dvdcoverart.com unavailable (1 Viewer)

[Jimmy M]

Jeff Ulmer,

Out of curiosity, have you never taped a record or CD that didn't belong to you?

Jimmy!

 

[Lew Crippen]

[ A significant problem for any holder of a trademark or copyright is the necessity in law to defend the trademark and also not alienate potential customers. This is no doubt more of a problem for Disney than most studios because of their extensive revenue base generated outside of the their movies but dependent upon the images and characters generated by those movies.

There are cases where the failure to defend a trademark has resulted in the loss of the trademark, the usual example being that of aspirin (which was held by Bayer). Losses such as this are why you ask for a ‘coke’ in a restaurant, the waiter often asks you if ‘Pepsi’ will do. Or the other way around.

I’m not as current as Jeff as to how many jobs stand to be lost (if any) should the site be allowed to operate as it had. However it is clear that Disney has an enormous commercial interest to protect (Disneyworld, etc.) outside of the promotional value afforded their movies, and really must defend their interests.

I think John Rice raises an interesting point and one that so far has not come close to being addressed, given today’s technology.

But I still don’t think it makes Disney evil to defend their interests outside their movies. I do think that they are pretty bad (if not evil) in the films they are choosing to release today and in making sequels of some of their heritage.

 

[Lew Crippen]

[ A significant problem for any holder of a trademark or copyright is the necessity in law to defend the trademark and also not alienate potential customers. This is no doubt more of a problem for Disney than most studios because of their extensive revenue base generated outside of the their movies but dependent upon the images and characters generated by those movies.

There are cases where the failure to defend a trademark has resulted in the loss of the trademark, the usual example being that of aspirin (which was held by Bayer). Losses such as this are why you ask for a ‘coke’ in a restaurant, the waiter often asks you if ‘Pepsi’ will do. Or the other way around.

I’m not as current as Jeff as to how many jobs stand to be lost (if any) should the site be allowed to operate as it had. However it is clear that Disney has an enormous commercial interest to protect (Disneyworld, etc.) outside of the promotional value afforded their movies, and really must defend their interests.

I think John Rice raises an interesting point and one that so far has not come close to being addressed, given today’s technology.

But I still don’t think it makes Disney evil to defend their interests outside their movies. I do think that they are pretty bad (if not evil) in the films they are choosing to release today and in making sequels of some of their heritage.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Well, the people who own the original artwork give a damn about it, and while the artists may have been paid for creating the original covers, that certainly didn't include giving the rights to modify it at will by anyone with a computer, but that is not the biggest issue with the website.

Creating your own custom cover for your own DVD is one thing. Distributing that artwork, and even beyond that, charging people for downloading it, is where the line between personal and commercial use gets crossed.

Also, I have heard the argument that there is no difference between downloading a finished cover or creating one yourself. The courts have already ruled on that one and deemed that there is a substantial difference.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Well, the people who own the original artwork give a damn about it, and while the artists may have been paid for creating the original covers, that certainly didn't include giving the rights to modify it at will by anyone with a computer, but that is not the biggest issue with the website.

Creating your own custom cover for your own DVD is one thing. Distributing that artwork, and even beyond that, charging people for downloading it, is where the line between personal and commercial use gets crossed.

Also, I have heard the argument that there is no difference between downloading a finished cover or creating one yourself. The courts have already ruled on that one and deemed that there is a substantial difference.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Yeah, probably because they often look better than the original works.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Yeah, probably because they often look better than the original works.

 

[Thomas Newton]

That's an interesting wording -- "their copyright laws". The only copyright laws the U.S. Constitution authorizes are the ones that serve the people of the U.S.

Assuming you meant to say "their copyrights", I think you have copyright confused with trademark. Keeping copyright does NOT require active action against infringers. It is trademarks that evaporate when lots of people start to use the words in a generic sense.

 

[Thomas Newton]

That's an interesting wording -- "their copyright laws". The only copyright laws the U.S. Constitution authorizes are the ones that serve the people of the U.S.

Assuming you meant to say "their copyrights", I think you have copyright confused with trademark. Keeping copyright does NOT require active action against infringers. It is trademarks that evaporate when lots of people start to use the words in a generic sense.

 

[Robert Anthony]

couple observations:

nitpick--it's TOES the line, not TOWS it. As in stepping forward to take orders. Your toes are on the line before your gym teacher/drill sergeant whatever gives you your orders and you have to march off and do it.

I remember a LONG time ago when this subject FIRST came up--and I said consolidating ALL these fan-made covers in ONE place and then charging ANY sort of fee for using them, however nominal, was asking for it.

I also understand that in the grand scheme of things, what piece of paper you slip on the cover of your DVD isn't really worth much, and shouldn't be a problem at all. But the site simply got entirely too big for it's own good. Now, had they simply asked for DONATIONS, that would have been different.

