Fox clamping down on DVDCoverArt.com (1 Viewer)

[Randy B A]

If these studios would stop with the digipacks and card board cases and snappers most of the scans would not be needed.

The custom art is another story. I really like alot of the custom work but I do not replace covers that are in keep cases.

I called fox about a month ago to see if I could get covers so I could replace my crappy 6 pane fold out Bruce Lee set. They said they can't because of piracy issues. That is being paranoid if you ask me.

 

[Larry Talbot]

Are there any sites like this that don't charge for downloads?

 

[Adam_S]

There's no way to do it without charging. THe covers are several megs large, even zipped. This site gets thousands of patrons (probably some bootleggers), and probably hundreds of downloads a day. IF you figure an average of 4 megs per cover it would only take 250 downloads to use a gigabyte of bandwidth a day. I don't think there is any feasable way to go through gigabytes of data a day and absorb all the cost yourself for very long, unless you're Bill Gates.

Adam

 

[Dharmesh C]

To echo comments above, they had to charge, but as long as they ploughed all of the money back into the site, then I don't see a problem.

Anyway, I've lost a lot of respect for FOX lately, thought they were the best, not anymore

 

[ZackR]

I have to agree. Fox is going after the wrong people. Anyone remember when Paramount when crazy on the Star Trek fan sites several years ago?? I mean, shows like Star Trek, X-Files, etc THRIVE on the cult fan base. As long as people aren't out selling bootlegs, what's the big deal? Now, before I get a lecture, yes, I know Fox has the legal right to "protect" its precious property. But just because they CAN do it doesn't mean they SHOULD do it. Why go after the fan base? When companies go after fan-sites and other such fan-endeavors, what does it profit them? Sure it gives the executives a feather in their cap I guess... "Ooh, I shut down a fansite because they were a bit too much of a fan...How dare they make sites concerning OUR show without OUR permission?!?!" I think it is arrogance. Now, when it comes to them losing money to bootleggers, etc, then that is a different story. But I doubt Fox was losing serious money because of DVDCoverArt.com. The argument that bootleggers may download cover art from there does not fly with me. I can see a bootlegger sitting around saying, "Well, I was going to knock of 5,000 bootleg X-Files Season 7 sets, but since I can no longer get those covers at dvdcoverart.com I guess I won't now." Yah right! Anyways, I just think it is arrogance. That is all. Same reason I think GL doesn't release Star Wars. They are HIS movies. He will only show them how HE wants to show them. Again, they are his movies. I have NO RIGHT to see the originals on DVD. If he wants to burn all known master copies or whatever of the Original Trilogy, that is absolutely his right to do that. I still think not releasing them shows a lack of respect and arrogance toward the fan base. same thing goes for these "cease and desist" orders that get sent to webmasters. Sure, they have the right to force a site the is "unauthorized" to remove their content...but that doesn't mean it is the necessarily the right thing to do.

Oh well. Rant over...for now.

 

[James Reader]

It's nothing to do with copyright as such, it's to do with trademarks.

In order to keep a trademark the holder has to demonstrate that they are protecting and enforcing their trademark. Or else there is a legal case for the trademark to be withdrawn.

I don't even think charging comes into it. Fox have to be seen to be policing their trademarks, or else they could loose them. It's as simple as that. High profile sites are more likely to be singled out than smaller 'fan' sites - simply due to their visability.

(and no, adding the 'TM' symbol and disclaimers when using a Trademark without the owner's consent does not help)

When you discover that others are infringing or misusing your mark, you need to take action to halt such misuse. Here, too, experienced intellectual property counsel can help you. If you do not act to halt such infringement, you may jeopardize your rights to your mark.

http://www.aipla.org/html/whatis.html
http://www.mmblaw.com/articles_and_u...e_or_lose.html

Marvel had a similar issue with protecting trademarks. They decided to legally licence them out (admittedly to vetted internet sites) for a nominal fee.

As long as Fox can show that their trademarks are legally used by a third party, they should be OK (I think) so a similar solution may work for dvdcoverart

 

[Will_B]

Though in theory that is true (that neglect of trademarks could result in loss of the trademark), in real-world practice that is not a concern, not for companies as powerful as this.

considering that you have to buy credits to download the art it makes legal sense to close it down

Just want to note that statement isn't entirely true - you get credits for uploading custom art or for fulfilling requests for cover art scans.

The ability to buy credits for a few cents was only added because some people weren't technically savvy enough to participate. But this was widely discouraged, with tons of effort geared towards getting people to fulfill requests so not a cent would ever change hands.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Though in theory that is true (that neglect of trademarks could result in loss of the trademark), in real-world practice that is not a concern, not for companies as powerful as this.

Yes, it is a real concern, and does affect large corporations. Both Gibson and Fender lost exclusivity to some of their signature guitar designs as a result of not policing the marketplace.

