Fox clamping down on DVDCoverArt.com (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

To me, it's much like the Music industry, where they are stuck in the stone age and don't understand how to have things work in the new age...

Actually, it seems to me that there's simply a very large group of people who mistakenly think that rules no longer apply to them and that whatever they can do they should be allowed to do. It's as if they think that suddenly all laws and rules drop away when a computer gets turned on. The people who thought this about "the new economy" lost much of their money when reality struck back. I wonder if the people who think this about "the new age" you mention will have a similar experience soon.

DJ

 

[Chet_F]

"I'm sure that they too would love the trademark law to be changed. If you really feel strongly about it, write to the US Govenment. "

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all year! No offense but come on.....They are the ones PAYING the government to STRENGTHEN trademark laws not change them so they are weaker.

Everyone can go around and around with the 'legality' of said site. This fact still remains: FOX is pissing on their own fan base. This is plain as night & day. Their can only be one thing that will come of it - pissing off the very same people who have gotten them this far. Very nice......

 

[Shaun Guidolin]

Actually, it seems to me that there's simply a very large group of people who mistakenly think that rules no longer apply to them and that whatever they can do they should be allowed to do. It's as if they think that suddenly all laws and rules drop away when a computer gets turned on. The people who thought this about "the new economy" lost much of their money when reality struck back. I wonder if the people who think this about "the new age" you mention will have a similar experience soon.

DJ: I don't disagree with that right/wrong/stealing aspect of the music industry and places like Napster, Kazza, Morpheus, etc, etc.

But the fact is if the RIIA/studios at the height of Napster, came out with their own legal version, much like we're seeing now with iTunes and buymusic.com .. where you can get everything for a responsable price.. then I think Kazza would have been small potatoes at this point.. but instead they choose to just try and kill a trend. Funny thing is that the reverse that happenned, the extra publicity their lawsuit against Napster rose Napster usage from < Million, to over 20 Million users. So in essence they created their own problem with their response.

Now the coverart example is entirely different, because I don't think the community is "stealing" anything .. what I see is moddifying and enhancing an exisiting product. This practise may actually increase their business through advertising and having people buy their products, who currently don't because of the artwork.

 

[James Reader]

"I'm sure that they too would love the trademark law to be changed. If you really feel strongly about it, write to the US Govenment. "

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all year! No offense but come on.....They are the ones PAYING the government to STRENGTHEN trademark laws not change them so they are weaker.

Er. Doesn't that prove that Fox would love to change the Trademark laws like I stated?

Fox would love the trademark laws to be changed so that they COULDN'T be revoked and DON'T have to be renewed every 10 years. They would want to make them stronger!

What's so funny about that? If there was no danger of the TM being revoked, they probably would turn a blind eye to cover art. But as it stands, if they are formally notified in writing by an individual - connected to the trademark or not - of a unauthorised trademark they have to act or risk loosing the trademark (no matter how slight they risk may be in reality). So write to the govenment and complain as well. Stronger Trademark laws may infact benefit us all.

 

[Lew Crippen]

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.

To add to what Jeff wrote, the most famous case, was the loss of the trademark ‘aspirin’, many years ago by Bayer.

You get variations of trademark protection everyday: for example it is not unusual to ask for a ‘coke’ in a general sense and be asked if Pepsi is ok. This happens because Coca-Cola vigorously enforces their trademark by having people order generically in restaurants and bringing it to management’s attention when they don’t act appropriately.

Fox is taking necessary action to protect their trademarks. Why should anyone be upset? After all, if they don’t they will lose their rights.

 

[MarkHastings]

I'm surprised that this forum is full of people who complain to high hell whenever a movie (or soundtrack) isn't presented in it's original format, yet they have no problems with presenting the cover art in an altered state.

It sounds somewhat hypocritical to argue that some movies disrespect the artists/directors intent when they put out 5.1 mixes of mono soundtracks, or pan & scan versions, or change music or scenes, yet you have no problem in disrespecting the original intent of the graphic designer who created the cover art.

 

[Matt DeVillier]

It sounds somewhat hypocritical to argue that some movies disrespect the artists/directors intent when they put out 5.1 mixes of mono soundtracks, or pan & scan versions, or change music or scenes, yet you have no problem in disrespecting the original intent of the graphic designer who created the cover art.

the focus on cover "art" shifted long ago from art to marketing - hence the floating head syndrome we see all too often today. Altering a cover to use the original poster art is hardly in the same league as P&S, IMO

 

[MarkHastings]

Altering a cover to use the original poster art is hardly in the same league as P&S

Yes, it might be a small issue, but that still doesn't make it right.

