41 replies to this topic

[Albert]

save2600, on Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:31 PM, said:

Sorry to see good members "fighting" here. I just had a question in regards to the original copyright bit in question. On the other forum, do you specifically state that your work is copyrighted and may not be distributed or 'cut and pasted' elsewhere? Even if it's not officially 'copyrighted', I would think most members would respect the way you feel about reproduction. If there is no verbiage anywhere to be found stating your wishes, then I can see where someone would think it's "public domain", since it *is* out there. I haven't seen the original, just wondering if there's just been some miscommunication somewhere/somehow.

You do not need to explicitly state that a work is "copyrighted" in order for it to be so. Copyright is automatic when you create an original work. Placing a copyright notice on a work helps to establish who owns the copyright (so you can more easily contact that individual or organization) and helps defend against a party claiming they did not know the work was copyrighted.

In this case, Eric has been informed that the work is copyrighted and the author has asked that this work not be republished.

..Al

[CPUWIZ]

I am so tempted to post a certain picture.

[save2600]

Albert, on Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:42 PM, said:

In this case, Eric has been informed that the work is copyrighted and the author has asked that this work not be republished.

..Al

That I *totally* get and leaves absolutely no room for debate, especially because it was a post ex facto kind of rectification. Just wasn't positive about works that do not explicitly state that it's copyrighted or not. Professional photographs and portraitures are especially a touchy subject (an industry I have been involved in).

So... the original document didn't state that it was copyrighted or that The Laird didn't want it reproduced then? I'm just thinking Eric defaulted to a lot of how many of us think when it comes to the sharing of some of this stuff is all. Again, I didn't see any of this. Just trying to be crystal clear. I didn't see where Eric said it was BS for him to have had "his" post rescinded *after* The Laird said nope, sorry.

[Albert]

This document contains information on the use of copyright notices:

http://www.copyright...ircs/circ03.pdf

The very first sentence is, "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial."

..Al

[Albert]

save2600, on Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:52 PM, said:

I didn't see where Eric said it was BS for him to have had "his" post rescinded *after* The Laird said nope, sorry.

Just to be clear, no posts have been rescinded in this thread.

..Al

[save2600]

Albert, on Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:55 PM, said:

This document contains information on the use of copyright notices:

http://www.copyright...ircs/circ03.pdf

The very first sentence is, "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial."

..Al

For the record, I'm not arguing any of this one bit

I see now where it looked kind like he was getting a little "defiant" (post #14), but he got a good thrashing and then later said he wouldn't simply cut and paste anything without The Laird's (or anyone's) blessing. It's tricky business for sure. What Ben told us should be common sense to all adults by now. If you're going to not so gingerly reproduce someone's work, you should at least have the decency to post where it came from and give proper credit.

Words and works are funny that way. If there was even tighter control of our wording, think about how we'd have all gotten through college. When asked to research something, you're basically taking bits and pieces from wherever, editing/chopping it up and regurgitating it into what's now *your* work or thesis. Blatant copying out of textbooks always lands you in trouble before too long though and that's common sense 101. Same with music riffs or samples after a certain amount of seconds.

Edited by save2600, Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:41 PM.

[Albert]

save2600, on Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:02 PM, said:

For the record, I'm not arguing any of this one bit

I understand.

..Al

[The_Laird]

I havn't personally but Jay Smith (JS2 owner) states in the forum rules that JS2 exclusives may not be shared elsewhere and has banned people in the past for doing so.

Maybe if enough people here wanted to see some of this information then I could write some sort of list with a summary for the 60+ games and people could ask questions accordingly, something different for AA. I certainly could not replicate my guide at JS2 anyway as it uses linked topics (over 60 of them) which would not only take ages to post and would require moderator status (which I have at JS2) to edit in everything as its added and move stuff around.

As I said if the AA Lynx community would like me to then I am happy to share my knowledge

[EricDeLee]

Albert, on Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:54 PM, said:

EricDeLee, on Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:46 PM, said:

al..chicky... this is hogwash.
if you are forbiding me to post something i got off of a free website you are squashing my rights. i don't argue many points...however when it is something important...i will put my foot down.