 

[GregK]

I'm just glad I had a chance to download alternate coverart for the original Planet of the Apes which didn't give away the surprise ending the movie! A few visitors to my house had the movie ruined in this way, thanks to that "legit" Fox DVD coverart.

When many of us buy DVDs we would like the original theatrical poster art, not some 2003 "upgraded" artwork that was greenlighted by who knows who. If Fox is going to crack down they should seriously consider the "can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy and for a minor fee allow consumers access to alternative cover art.

 

[Runar_R]

While I agree that it probably infringes on their copyrights, the shutting down of dvdcoverart sure contribute to taking the fun out of collecting dvds....... :frowning:

 

[Ryan B]

As an artist, I wholeheartedly agree that copyrights need to be protected. If you let people get away with abusing your copyrights, then it is all the more difficult to legally enforce them when the need arises.

Still, if the studios are going to clamp down on this sort of thing then I think they should offer a legitimate alternative. I seem to remember that Starwars.com once had a section for fan art. Couldn't the studios host fan covers on their websites? They could then charge a small fee for downloading or sell ads or whatever.

Perhaps it is just such a future arrangement that they are trying to protect with this move.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Couldn't the studios host fan covers on their websites?

I don't think this would ever work. You could almost count the days until a lawsuit after the studio issues a DVD with cover art that some fan claims looks like his.

 

[Joseph S]

I don't agree with this move as long as Fox and others continue to use the crappy accordion style packaging and various other creations.

DVDCoverart is one of the places we as DVD consumers can go to correct the unclosable cases like Legend, American Pie, Sex in the City, cardboard versions of X-Files, Buffy, Fight Club, and useless tins like Total Recall.

Fox, you're only offending your customers by doing this. I'm willling to pay, give me an option.

 

[Will_B]

The concept that a trademark is watered down when it is applied to a different product was not the situation faced here.

People were not taking Fox logos and putting them on Paramount movies. They weren't putting out new movies which they falsely labeled as Fox movies. On the contrary, they were putting the Fox logo on custom covers of Fox movies, as they should. If anything, DVDcoverart-ists were fanatical about ensuring that every custom was properly representing the film and studio - often with better art than the official packaging.

Arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than looking at the real world, is one of the biggest problems in this country today.

 

[Ryan B]

You could almost count the days until a lawsuit after the studio issues a DVD with cover art that some fan claims looks like his.

What's to stop this from happening with a site like DVDCoverArt.com? At least if the studios host the files they can have the uploader agree to terms before posting the work.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

It's not as simple as many would like to believe. Rights on artwork and photography aren't necessarily applicable to universal use. Someone's collage could be subject to several different artists/photographer's rights being violated, and licensing agreements being in breach. The studio may not have the right to repurpose artwork, and they certainly wouldn't have the authority to allow third parties to change artwork.

The watering down of the trademark is the issue here despite what you want to believe. It is applying the mark to a nonlicensed art design, which is not legal. This holds especially true when the site is charging for acquiring the artwork, regardless of the reason for it. This makes it a commercial use.

 

[Will_B]

It may be possible to get Fox's permission to use their trademarked materials; obviously there are companies that do so, such as that French magazine which creates its own DVD covers for people to cut out ("TV-DVD JAQUETTE" is the magazine's name, and it is the sequel to another longrunning magazine called TV-VIDEO JAQUETTE which printed vhs sleeves), and there are companies that reproduce theatrical posters in poster and postcard form. So there is always a possibility that an amicable agreement can be worked out... but locating who to speak to will be the first challenge.

If I were dvdcoverart.com I'd be learning French real quick to contact the French magazine, find out who they needed to secure permission from, and then follow that themselves. I say this because the magazine DOES create covers for Fox films such as "X-Men" - I'm looking at the April 2003 issue right now!

It is particularly relevant because the magazine is essentially custom DVD covers - custom backs, custom spines, fronts which were either old posters or variants thereof. They may use old poster art, but they're designing the layout themselves, Fox is not.

So obviously Fox has decided that in some circumstances they can allow this sometimes. Perhaps they pay an annual licensing fee.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

A few visitors to my house had the movie ruined in this way, thanks to that "legit" Fox DVD coverart.

I knew the ending 10 years before I saw the film. If they don't know the ending to POTA by the time they reach adulthood, it's their problem

Actually, the Tim Burton film carries the REAL ending for the most part, with the exception of the whole Sirius bred family being along and the change of venue to DC

 

[GregK]

I knew the ending 10 years before I saw the film. If they don't know the ending to POTA by the time they reach adulthood, it's their problem

Not everybody I know is as old as I am, nor necessarily a film geek.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

More times than not, I think these covers don't really spoil the ending of a movie for people unless someone jumps onto the HTF and points out quite clearly that the image on the case is a spoiler that gives away the ending of the film.