Buying credits to download DVD covers- what's wrong with this picture? (1 Viewer)

[David Susilo]

Damin wrote:

Are you claiming that DVDCoverArt only features covers for legally-available DVDs? Try doing a search for "Star Wars" or "Indiana Jones". Are you telling me that people other than those who buy bootlegs are downloading covers for Episode IV? What are they doing with them? Printing them out and tacking them onto a wall?

Not tacking them onto a wall, per se, but I personally have downloaded, printed, insert them to empty DVD cases, and put them along with my other DVDs (none of which bootleg, BTW).

never assume, Damin.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Re: the Zardoz site:
Fox would be well within their rights to ask me to take down the Zardoz site, or at least a few of the images on it. They are well aware of the site, as I contributed the bulk of the extras for the DVD, and they supplied me with the cover art and menu shots. So far, they haven't complained about it as a promotional tool, going so far as to get me the test pressing of the DVD for review a month prior to its release. That still doesn't make the use of some of the images on the site necessarily legal, however most were issued as promotional items to begin with and are being displayed as such. As Damin said, they are also low res and useful only for demonstrative purposes, and I am not altering someone else's work in the process, other than resizing images. Any text taken from the press materials was again intended for publication.

That said, I am not arguing to shut down dvdcoverart.com just trying to clarify that it would have a hard time arguing it was operating within the bounds of copyright law. It is not up to me to enforce the rights of the original artists, but I do take exception when the legality of alstering and distributing images which belong to someone else, especially while charging for it.

 

[Damin J Toell]

David Rogers:

never assume, Damin.

I didn't. I just expressed my opinion regarding the probable existence of alternate activity by DVDCoverArt users, since it was implied that they only offered covers for legally-available discs. I certainly never said that everyone who ever downloaded a Star Wars cover bought a bootleg, although you'll excuse me if I find it odd that two people in this thread like to print up fake covers for empty DVD cases. Maybe I'm completely out of touch, but I've never quite heard of that practice before.

DJ

 

[David Susilo]

Damin,

to be fair, I'm a pretty weird dude. Just look here as proof.

 

[Tony Whalen]

...although you'll excuse me if I find it odd that two people in this thread like to print up fake covers for empty DVD cases. Maybe I'm completely out of touch, but I've never quite heard of that practice before.

So yer sayin' I'm full of it then?

I'm *thinking* about printing 'em up. It's called being a "completist". Same reason I have a copy of *shudder* Superman IV and Alien Resurrection. I watched 'em once and probably never will again... but I had to have the complete series! Anal? Yup. Weird? Probably. Do I care what other folks think? Not a whit.

I've certainly heard of stranger things....

Frankly, I don't see what is strange about making a "placeholder". Makes the collection look complete... and I know durned well that I'll be purchasing the SW flicks the second they get put on on our favorite silver discs. In 2006 or whatever. I *refuse* to purchase bootlegs.. even of SW or the Indy flicks. I will not support the people that make 'em. But I see nothing wrong with taking up two inches of shelf space (that wasn't being used anyway) with a "fake". (And I'll add that the "fake" covers I print look better and more professional than a lot of the "real" ones made by the studios.)

I've printed custom covers for my entire Bond collection. At the time, I was missing two of the movies. Printed placeholders for them, knowing full well I'd pick 'em up. And did so shortly thereafter. Am I insane? Don't care.

Regardless....I think I'm pretty much done with this discussion. Some of us like this. Some of us don't. Some of us view the legalities of the situation in different ways. I think there is a lot that is open to interpretation here. I also think we could sit around yapping about it until the cows come home, and not convince each other of anything. So I don't see a point to the discussion. (Other than admitting I'm a weird DVD addict.. *chuckle*)

I *hope* that no one is out to shut them down. Leave that to the studios. Like I said.. if the studios have a problem with it, I'm pretty sure dvdcoverart.com will hear about it.

 

[David Rogers]

Are you telling me that it's impossible to not buy a Star Wars bootleg? Wow.

Nope, you're playing /reply games.

I went DVD in 1999. In 2002 I finally gave up waiting on Luca$film to make it possible to own Star Wars optical discs issued by them and obtained the same movies I alreayd own two copies of on VCDs.

Once again, and very slowly so you might grasp my response better than your reply seems to. If they won't let me buy optical discs with Star Wars on them, that's on them. I *want* to buy them. I even want to buy them twice if they'll let me (once for movies and another time when they do SE discs that are loaded). They refuse to let me. It's a middle finger at the fan base of one of modern Amerian culture's most important cinematic milestones. You do the math, okay?

 

[Tony Whalen]

to be fair, I'm a pretty weird dude.

OMG!

Well... that's an original auction. I'll be curious to see if you get any bids!

... and I'd say that qualifies you as "weird". Funny too.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Strictly speaking, that's not true. While the copyright holder must file suit in order to get a civil injunction or damages, not getting sued doesn't mean that a violation of copyright law didn't happen. Further, the copyright holder need not be involved at all in order to bring a criminal copyright infringement case.

obviously. ever hear of the tree falling in the forest bit? damin, you seem to be more uptight about this issue than the copyright holders themselves!

people break laws every single day, technically. doesn't mean we need to litigate each instance.

