massiv direct links of HOL content on EBAY

[Marcuz]

Merlin there are a lot of workarounds to what you propose anyway while for the normal user these would be unneeded obstacles.

there is no actual need for such actions anyway as explained above, and watermarks simply protect the work of the HOL team as they are supposed to do. i really don't see any problem

[Duke]

Originally Posted by 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......

Just to clarify: With "timing out" you mean banning the IP? Or slowing down the viewing of images to 56k modem speed?

[Merlin]

@ Duke

It could mean either temporarily banning the IP for the remainder of the day or slowing the bandwidth down.

Can you throttle bandwidth to a user from your site?

@ marco

I am not trying to propose an unrealistic solution, I am suggesting that there are alternatives to total lockdown, that's all, I am trying to get people to think wider...

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by 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.

Chose to ignore it? Even though the thread is about an auction displaying HOL screenshots. Right.

In fact, I have said that the original copyright is owned by the original publishers and developers - this is one layer of copyright protection along with the HOL's own copyright and Database Right.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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?

Apparently you missed the part where I said we have no problem with material from the HOL used on auction sites. Apparently you chose to ignore the fact that HOL content has been used on numerous sites with our blessing and that we will happily help other projects. You ignore all this.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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.

Where on earth are you getting this nonsense? 27 different copyright and trademark charges? Do you even know what trademarks are? It seems not.

Ah, the mysterious legal expert friend. Oh dear.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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.

Really? So all the content of all the newspaper sites and the Internet Movie Database are all public domain now. You must start a new site using their content.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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.

No, I never thought it was trolling. In fact, I like being called a thief on public forums.

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by Zetr0

@cody

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

I was actually thinking the same thing about you.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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

???

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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.

Again, much misunderstanding. Try researching something about the copyright present in the originality of the arrangement of data.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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.

You've finally got it! That's the way copyright protects creativity.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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

No thank you.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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...

Actually, I haven't yet had any complaints from contributors apart from you. You are a contributor, aren't you?

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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.

Thanks but I am not going to enrich unscrupulous companies or individuals with my hard work.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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 really cannot believe that you can write this. You use fallacious logic and then when it's pointed out you use further fallacious logic. Instead of tackling my points you invent straw men to argue about instead. Not posting the entire text of a legal document? Use of Latin?

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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.

Except that we don't actually believe that we own the data. Except that there are other sites with similar data to the HOL with which we have no problem. The important point is that other sites should research their own data and not grab the HOL database and slap their name on the front of it.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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.

I will keep that in mind, along with the rumours of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by 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?

As I have repeatedly said copyright exists in the HOL database in multiple ways, including with the original developers/publishers and the HOL team so, what you have posted in fact shows that it's isn't public domain.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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.

Except that we are not claiming copyright to the box scans. The copyright rests with the original publishers/developers? How many times do I have to explain this?

The watermarks protect our work and enforce our Database Right as well as, conceivably our copyright in the selection and arrangement of the content.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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

Right, great.

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by 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).

I'm aware that the original copyright is held with the original creators. Unfortunately, it is impractical to trace every copyright owner due to the time elapsed since the games were created, the disappearance of most of the companies, the changing of companies into new ones, the buying up of companies, the death of some of the creators and the multiple countries involved. Attempting to trace all the owners would be a full time job in itself and as you know, the HOL is a small project run in spare time.

However, what is interesting is that of the people that we have been in touch with there have never been any problems and they are generally happy to see their work remembered and catalogued. Perversely the only problems come from people who don't actually own the copyright.

Furthermore it is the responsibility of the creator or an appointed third party to take steps to protect their own copyright and not a self-appointed person on an Internet forum.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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.

No, the bottom line is:

1) Original copyright subsists in the scans and screenshots with the original creator/publisher/developer.
2) An additional HOL copyright subsists in the unique chosing of a particular screengrab from the billions of possible screengrabs.
3) A further HOL copyright subsists in the arrangement of screenshots and material for each entry.
4) Another HOL copyright subsists in the database information - some of which is original to the HOL (e.g. custom genre types) and some of which is general (e.g. years of release).
5) The Database Right gives additional protection to the hard work involved in the database.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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.

Sadly, if carefully reasoned argument doesn't get through then I don't see what will.

Originally Posted by Merlin

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.

See above.

Originally Posted by Merlin

@ 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...

Then avoid unfounded accusations of thievery in the future.

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by Merlin

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

Offence taken. A careful reading of this thread will point to the blinkered members.

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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

Are you seriously talking about the HOL site? Denying service? How?

Where have I claimed ownership of public domain data? There are actually other sites with similar data because they have similar aims and are databases of Amiga games.

Originally Posted by Zetr0

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.

Reproduced again for your convenience:

1) Original copyright subsists in the scans and screenshots with the original creator/publisher/developer.
2) An additional HOL copyright subsists in the unique chosing of a particular screengrab from the billions of possible screengrabs.
3) A further HOL copyright subsists in the arrangement of screenshots and material for each entry.
4) Another HOL copyright subsists in the database information - some of which is original to the HOL (e.g. custom genre types) and some of which is general (e.g. years of release).
5) The Database Right gives additional protection to the hard work involved in the database.

[Marcuz]

Originally Posted by CodyJarrett

2) An additional HOL copyright subsists in the unique chosing of a particular screengrab from the billions of possible screengrabs.
3) A further HOL copyright subsists in the arrangement of screenshots and material for each entry.

not to add gas on the fire, but those would be derivative works so they could not be copyrighted anyway

---

could you guys take this copyright issues not as the armageddon, now?

[CodyJarrett]

Originally Posted by marco pedrana

not to add gas on the fire, but those would be derivative works so they could not be copyrighted anyway

---

could you guys take this copyright issues not as the armageddon, now?

No, this is copyright in the sense of the database arrangement/selection.

[Marcuz]

yes, but you can arrange it only because you have it and you have it because someone created it. i'm just sayin that the copyright for choosing an image among the thousand (even from a cinematic experience) on wich a copyright exists, cannot stand, not that creativity there is not involved: that's the reason i said derivative.
derivative works are not allowed by copyright, to an extent.

for the rest i agree with your points

[CodyJarrett]

My point is that there are specific inclusions into the Intellectual Property statutes for databases. And the originality test is:

(2) For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author's own intellectual creation.".

The selection or arrangement is an intellectual and creative act. This has a bearing on the Database Right.

[Marcuz]

Cody, again, i do not contest the database ownership, never have: but if the database arrange content on which you don't have copyright, as in this case, you cannot claim:

Originally Posted by CodyJarrett

2) An additional HOL copyright subsists in the unique chosing of a particular screengrab from the billions of possible screengrabs.

because the copyright on the original work usually ban its use for whatever intent not comprised in the original license.

however, i don't see attacks to HOL happening soon about these technicalities