 

[DannyS]

right ok. I am fed up with the absolutely talentless rubbish put out by these studios. Transfer wise, content wise and COVER WISE. Damn it. If they want me to fork out £20 for a film, when I get that home, I can do with it WHAT THE HELL I WANT! I'm not copying it, lending it or playing it on 50 ft screen in my garden for the street to watch. I am simply replacing the cover designed by a blind chimp (The Crow special edition R2) for a work of art done by someone who loves and respects the movie...FOR MY SHELF. Fox are buffoons. Pure and simple. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't they already chopped 2 disc sets in half? Now they are stopping fans from respecting the movies? DURDGHU! Oh, but of course, we're all thieving pirates aren't we. Yes, and everyone who buys a DVD sells copies of them in markets! That's right. I think Fox are employing people who are suffering from paranoia. WELCOME TO THE DVD COLD WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jack Briggs]

Danny, the people at 20th Century Fox are not buffoons, nor can they be expected to satisfy every single person with every single policy decision no matter how hard they may try. Please refrain from the name-calling. Seriously.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Now the coverart example is entirely different, because I don't think the community is "stealing" anything .. what I see is moddifying and enhancing an exisiting product.

Sorry, but your perception is wrong. People are using other people's work and properties in ways they have no right to. While you may not see anything wrong with it, the people who created that work may hold an entirely different view, and since it is THEIR property, they can do what they bloody well want to to stop you from altering their work or violating their trademarcks and copyright.

As has been said earlier, modifying someone's artwork is little different than reediting their film. You are presenting it in a way that the creators did not intend or sanction.

I don't think calling Fox "buffoons" is going to inspire any additional participation from them in this forum either, especially when all they are doing is asking a site to quit illegally distributing their trademarks and artistic elements they control.

 

[Shaun Guidolin]

I don't think calling Fox "buffoons" is going to inspire any additional participation from them in this forum either, especially when all they are doing is asking a site to quit illegally distributing their trademarks and artistic elements they control.

I agree, they sure aren't buffoons and I think Fox is well within their rights to ask DVDCA to remove any artwork containing Fox trademarks and copyrights.. but here's where the problem is.. TheDigitalBits has artwork on their site, which people can download - is that wrong? We have artwork on our dvd sales site, is that wrong? and there is artwork on DVDCA so now it's wrong?

My point is that there is gray area in what's allowed or not allowed .. all we want really is for that line to be hardened so it's clear what can and cannot be used.. and perhaps a deal can be worked out to keep the creators creating.

It's also important to note that most of the custom artwork on DVDCA uses the Original Approved Poster Artwork.

 

[John_Berger]

The whole problem comes down to (as usual) "We threaten first. We'll only work together if the public denounces us afterwards."

What is so difficult about the studios setting up a delivery method on their own where they can charge for custom covers while doing something like offer credits to those who upload? In other words, why do these studios refuse to open their own version of DVD Cover Art? If they made their own, they could get royalties, accept or reject cover art, use a stamp-of-approval watermark on accepted covers, and have complete control over what alternate covers are offered. If I could download my own high-quality cover art directly from the studios for something like $1.99 or so, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

However, in typical big-business fashion, instead of recognizing the demand and creating something to fill that demand, the studios are doing their typical "stop it or we'll sue" scare tactics. It's very, very sad.

All that Fox's action will do is to drive custom Fox covers into the underground through file sharing primarily and to build resentment against Fox.

 

[DannyS]

Danny, the people at 20th Century Fox are not buffoons, nor can they be expected to satisfy every single person with every single policy decision no matter how hard they may try. Please refrain from the name-calling. Seriously.

point taken. first time I've ever done that . many apologies. But I really am tired of all this paranoia. This is the first step to shutting the net down. No one is profiting from this, no one is loosing profit, as "you have to OWN the product in order to object to the useless art" Therefore I do not know what the problem is. Their art depts or their marketing depts. If the art was better this would not exist. Can anyone explain to me the poilcy of the Star wars 1 & 2 art? The movie one sheets were great, so what went wrong with the UK covers? cheapo photoshops of the main actors heads. Duh? I know this must have something to do with paying the artist or something.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I agree, they sure aren't buffoons and I think Fox is well within their rights to ask DVDCA to remove any artwork containing Fox trademarks and copyrights.. but here's where the problem is.. TheDigitalBits has artwork on their site, which people can download - is that wrong? We have artwork on our dvd sales site, is that wrong? and there is artwork on DVDCA so now it's wrong?