Go ahead and put your foot down all you want, you are flat out wrong. Your "rights" are not being squashed because you don't have the "rights" to repost content you find on other sites unless that permission is explicitly given. Go educate yourself on copyrights before you try to further argue yourself into a hole.

Quote

it was posted in the public...i have the right to reproduce it.

As it applies to this document The_Laird has created, you are wrong. This is one of the most ludicrous statements someone's posted on AtariAge.

Quote

i will post what i deem as public domain

If you post something the author explicitly asked you not to and after I asked you not to, I'll delete it and it'll be the last thing you post on AtariAge.

..Al

Again, I'll ask this question. For giggles... take The_Laird out of the equation.

Al... using your logic and your reasoning as to why I can't post a certain thing here... let's go over this scenerio:
If I am doing, I don't know, research about Lynx prototypes... that sounds like a good subject. If I am doing research all over the net, and I copy something I find into a word document, and quote my source... then find another item... add that to the living word document, and then look around for pictures... find them on a very respected site... lets just say Atariage for the sake of argument. If I then add said pictures to that living document, THEN... I delete most of the sources... Save it on my computer... and post it in a forum. You are saying I have a legit, copyrighted document that I created and that can only be called MY PROPERTY.

You are telling me that no one else is allowed to copy that document without permission and post it in your public forums (AGAIN THE SAME FORUMS WHERE SOURCE CODES, ROMS, AND MANY OTHER ITEMS ARE POSTED). Did I get that right?!
Are you actually calling that type of WORK, his, and truly HIS work? Copy and pasting someone else's information and claiming it yours does not make it your intellectual property. I have countless college professors and High School teachers that would agree. If the work is not your own... it isn't your own. There is no debate about that.

So what gives in this aspect?

Let me give you some examples of this extensive guide I'm not allowed to post:
Eye of the Beholder:

Quote

Something evil is lurking below the city of Waterdeep. The Lords of Waterdeep summon a group of heroes to investigate. But someone or something has been watching the proceedings. After the heroes enter the sewers, the ceiling collapses behind them. The only way out is the way down, into a dungeon filled with monsters, traps and puzzles.

Eye of the Beholder is a dungeon crawler RPG with a first-person perspective based on the 2nd Edition AD&D rules. Your starting party consists of four characters and up to two NPCs can join later. Combat and magic happen in real time. Fight over a dozen different monster varieties and cast over 40 spells. A point-and-click interface makes exploring, fighting, spellcasting and handling objects easy.

<--- before banning me and thinking I lifted it from The_Laird's guide... note... it is a direct copy and past from a completely different site. A copy and paste job. the external link. Wait a sec... here's another site with the same info: Eye of the Beholder external link

Every picture for Eye of the Beholder was stolen from Atari Age (Neither AtariAge nor The_Laird has recieved permission to post these pics)

AvP: the only thing mentioned is something to the sorts of 'wishing this was finished'<- not a direct quote, but the basic idea of the post. That was really it. Nothing much.

Guardians: Storm over Doria:
No real info. Just that the game was only 30ish% completed. And... a direct link to Atari Times.

Is all of this 'guide' like this? NO. Not at all.
It is was basically fodder, I would not have saved it to my harddrive. The funny part is, I like the fact that he provided links to the posts he made. I like that fact that I could access information when I needed it. My computer crashed a few years ago and I lost a lot of stuff. While rebuilding my files, My Lynx folder was missing the information from this guide. I liked it enough to go through the troubles of copying it again.

The problems I do have: Claiming this all his intellectual property when he copy and pasted stuff, did not post credits... and then comes on here claiming you can't copy it. No... in some ways... perhaps I can't. Yet on more than HALF of the info in that guide, I can recreate by copy and pasting information from other sites. That does not make it my property and make it my own. He doesn't want it posted... fine. But don't come on here acting like you own something when you stole it. That's one of my problems.

Me being possibly banned... or thrashed as mentioned earlier simply because I want to point out facts is something that is not cool. Al... I understand this is your site. I do. I respect and follow the rules for the most part. I occasionally put my foot down when I think someone is out of line, or whatever. If I know someone is fraudulant to some extent and he is claiming to be squeaky clean, I will call him out on it. And you, as the owner of the site should see both sides of the story before throwing out the "if you post it, it will be your last post at AtariAge" comment. If you don't listen to both sides, if you are blind to the facts presented to you, then you are showing a weakness at running the site. Which, you normally do not do. What I don't understand is how you can jump to the "I'll ban you" mode... yet don't question The_Laird on his stuff... don't even know what 'GUIDE' we are talking about... nor have even taken a glance at it.

