Copyright Queries

[elkor-alish]

All of the decals that have been mentioned so far sound awesome.

Don't patents, copyright, trade mark, rights etc. expire?
When do WG's expire?

[Extra Ball]

Copyright length varies from country to country, in Australia according to wikipedia:
Life + 70 years until year end
Life + 50 years until year end (death before 1955)

[pinnies4me]

I split this away from the decals thread that the team have asked to let die as it is an interesting question. If a debate about copyright is desired, please have at it here! 

Please however talk about the generalities and keep your opinions of claimants to ownership of the various things in pinball out of the discussion. As funny as toothless bears might be, it is the preference of this forum not to be a place to post those sorts of comments.

[rads]

I have no knowledge of copyright and its implications.  Do I have the right of repair for items that I own?  If so does this mean i can commission someone to make/reproduce the part I need?  Does the likelihood that they are going to profit from making this for me affect the situation?  Does commisioning the part being produced make any difference from it being offered for sale and stocked?

[Marty Machine]

Rads, by having someone fabricate a replica item, you ARE infringing on copyright.

Copyright laws are a tough as nails, they have every angle covered, and you basically can't do ANYTHING (legally) to reproduce any items without permission of the copyright holder.
To gain permission will mean buying a partial-right to reproduce, which can be $50k to million$, hence nobody ever gets permission to reproduce items.

Besides waiting for the 50/70year copyright ownership to expire, you're stuffed ;-)

It's worth a look for everyone to visit some local (Aussie) copyright info sites, although it can be quite tedious reading, it opens up a whole world of questions & rights of ownership.

I think copyright law would have to be the darkest of them all, and i applaud the legal teams that handle it...nasty stuff.

Marty.

[elkor-alish]

Can anyone explain to me what exactly Gene Cunningham and Wayne Gillard bought from Williams respectively?

As far as I can tell they each only got half the pie!?
It's a little confusing to me, one guy can do one thing and the other can do something else.

[Strangeways]

This is my opinion on the subject, and it may not be 100% factual..

All manufacturers that produced pinball machines patented the parts that made up the machines. This includes the art

There are two types of games that were produced - Licensed and unlicensed. Licensed pins required a third party license

An example of a licensed pin - KISS, Nugent, Addams Family, Gun's N Roses
An example of an unlicensed pin - Supersonic, Joker Poker, Fishtales

A licensed pin requires the third party license holder to give permission to produce the machine. So KISS, Ted Nugent and Guns N Roses would have given permission to produce the machine and any parts that have their likeness. Same with Addams Family, BUT - there are several license holders - Addams Family Trust and Paramount Pictures would be two that comes to mind.

An unlicensed pin needs no third party license holder.

The owners of the respective licenses can produce parts, but it becomes difficult to produce parts that have a Third party license.
You can produce KISS plastics after gaining permission from WMS Industries AND KISS.
You can produce Supersonic or Joker Poker plastics with permission from WMS Industries or Gottlieb LLC respecively

With all reproduction parts, you need to speak to the license holder (whoever that may be), or you will be infringing copyright as they own the license to that product. Copyright infringement depends on what company owns that license, and it can be acted upon by that license holder, OR the third party license holder.


This is MY OPINION and it could be inaccurate.

[illawarra_steelers]

Isn't Nick (pinnies4me) a Lawyer? 

[daics3522]

Can anyone explain to me what exactly Gene Cunningham and Wayne Gillard bought from Williams respectively?
As far as I can tell they each only got half the pie!? It's a little confusing to me, one guy can do one thing and the other can do something else.

I have a question.................

Does the fact that one party is making new MM pins and printing new translites and art automatically stop the other party from doing so too ???? or did both parties purchase rights to equally manufacturer everything and anything they want ????

In saying this, some consumers are of the understanding that one has purchased the license and the rights, but they could simply be telling the consumer that they have the rights to one product / part that they actually do not have licensing / rights to.............