The artwork for sales and for news sites is SPECIFICALLY allocated and licensed for that. You are being provided access to it (essentially given a license)for one reason and one reason only, to promote the sale of the product

With DVDCA, they are PROFITING DIRECTLY from the trademark without a license. And Fox can get in trouble for not paying royalites to the artist who created the original poster art that has been restored on them.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE-

1- Someone should at worst go down to Century City and make an appointment to talk to someone about licensing. I'm sure some kind of per-copy royalty can be worked out. This should also be done with other studios.

2-Fox and others starts printing the good artwork on the flip of the cover art.(doubting that one)

3- A deal can be made to sell the slicks made for rental of all digipack and snapper cases. Since they make these already, I don't see the harm in them running off a few thousand extras for DVDCA. Of course, strict rules would have to be set up on how many 1 person can order to keep down the bootleggers.

 

[Dave F]

I view the Coverart community much like the PC-Mod community

This especially appropriate, since some of the early usages of the phrase "getting FOX'ed" was when PC mods of Doom & Quake were getting shut down since they used Fox licenses (Aliens/Simpsons).

-Dave

 

[Damin J Toell]

Shaun:

1- Someone should at worst go down to Century City and make an appointment to talk to someone about licensing. I'm sure some kind of per-copy royalty can be worked out. This should also be done with other studios.

I doubt much of anything could be worked out given that the covers made available are not from a single source, but from many, many people using a vast array of materials. Fox themselves may not even have the ability to grant permission to a site to use images that they do not own, such as, say, European poster art or a photograph that appeared in a magazine. To make a workable system of the kind you describe, every single cover submitted to DVDCA would have to be pre-screened by every studio, and every studio would have to confirm that every single element of each of those pre-screened covers is actually owned and is licensible by the studio. This task would not only be so burdensome in theory alone such that it would be fatal to the concept, but it would also cause Fox and every other studio to lay out a lot of money in resouces and man-hours for a project that would show little or no return. If the studios charged a licensing fee that actually represented the appropriate fraction of the amount of work they would have to dedicate to the project, those licensing fees would likely be so high that no one would actually bother paying them, anyway, and so the project would be pointless to even begin. And, of course, if they charged a less expensive licensing fee that was low enough to encourage compliance, it would be a money loser for the studio and a generally terrible idea.

There's no magic button that Fox or any other studio could press that could suddenly turn DVDCA into a law-abiding concept.

DJ

 

[Casey L]

So just to clear things up, will this only affect Fox's DVD titles or does it endanger the entire site, in that other studios may now pursue similar action?

If nothing else, I really want to get ahold of those redone Kubrick collection covers before the site goes down.

 

[MarkHastings]

However, in typical big-business fashion, instead of recognizing the demand and creating something to fill that demand, the studios are doing their typical "stop it or we'll sue" scare tactics. It's very, very sad.

The simple fact is, it's illegal and people are profiting from this illegal activity. Why should Fox be "Mr. Nice Guy" and open their own custom cover site? They don't have any moral obligation to do so at all.

Try to look at it from their side. If I worked for a company and a group of people was using my artwork to create and distribute 'custom' versions, I'd be pretty upset. I'd probably be so upset that I'd do the same threatening thing as Fox.

Kinda like if some neighborhood kids had a keg party in your back yard (without you knowing it and destroyed it)...The 'nice' thing to do would be to invest some time and make sure the kids have plenty of activities to do so they don't get bored and go around destroying people property...set up a community center or a program to keep kids off the streets, but do we do that????? No! We end up getting pissed off and calling the cops and the next time we see the kids in our yard, we threaten them with violence: "Get out of my yard or I'll shot you with my shotgun!"

We are just as guilty of these kinds of actions as the studios are so I don't think it's fair to make them out to be the bad guys and us as saints.

It just ain't true.

 

[Matt DeVillier]

The simple fact is, it's illegal and people are profiting from this illegal activity.

if someone has figured out how to even just break even, I'd love to know how they are doing it