Enough with the 'I told you so's" the best thing to do now is for people with that artwork to simply scale the whole thing back. People will have to host a lot of these things, broken up into their little sub-sections, on different webspace. Say, someone with a bunch of Star Wars custom covers--they'll put em up on their own webspace. Same with the 007 guys. Same with the cult film guys.

If the fans who created them REALLY want to make sure they get out--they're probably best off emailing specific covers to specific fan-sites--I'm sure a lot of places wouldn't mind putting them in their multimedia sections. This way, you don't have a central site drawing down a shitload of heat for having all the covers in one spot and charging money for them. And also, you're guaranteed that the majority of fans who WOULD take advantage of alternate cover art would still be able to see it via a regular fansite for that specific movie.

 

[Robert Anthony]

couple observations:

nitpick--it's TOES the line, not TOWS it. As in stepping forward to take orders. Your toes are on the line before your gym teacher/drill sergeant whatever gives you your orders and you have to march off and do it.

I remember a LONG time ago when this subject FIRST came up--and I said consolidating ALL these fan-made covers in ONE place and then charging ANY sort of fee for using them, however nominal, was asking for it.

I also understand that in the grand scheme of things, what piece of paper you slip on the cover of your DVD isn't really worth much, and shouldn't be a problem at all. But the site simply got entirely too big for it's own good. Now, had they simply asked for DONATIONS, that would have been different.

Enough with the 'I told you so's" the best thing to do now is for people with that artwork to simply scale the whole thing back. People will have to host a lot of these things, broken up into their little sub-sections, on different webspace. Say, someone with a bunch of Star Wars custom covers--they'll put em up on their own webspace. Same with the 007 guys. Same with the cult film guys.

If the fans who created them REALLY want to make sure they get out--they're probably best off emailing specific covers to specific fan-sites--I'm sure a lot of places wouldn't mind putting them in their multimedia sections. This way, you don't have a central site drawing down a shitload of heat for having all the covers in one spot and charging money for them. And also, you're guaranteed that the majority of fans who WOULD take advantage of alternate cover art would still be able to see it via a regular fansite for that specific movie.

 

[John CW]

These covers were not robbing anyone of any royalties or anything else that helps them make a living. I should know: I'm graphic designer by trade, including the occasional movie poster.

DVDCoverArt was a non-profit site. The costs of downloads was there to cover the horrendous bandwidth costs and nothing more. If there was a profit being made then I'll agree with you completely, but AFAIK it was not.

I think everyone here understands the law involved (thanks, in part to your detailed explanations), but what is often being referred to is the MORALITY, which is a completely separate issue.

Morally speaking there is nothing wrong with taking advertising materials and reworking them for your own use. Sharing them with others is also fine so long as nobody is making a profit.

Nothing you have said has come close to coming up with a good argument as to why not.

Morally speaking: Is your Zardoz site wrong?

No, I don't think so either.

If you were charging for access, however...

 

[John CW]

These covers were not robbing anyone of any royalties or anything else that helps them make a living. I should know: I'm graphic designer by trade, including the occasional movie poster.

DVDCoverArt was a non-profit site. The costs of downloads was there to cover the horrendous bandwidth costs and nothing more. If there was a profit being made then I'll agree with you completely, but AFAIK it was not.

I think everyone here understands the law involved (thanks, in part to your detailed explanations), but what is often being referred to is the MORALITY, which is a completely separate issue.

Morally speaking there is nothing wrong with taking advertising materials and reworking them for your own use. Sharing them with others is also fine so long as nobody is making a profit.

Nothing you have said has come close to coming up with a good argument as to why not.

Morally speaking: Is your Zardoz site wrong?

No, I don't think so either.

If you were charging for access, however...

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I think that paints a much clearer picture, and it definitely illustrates how much bitterness people have with Eisner.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I think that paints a much clearer picture, and it definitely illustrates how much bitterness people have with Eisner.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I can see DInsey wanting the covers taken down to protect their trademark, but it makes so sense to sue anyway. I doubt the site owners have much money to take and it will be very difficult to demonstrate any actual damages anyway.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I can see DInsey wanting the covers taken down to protect their trademark, but it makes so sense to sue anyway. I doubt the site owners have much money to take and it will be very difficult to demonstrate any actual damages anyway.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Exactly. Surely if they felt so threatened by DVDCovertArt then a CandD order would be sufficient.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Exactly. Surely if they felt so threatened by DVDCovertArt then a CandD order would be sufficient.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

You aren't paying attention. The use of the images on my sites fall under fair use. They were designed and licensed for promotional use, they are not being used in a commercial manner, they are not being distributed in a form that could be repurposed (low res), and are presented in an educational and illustrative context.

That is completely different than modifying the artwork, creating high resolution downloads, and distributing it for pay.