Lock away? By having a site viewable to all?

Not giving back? By running an ad-free website that costs us money. Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Merlin

If it's in the public domain then it's tough, you can't take your bat and ball home just because you don't like what people do with your copied material. You can't change the truth, just because you don't like what it looks like.

Er, it's not in the public domain. Running a website doesn't mean that you've just allowed all your content to be used in whatever way anyone sees fit.

Originally Posted by Merlin

Incidentally, I see no disclaimers on HOL stating that all scanned artwork and images are the copyright of the original author/publisher/artist etc., I would strongly recommend that you add such a disclaimer and also cover yourselves for any mis-use or abuse outside of your control.

Thanks for the legal advice.

[Merlin]

With all due respect Cody, you fail to address the issue of box scans and magazine articles, both of which are subject to copyright and for some reason you choose to ignore this and just mention screen shots.

I understand your point in relation to screen shots and your database layout, however, what is HOL's stance on the use of magazine and box scans being used in auction advertisements? If a member uploads a box art scan to you and then uses the same image in an Ebay ad, who's going to ask him to remove it, since he supplied it to HOL? Adding watermarks is only adding complexity and lining up HOL for a fall, since you are clearly advertising that HOL are in breach of copyright for box art and magazine scans. I would recommend that you remove that giant digital finger pointing directly at HOL if you ask me. I am aware that up to 27 different copyright and trade mark charges can be levied against you for breach of copyright on computer artwork; that fact was pointed out to me by a solicitor who deals with computer piracy and I wouldn't call his word into question.

The fact you published the information on a web site for public viewing makes it public domain. You can't re-write the rules, just because you don't like them. Releasing this information onto the Internet automatically makes it public domain, otherwise it's private and I shouldn't be able to see it freely.

I hope you don't see this as trolling, that's not the intention. All I am suggesting is that common sense prevails here and that you can't put the genie back in the bottle once it's escaped.

[Duke]

I think you should look up the definition of "public domain".

[Zetr0]

@cody

Clearly this argument is pointless with some one as convinced. I only post this as a last ditch effort.

I had hoped that some of what i stated would help you see another viewpoint other than the limited vantage point where you are perched, not only do you contradict yourself through trolling both posts you do not even realise that you cannot copyright factual data, albeit images (which was for another thread not this one, as i hadn't even mentioned it) or text that are both readily available in the public domain or through third party sources.

clearly you have now drawn a line as to where you and HOL sit within regards to the community... for anyone to use, as long as you agree with it.

I am sorry that you feel the burden of bandwidth and site maintenance, i can offer free UNLIMITED BANDWIDTH, with UNLIMITED TRAFFIC to ease your costs. I believe that as a resource HOL is worth it

Have you thought how those people that submitted their time and effort now arguably have no control of their submission... for instance, should i wish to sell my original copy of space hulk, and for arguments sake, say that i had submitted both the box art, and screen shots. according to what has been stated here I am not allowed to embed that work in my sale or other works.... unless you / HOL team agree to it...

I am deeply saddened that external influences have clearly embittered the HOL team. why can you not see that use in itself justifies the hard work you and the team have done.

LOL now I refuse to pick posts, these are actions of a TROLL but for one instance... "ad hominem."

I find those the use Latin in an argument are indeed overly pretentious, theres no need for it, if you feel i was directly attacking you as opposed to the substance of your argument, thats because there is no substance! think of it a statement of fact.

I cannot seem to get through this unbelievable belief of yours that HOL is the data controller to ALL factual data, and forgive me, but the interpretation of the law of statute that you have is flawed.

I do hope you realise this before anything comes to bite HOL on the ass, legally speaking, it would be a sad thing to lose indeed.

[Merlin]

@ Duke

OK, let's see what Google says about this....

"...any work that is not copyright protected is considered to be in the "public domain", and includes materials created prior to 1922, works created for public use, government documents unless otherwise specified, and works whose copyright has expired".

Fair enough, that covers the screen shots, but the rest is copyrighted.

"A work is said to be in the public domain if it is not protected by copyright, or if the copyright for it has expired."

I assume you keep extensive records about expired copyright material displayed on your site?

You can't claim copyright for HOL, just because you add a watermark to a box scan scanned image that is aready subject to copyright.

If you can't see my point in all of this, I guess you need to understand copyright law as well.

[Duke]

Okay, since you don't seem to get what actually is copyrighted here:

- Box scans and screenshots: Copyrighted by the creator, in most cases this would be the publisher
- HTML/CSS code: Copyright by RCK
- The collection of data about titles and putting them in a structured form: Copyright by the HOL-Team (see Codys post, database right)

None of this is in the public domain, however the screenshots of public domain titles would be.

