Copyright Queries

[Creech]

I think the cave man has done a runner?  

[beaky]

I think the cave man has done a runner?  

Nah, the cave man is just doing what he knows best, making lots of cash and being positive. I know what he is up to other than making cash but i am sworn to secrecy. 

[pinnies4me]

I think the cave man has done a runner?  

Nah, the cave man is just doing what he knows best, making lots of cash and being positive. I know what he is up to other than making cash but i am sworn to secrecy. 

Well I'm sure the hobby will be waiting anxiously for the next installment. Been an interesting read, and shows that the understanding of copyright is not strong, and that the rights of copyright owners not well understood, nor the interaction between copyright, trademarks and patents.

My advice - tread carefully. People have paid for licenses to do things, and if that is their income stream, they will be prepared to defend their rights.

[Marty Machine]

Nick, can u provide any informative legal sites in oz that we can readup on? or does info like this simply not exist?

In a perfect world, i'd love to see books published for the layman, "dummies guide to copyright", "dummy's guide to oz law", etc etc...

One thing i can't stand about legal books and docs, is the amount of subtext, points, and addendums that completely baffle the reader.
By the time i've finished reading the paragraph and all it's sub-points, i have NO IDEA what i just read. 

MM.

[Extra Ball]

Its my understanding that such matters can be tested, and possibly by precedant. To me its seems pretty obvious that the owner of these rites is entitled to protect them.

[Homepin]

yes the owner is obviously entitled to protect her/his rights BUT there is the problem - nobody knows what they are exactly?

[Strangeways]

Best thing to do is contact either Licensee or WMS direct. They probably won't provide you with a list of licenses they own.

The other thing you can do is engage a professional in copyright laws.

Either way, there will be plenty of red tape and costs involved.

The licensees paid for the right to own these licenses, and they will actively protect their assets. At the end of the day, you risk being prosecuted by either licensee, WMS or the third party licensee.

So if you were to illegally reproduce Addams Family Decals. Be prepared to hear from ;

WMS
Either or both licensee
Paramount Pictures
The Addams Family trust
and others..

Hypothetically - if you owned the equipment to produce sideart - You could contact either licensee and ask permission to reproduce the decals. Send a sample to either licensee, which would be forwarded to WMS. WMS would contact Paramount Pictures, Addams Family trust and other rights holders. If ALL these parties agreed - You could write a contract with the licensee and produce the decals. Then you would be under license to produce "with permission".

Now if you did do this (with permission) and some other dude prints out decals out the back of his shop with a cheap inkjet and sells them off as "originals" - You would be pissed ?

[pinnies4me]

Nick, can u provide any informative legal sites in oz that we can readup on? or does info like this simply not exist?

This is the Commonwealth web site. http://www.copyright.org.au/

Copyright laws and most intellectual property rights are governed by federal law being one of the original powers (section 51 (xviii.) of the Constitution Act) vested in the Commonwealth in 1901 - funny how something created over 100 years ago would be such a large area today.

Some of the "Fact Sheets" are a fairly straightforward read. But be careful - they claim copyright on their pamphlets, so I couldn't post an example here!

True!!  :)

[Marty Machine]

hahahaha that's funny how the pamphets are copyright......you'd think they'd let an infosheet be 'open' sheesh...

I also did some reading on 'copyright council' site, but they seem to want to sell me all the booklets for various areas, not too much info actually ONLINE.

oh well.

[Caveoftreasures]

I am certain that anyone doing anything commercially would study such sites and then seek legal advice from a copyright expert.
I didnt see anywhere in any of the previous posts where anyone said they were EVER doing anything illegal.
unfortunately, this was ASSUMED by some. certainly not the case. I think that site is worth studing for any product/s.

[ajlaird]

I thought people were saying "tread carefully" in this area as it is easy to infringe copyright given the law is pretty wide-ranging.

The other thing I thought was being said was that if something is produced which does infringe copyright (whether by design or not doesn't matter) then to protect this site it cannot be offered for sale here.

It will be interesting to see what happens a few months down the track.

[shansta]

I can understand the protection against cheap copies etc. (Although what do you do when the "factory originals" are cheap crap?)

Where do we stand doing a "like for like" copy?

i.e Can I rip the stuffed cab art off my party zone - get it copied from the original which is then destroyed?

I thought doing something along these lines is "legal"?

Reason for my interest in all of this:

I am fortunate to work with a "coating technologist" (He used to formulate the paint for Dulux and has worked in screen printing) - if it is a paint or an ink, this guy is the bomb! I started chatting to him about restoring glasses and playfields - he loses me in 10 seconds flat! Starts raving about celluloid cross-linking and surface tension...

[pinnies4me]

There's been discussion from time to time that restoring your own game is OK, but I haven't researched the truth of this claim - might have to do that. Fixing your own game does not cross into the commercial area so the criminal issues of piracy are not of concern. And as for a private action, seems it would be a bit pointless and stupid taking action against a private owner of a pinball machine using artwork to restore the thing (although you never know, owning a right does not equate with being bright).

[Marty Machine]

I firmly understand that even copying something for your own "one-off" home use is still copyright infringement, afterall, technically, the manufacturer has lost 1 sale, because you made your own. (yeh i know what you'll say, the manufacturer doesnt exist anymore blah blah blah....but SOMEONE holds those rights, and you would technically need their permission to produce your own copy, but of course NOBODY does that for the sake of home use).

This was EXACTLY the case with people copying "1" copy of their own PURCHASED CD's and DVD's, to protect the originals in storage, and only playing the copy.
If the copy got damaged, it would be thrown out and you would copy another without ever risking your PURCHASED copy to become faulty.

It was only recent years that Aus laws relaxed (or were still in talks) with HOME COPIES, and you can legally have "1" copy of each CD/DVD you actually purchased for the right to protect your original.

I'm not exactly sure if that law was ever passed or not?
Music distribution was fighting it so they wouldnt lose sales, and public were pushing for it so they dont have to keep buying the same CD/DVD every few months when their kids scratch it....

MM.

[Strangeways]

I think there is a Law that gives the owner of a machine "the right to restore", or something like that. You can produce for your own game.

Years ago I ordered a set of Pro Football "flipper bat" decals. PBR had run out of them - "Out if Stock- Sorry" ! So I asked WHEN the next "run" was scheduled. The response was "When there is enough interest" - So I asked if I could make my own set - and I was given permission to produce my own set of decals for my own machine - No problems at all.

I also asked if PBR had the original plans of the Pro Football cabinet - dimension etc.. They didn't. I was asked why, and I told Steve that I needed to scratch build a base. He told me I could produce the entire cabinet, but the moment I made a surplus cabinet tom my needs - He wanted to know.