[Strangeways]

Can anyone explain to me what exactly Gene Cunningham and Wayne Gillard bought from Williams respectively?
As far as I can tell they each only got half the pie!? It's a little confusing to me, one guy can do one thing and the other can do something else.

I have a question.................

Does the fact that one party is making new MM pins and printing new translites and art automatically stop the other party from doing so too ???? or did both parties purchase rights to equally manufacturer everything and anything they want ????

In saying this, some consumers are of the understanding that one has purchased the license and the rights, but they could simply be telling the consumer that they have the rights to one product / part that they actually do not have licensing / rights to.............

There does not seem to be a clear line between the two license holders. As an example;

IPB and TPF can produce MM playfields. Both have said they will. IPB have released theirs.

The "who owns what" lists are shrouded in mystery. Either way - Both companies produce what they think they have rights to. The only governing factor in the mix is WMS Industries - Who have to approve the right to produce the licensed part(s). I think they simply request permission from WMS Industries to produce.

[daics3522]

There does not seem to be a clear line between the two license holders. As an example;
IPB and TPF can produce MM playfields. Both have said they will. IPB have released theirs.
The "who owns what" lists are shrouded in mystery. Either way - Both companies produce what they think they have rights to. The only governing factor in the mix is WMS Industries - Who have to approve the right to produce the licensed part(s). I think they simply request permission from WMS Industries to produce.

So really its whoever out of the two gets into WMS first or whoever has the financial resources to back their money making idea that gets granted the rights to do this............

[Homepin]

Can anyone explain to me what exactly Gene Cunningham and Wayne Gillard bought from Williams respectively?

As far as I can tell they each only got half the pie!?
It's a little confusing to me, one guy can do one thing and the other can do something else.

I think you will find that this is "commercial in confidence" thus confusing things even more.

I think the only way to test it would be for someone to 'infringe' the alleged copywrite and let the court decide. That way all the cards would have to be laid out on the table for all to see. This may not be a desirable outcome for some copywrite holders as it may well expose flaws in their claims.

[Retropin]

Oh its a quagmire oif dirt this issue.. but it does make good forum chat!!

Now then..... USA copyright was only granted IF applied for pre 1985. In other words, unless WMS actually applied for copyright on a machines artwork prior to 1985 it does NOT exist... now this raises the question... did WMS apply for copyright? Im afraid you will never get the true answer to this... but what we can assume is that the market was hot with competition... each company pushing money into R & D for the new technologies and innovations - now do you reckon they really cared too much about copyright? My thoughts are that it was the last on the list and if the funds were running short its never even thought of.
For instance.... SINGLE player GTB games are considered the best - why??

Because the money went into the game play and features rather than the EXTRA relays and score reels etc - in other words - all were done to a budget.. WMS wouldnt be any different..


Also to add... Just cos you purchase WMS/BALLY rights does not grant you the right to actually produce anything! A licence holder HAS to apply to say WMS to produce  a 24/1200 coil for instance.. if they want to produce a 22/1200 then permission HAS to be granted once again for this specific item.
In order to successfully sue anyone for a breach of copyright, then you have to also prove loss of earnings... if you dont produce it - how can you prove loss of earnings??
 And if you dont have permission to say make cabinet stencils  ..... then you can hardly sue someone for making them can you as you cant produce them either ( even if you already do)

Only person that can stop you/ grant you permission/ sue you is WMS/BALLY themnselves..

Tread carefully my friends... Oh and hello Wayne 

[beaky]

now thats interesting.
if i understand correctly, you can only sue for breach of copyright if there is a loss of income.
so if joe blow made a stencil set for a pin that nobody makes then joe blow can't be sued because the persons with the legal right to make the stencils is not losing any income and is not making them?

[elkor-alish]

Yeah it does make for some interesting chat but unfortunately only raised more questions so far

So you can only apply to reproduce plastics or playfields or whatever if you have the rights to do so or permission from the rights holder?

But if we don't know who has the rights to what, then who do we ask?
Gene, Wayne, or Williams?