What you are presenting to everyone here is that it is okay to steal from you and your site. You can take whatever you want from AtariAge. Yet... if you re=post something that someone took from this very site in the past, you will be subjected to a dark hole and banned from this community.

I don't run your site. However, if I did, and I knew someone was using my pictures (hell... even in the same order you posted them on the EotB rarity guide)... I'd demand that they are removed. Especially if you are telling a senior member that he is not allowed to do a similar thing and will be banned for it.

Nor would I allow quotes within the descriptions of ebay auctions to be allowed in the forums. As you said, it is copyrighted to that person. As of right now, we are allowed to do that. We are allowed to post an Atari Lynx FAQ written by someone on the net. Someone posted an Atari Lynx Hint book a while back... and I think the Jaguard injection mold thread in the ebay auctions has an actual screenshot of the entire auction.

If you are drawing the line, it should be drawn across the board. I understand that I can't copy the Lynx Guide... because you and The_Laird claim it to be his property. I challenge that though, as it is a hack job. It is something I would get graded an F for in college... simply because it is not my own work.

So... it goes back to the drawing board: I consider it public domain. I presented links to prove a lot of it is public domain. What makes you consider it NOT public domain?

This entire topic really has me a bit on edge, as it hits home in a few areas.
But to limit what I can post... because you blindly called it his property is not right. To threaten someone that has been a member of AtariAge this long, and contributes rather than constantly causing trouble... that is an injustice.

I'm open for discussion... as I've read more on the same thing you posted above:

Quote

Use of the Copyright Notice
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
to authors of “original works of authorship.” When a work is published under
the authority of the copyright owner (see definition of “publication” below),


What Is Publication?
The following do not constitute publication: printing or
other reproduction of copies, performing or displaying a
work publicly, or sending copies to the Copyright Office.

Now... I can see the bigger picture in things. And I know you can as well.
However, if you go down this avenue... you need to keep running its course... or you will be considered 'UNFAIR'.

As long as I have the right to quote ANYONE on this site, I have the right to quote The_Laird's work.
There is nothing stopping me from doing so from what I see. I have actually posted some already... if you really want to get picky about things. Yet... I copied it from a different site. It isn't my fault his stuff states the same thing, and it is legal for me to do so as long as you run your site in that manner. In all reality, I can edit a Wiki page... and copy everything here from that. it is all the same. I think the question I pose the most: Why are you even considering banning me or calling this stuff his intellectual property when you have never laid eyes on it?

I don't just spout off at the mouth for no reason. But if you block me from posting something and do not block others, you are wrong. If The_Laird wants to 'sue' me for posting his guide, he could try. But first he would need to write a guide that came from HIM in order to do so.

Why do I get the blunt of everything... for standing up for what I believe is the truth?

[Albert]

Eric, I'm not going to spend time debating you on this subject. You're right, I haven't seen this guide. Until I do and can make a fair assessment of it, I ask that you do not post it on AtariAge.

Screenshots and other media of this nature are typically considered "Fair Use", otherwise every video game site and strategy guide ever written would be infringing on someone's rights. Yes, it would be nice if people asked for permission for using screenshots and other media from AtariAge as there is time spent in creating those images. Text descriptions copied from other sites another matter, depending on where those descriptions originated.

At any rate, even if The_Laird's document was simply a collection of facts (which of themselves cannot be copyrighted), his particular organization and presentation of those facts is protected by copyright and you would not be within your right to post it. You're more than welcome to take those same facts and present them in your own way and you'd be fine, as long as you are not copying any of the original editorial content.

..Al

[EricDeLee]

Sure... I can just throw everything in one post and call it good rather than 60 posts all linked...
Yes... I agree with you that arguing this is rather silly. But... I am still trying to protect what I believe I have the right to do. I pointed out something and presented the facts... I have not earned the right to be censored on here. Not when I can actually prove the fact that I am not posting copyright material. It is public domain in the same sense that you are calling pictures, and descriptions from magazines and stuff public domain.

