Build Your Own Arcade Controls Forum
Main => Artwork => Topic started by: GreenKnight37 on May 16, 2005, 12:49:35 pm
-
Hey all Vector Graphics and general Artists,
I have a question that I was hoping someone out there might know an answer to(especially since I haven't had the time to do the searching for the answer myself).
One of my other hobbies is pinball machines, and recently a single person bought up the licensing rights to the Williams brand of pinball machines. He's been sending out Cease and Desist letters to people who have created Reproduction Vector Art images - basically a clear sticker overlay to go on the playfield, over the top of lightbulbs.
Now is there any legal merit to this? The artist did take the original work, as the exact dimensions were required for doing an accurate reproduction. But from there on, they produced it themselves by hand.
Where does a Reproduction fall in legal terms? Does anyone know? This could apply to Mame artists just as easily...so I'm curious if anyone has any experience with things like this.
-
Technically its 'not legal' but its not hurting anyone either.Its not like companies are selling their original artwork for control panel,marquees and we are redrawing them and selling them to put the owner out of business.I am no lawyer but pretty sure no one will has to time to wax you for this.Worse to worse you get a letter from the owner of the original piece and he/they will ask you not to vectorize their files or whatever.Thats WORSE case scenario.
-
I think that when a reproduction is built from scratch using no part of the original, it is considered a new work. That is not illegal. If various trademarks, logos, etc are in the reproduction, maybe that would be an issue though.
Hard to say, but if nothing is being used for capital gain then there is no real fear of being sued.
Of course, companies still like to make threats.
I would say a worst case scenario would be that all reproductions would have to be made "significantly different" in some way. Of course, nothing stops someone from reversing said changes on their own. ;)
-
I would say a worst case scenario would be that all reproductions would have to be made "significantly different" in some way. Of course, nothing stops someone from reversing said changes on their own. ;)
hehe due to the fact that those are reproduction, they are "sligthly different"
tracing impiles not perfect, even if we try to do our best ;D ;D
-
Yeah...cause in my mind, with the tracing of the images and with the changing of colors to improve upon the original, I'd think it would be more of an original work. Even if based on an existing piece.
-
Well, maybe I was thinking more along the lines of a reproduction missing the "Bally Midway" logo for example. Then an enterprising individual would just have to add that on his own.
-
One of my other hobbies is pinball machines, and recently a single person bought up the licensing rights to the Williams brand of pinball machines.
-
Well, maybe I was thinking more along the lines of a reproduction missing the "Bally Midway" logo for example. Then an enterprising individual would just have to add that on his own.
It's still a derivative work and still illegal. Sorry, but the rights holder is completely within his rights on the Cease and Desist. Making that art available for free on ther Net damages the value of his license.
--Chris
-
It's still a derivative work and still illegal. Sorry, but the rights holder is completely within his rights on the Cease and Desist. Making that art available for free on ther Net damages the value of his license.
--Chris
So in that case...Wouldn't the majority of the Vector art being used on the Mame cabs here be illegal?
-
It's still a derivative work and still illegal.
-
Chris is correct, you would be supprised how strict copyright laws really are if they weren't so hard to enforce... I mean in some books (in the legal junk up front) you are suppose to contact the publisher for permission before you can even make a simple black and white Xerox. I've seen reputable printers refuse to print on several projects when stuff becomes remotely questionable. Kinko's is hit or miss, but then again they aren't really a reputable printer ;D
When it comes to using unlicensed artwork, characters, or logos it's with the acknowledgement that it might wind up having to be deleted or unaccepted when the time comes. For example those individuals nowadays with 100+ gigs of hard drive space filled up with various "files" ;)
-baker
-
Well whether just cause something is "technically" illegal hasn't stopped me from doing lots of stuff before. I'm still gonna take some scans and attempt to make some Vector graphics out of what I have, just for the simple fact that the things need to be preserved.
If the new Williams licensee guy has high-quality artwork files and starts making reproduction stuff...hurray! I'll buy back-up pieces from him for safe keeping.
But either way...I'm gonna attempt to make the graphics and let people have them if they want them.
-
Well whether just cause something is "technically" illegal hasn't stopped me from doing lots of stuff before.
-
surely all the repro stuff on http://www.arcadegrafix.com violate copyright or do they licence them all?
-
surely all the repro stuff on http://www.arcadegrafix.com violate copyright or do they licence them all?
They're likely illegal repros and are probably also going to get a C&D letter for their Williams stuff.
-
The worst that can happen for re-producing artwork is you'll get an agry letter from someone. But I've not once heard of someone getting fined for something unless they were making a very large scale production out of someone else's copywritten materials, and generating large somes of money from it. It's been shown over time that companies will not actually take legal action agains someone if they don't think they can get lots of money out of them. Just remember though, I'm not a lawyer! All I know is what has happened in the past, and all I'm saying is that thus far there hasn't been a major crackdown on people who re-produce classic arcade art, presumably because companies will only take legal action if there's some kind of benifit for them. Even if they sued a smalltime hobbyist, it's not like he'd have enough money to make it worth their while, which is probably why it doesn't happen.