:rolleyes

 

[JohnRice]

There is something disturbingly Orwellian about some of the feedback in this thread. The concept of condemning something because it can be abused is more than a bit.....well, I shouldn't get into a political area. Jeff condemns DVDCoverart because it does dance in a grey area, but lets himself off the hook for, by his own admission, breaking the same image copyrights by justifying it as "Low Res" and because the studio knows about it. I assure you, the studios know about DVDCoverart. If it becomes a problem, like it did with the CD sites, the service will be gone. For now, it is a very nice resource, and I'm sure that figure of 75 GB/month has increased,, but so has the number of covers available.

Ultimately, I just don't understand why a couple of people here are so upset by what the site is doing.

 

[Tony Whalen]

There is something disturbingly Orwellian about some of the feedback in this thread. The concept of condemning something because it can be abused is more than a bit.....well, I shouldn't get into a political area.

Okay... I know I said I was pretty much done with this thread.. .I lied.

Was thinking over lunch, and was having similar thoughts to John, although not about Jeff's site.

I was actually thinking about how many people circumvent region coding in various ways. Apples and oranges perhaps... but it DID occur to me. So, seein' as I ain't shy about my opinions, I'm sharing.

On a different note, I was also remembering Fox going nutty, and shutting down X-Files sites all over the 'net early in the run of that series. I also remember the fan backlash from that. I mention this in reference to "if the studios want to shut *blank_site* down, they will."

I'm with John & Patrick. I don't know why people are so upset/uptight about this. To each their own...

NOW I'm done. I think.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Jeff condemns DVDCoverart because it does dance in a grey area, but lets himself off the hook for, by his own admission, breaking the same image copyrights by justifying it as "Low Res" and because the studio knows about it.

You are overlooking a several very obvious issues here, which make the nature of the sites implicitely different.

The images used on the Zardoz site are for promotional and informative uses. They were (in all but a few select cases) originally released for promotional use, and for publication. Those images that weren't original promotional items (screengrabs from the film) are presented for demonstrative purposes, which is permissible under fair use. They are presented unaltered, and are not being offered on a charge per view basis. The sole purpose of the site is to promote the sale of the product, not to provide the product to the consumer.

By contrast, the covers on dvdcoverart.com are: unauthorised alterations of copyrighted material, being distributed to enhance someone's property by download, available in high res, and pay per use. There is a very significant difference.

Read the law.

The only reason I have any issue with this is because people make assumptions about copyright law that are completely incorrect, and spout off about it as though it is the truth. Do I really care whether someone makes a cover and posts it on the website, or downloads it to replace a crappy design on a disc they own? No. I only have a concern about passing the activity off as something completly legal, which it is not, and perpetuating misinformation about IP laws. End of story.

 

[Damin J Toell]

people break laws every single day, technically. doesn't mean we need to litigate each instance.

And I never said we did, did I? If you're going to roll your eyes at me, at least do it for what I've actually said instead of words you've invented for me.

DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

If they won't let me buy optical discs with Star Wars on them, that's on them.

So if someone won't sell you something legally, it's their fault that you break the law to get it? I'm sure I'm probably "playing games" by reasonably reading what you wrote, though.

DJ

 

[JohnRice]

Jeff, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, and I point out your web site not because the exact same law applies, but because it does, technically, break the law.

Your comment that DVDCoverart is "pay per use" is not really accurate. It is not necessary to "Pay" for anything and you can download something one and use it many times. We are splitting hairs on this issue, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that many people incorrectly spout about copyright laws, and I am very much concerned with the protection of creative content. I never used, and never will use any of the unauthorized MP3 sites. The justifying I have seen regarding the use of those sites is just weak.

Something that keeps coming to mind is, if you are driving down a 2 lane highway with a 55 MPH speed limit when you get stuck behing someone going 45, what do you do? If you pass, do you go over 55? If you do, you are technically breaking the law, but not to go that fast could very well be hazardous. So, do you just sit there? I know on the surface, these are unrelated, but there is stil a point to be made.

I'm guessing you are concerned with the copyright of the cover and images themselves. While I understand that, when someone buys a DVD, they are paying for the contents of the DVD, not the cover, which was created by a graphic artist strictly for marketing purposes. I see no problem in viewing the film and supplements as the intellectual property and the cover as gift wrapping. I still don't think making a new cover for my own use as remotely an infraction. Distributing it may be a different issue, at least technically.

I am a photographer and my parents were both musicians, so the concept of intellectual property is important to me. I can't get past the thought that the spirit of these concepts is that the creators are paid for their work and that nobody else profits from them. This could present a bit of a sticking point with the site, but unlimately any profit realized will be minimal, and probably nonexistant. Meanwhile, the site does in some manner promote interest in the actual DVD product.

 

[Stu Rosen]

I'm a copyright lawyer, and Damin's 100% correct. It's infringement, and there's no grey area about it.

You can get as creative as you want, and you can complain that studios shouldn't complain if you use their intellectual property. It doesn't change a thing. It's infringement, pure and simple.

I'd go into a long explanation why, but after reading Damin's thoughtful posts, I'll just say, "what he said."