If he copies text from a video game review that someone did, it is copying someone's intellectual property. Yet he claimed the entire guide as being his own, and exclusive. I called him on that, and no one seems to like it. The manner I called him on it, may have not been the best, but regardless what is done is done.

I started a thread over at the lynx forums to ask if he'd like to start a prototype thread... that's his choice. I won't be a front runner due to this fiasco. But again... I don't think I have earned the right for my posts to be deleted when I was pointing out examples of what you said was copyright infringement.

I'm going to take a break for a bit, as I said earlier, this really bothers me. It is amazing that one can be tossed to the side so quickly and harshly, when he was speaking the truth and has given so much to the community. I think that is probably the most disappointing thing about all of this... as the owner, you almost were ready to toss without giving a fair trail so to speak. 7 years of my collecting life done the drain...

almost.

[Supergun]

Well, I never intended this thing to get so crazy like this.

And for the record, I have found material stolen from my website on dozens of websites all throughout the world and almost never am I given any kind of credit. I view this as, so what? I don't care. It doesn't matter.

Whoever here has the time and inspiration, just go to the site, get all of the information and screenshots, gather up even more additional screenshots and info, and make a whole new site (or a section on this; or similar site as I suggested in POST #2) and in essence force his guide to become outdated and inferior to the new more widely available and complete guide. (basically eliminate the red tape of this jaguar site)

I feel bad for this guy because it seems like he gave up ownership of his own personal hard work, for enhanced virtual status on a private website. I think he got hosed on that deal. I would rather retain the rights to my work.

Oh and somebody here please go and copy this guide asap and archive it on their own cpu as a backup just in case someone decides to remove it or take it down in the midst of all this controversy.

Regards.

[The_Laird]

Right I am getting quite fed up of having to explain myself over and over again.

I never gave up my right to my own work, I just wrote the work for JS2 so out of politeness and respect to Jay I would never post it elsewhere without his blessing. But I am sure if you asked him about it he would say its his work.

Yes its mostly my own work but there are a few games where I used information I found elsewhere (mostly giving external links to the one like Atari Times) because I didn't know very much about the game or in this case another website already had a fantastic write up on the same game so rather than copy their post I used an external link.

Quote

this game was annouced (along side stuff like Zarlor Mercenary and Slimeworld) the bets would be on that this was an Epyx developed title that maybe Atari dropped because they wern't happy (unlikely as they needed games) or maybe Epyx still had it when they went under and never gave a version to Atari, very llikely as RJ Mical has stated before that Epyx had a number of unreleased Lynx games that Atari never got their hands on including World Games, a racing game (maybe this) and a version of Impossible Mission (not Electrocop which was started out as IM3!).

That for example is an excerpt of my own work on the game RC Destruction Derby. Given your attitude in this thread Eric I am not sure I would want to post any information here anymore and am sure Jay Smith will have a dim view of your actions too.

[Chickybaby]

OK guys, I don't want to lock the thread but if the trend of the conersation continues that most certainly will be the outcome.
Eric you've stated your points and Laird most certainly has a right to say in what manner and on what site his thoughts are posted especially if he compiled everything for a specific site.

But, most importantly it's Albert's site and he has made his position perfectly clear and that should be respected even if you may not agree especially since this is a wonderful community and we'd all like to continue to be part of it.
Thank you.

[Crazy Climber]

Didn't Cabal use a trackball controller in the arcade version? How the hell would they do that on the Lynx? Well, I guess it was released on NES although I don't recall playing that one.

[The_Laird]

Crazy Climber, on Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:45 PM, said:

Didn't Cabal use a trackball controller in the arcade version? How the hell would they do that on the Lynx? Well, I guess it was released on NES although I don't recall playing that one.

Alot like the Atari ST version I would imagine which is superb

[Crazy Climber]

The_Laird, on Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:06 PM, said:

Crazy Climber, on Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:45 PM, said:

Didn't Cabal use a trackball controller in the arcade version? How the hell would they do that on the Lynx? Well, I guess it was released on NES although I don't recall playing that one.

Alot like the Atari ST version I would imagine which is superb

Never played that either, actually, never played an Atari ST for that matter.