[Marcuz]

Merlin: codyjarret has already answered that the copyright on the images is under the responsability of the authors/copyright holders of the games not of the screenshots creators: it's not up to HOL team, as i see it, to enforce copyright on the screenshot use out of the site.

what is instead responsability of the HOL team and admin are the bandwidth use and the database.
in general i know that any concept property is protected - differently in different countries and areas of the world - as soon as said concept is published.

as for what happens in regards of databases theft in this internet age, if they are ruled in court or even aknowledged, that i don't know, but i don't see the reason to fight over it here this way.

[RCK]

Merlin, Zetr0,

Could you remind me why did you start this copyright rant ?
Is there something you don't like on our work ?

[Merlin]

I will have one last try on this then I give up.

The responsibility for copyright for the images, cannot sit with HOL, since they have not sought and obtained the original copyright holder's permission to host the image of the artwork in the first place; unless the game was produced before 1922 (hmmm....) they cannot hold the copyright, and, even if the game was abandonware, they should have obtained the copyright holder's permission, or at least put up a disclaimer stating that the copyright sits with the original creators of any artwork hosted (leave the screen shots out of this for now).

The bottom line is, HOL only holds copyright to the database skeleton upon which the images are placed, not the images themselves. They maybe hold copyright on the text put into the template as well, but that's about it.

I do understand copyright law incidentally, at least in the UK...unless the host country has some weird copyright law in the way China sees it (i.e. not at all) then I fail to see how your argument holds water.

HOL watermarking them to say "These images are ours" is irrelevant, since the original copyright holders have already made their mark in terms of logos on the images.

@ RCK

It's not a rant, or even flaming; as far as I am concerned, it's a discussion about copyright law, I am perfectly calm...

[Duke]

We don't want copyright of the images, where did we write that? RCK has just activated the leech protection to prevent bandwidth abuse.

[Merlin]

@ Duke

All I am trying to say is, protect yourselves. I didn't see any disclaimers on HOL about copyright, apart from the bottom of the page, which made no mention of original copyright holders for images.

It's just a suggestion, you don't have to take it up....

No further questions m'Lud.

[RCK]

haaa, it's about watermark on pictures ?!
if you have another idea to prevent the massive leeching we had, I would be happy to remove it

[Merlin]

OK, how about:-
1. Using a CAPTCHA system, so that you can only download one at a time, like Rapidsh**e?

2. Imposing a daily limit on downloads, e.g. no more that 5 per day?

3. Using a time limited cookie, to control the user's time on the site?

At least, option 1 or 2 would stop software like Reaper or Teleport from ripping the site.

I'm no expert in this area of bandwidth control. I am only offering suggestions, I am trying to help you, believe it or not.

[Belgarath]

That's the craziest idea I've ever heard...

If you are viewing the pictures online then you've downloaded the picture so if we used your suggestion you'd only see 5 pics a day at most??

[Merlin]

@ Belgarath

I didn't say to SEE them, I said to download them.....there's a difference.... unless you want to argue about what's in an Internet cache on a PC....

Are you always so unreceptive to ideas?

Edit: If you have disabled right-click to download and you limit the downloads, the leecher would soon get bored taking screenshots etc.

The point is to make it take it take too long to make it worthwhile, that's all you can do I suppose...

[Belgarath]

There is no difference! You see a picture means it's downloaded!
Right clicking to save the picture is just copying what's already been downloaded to somewhere else.

Sorry to say this but this shows how woefully ignorant you are.

[Merlin]

Sorry, it also shows how totally blinkered the HOL team are, no offence intended.

My point about a time-limited cookie was to limit how many they could see before timing out. You can't stop leeching, you can slow it right down though....

Forget it, none so blind as those who will not see......

[Zetr0]

Originally Posted by RCK

Merlin, Zetr0,

Could you remind me why did you start this copyright rant ?
Is there something you don't like on our work ?

I didnt. i just want to help. its a shame i cannot make myself understood.

Originally Posted by Duke

We don't want copyright of the images, where did we write that? RCK has just activated the leech protection to prevent bandwidth abuse.

as well as water marks, etc etc... i didn't bring this up either.

Originally Posted by RCK

haaa, it's about watermark on pictures ?!
if you have another idea to prevent the massive leeching we had, I would be happy to remove it

no... my argument is not about that at all ...

please understand I do not say this with irony but with conviction, which seems to be over looked.

I have the deepest and the up most respect to HOL Team, your work indeed is legendary, i mean this with all the sincerity i have.

my only issue is why the persistent bolting down, denying of service, claiming ownership of third party / public domain data.

the only real property that HOL own is the database structure and anything unique unto that, like personal reviews, table and cross link ID's etc.

Screen shots, box scans, factual data are owned by thier respective copyright holders and cannot be owned by HOL.

thats the crux of the argument. simple as really...

lets hope i have made my argument a little clearer.