high voltage Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) copyright hehe I'm with Andy Warhol who copied a famous tomato tin and a sugar water brand without permission, didn't do him any harm.... artist Rainer Gross copied the Apple logo, McDonalds logo, youTube and a bunch of other logos, I asked him personally if he got permission to copy them, he said he never asked....his art sells, so there.... Edited September 10, 2012 by high voltage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Everyone who posted in this thread has been reported to Atari. You are all going to prison. Don't drop the soap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Climber Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some idiot is about to be taken for $100 with 25 minutes to go. I don't know man, he might know it's a reproduction but just doesn't know where to get them. Not every Atari collector is a member here. If you don't know CPU and you think this is a cool collectable (since it is, even though it's a repro) it might be worth that price to him? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennybingo Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some idiot is about to be taken for $100 with 25 minutes to go. I don't know man, he might know it's a reproduction but just doesn't know where to get them. Not every Atari collector is a member here. If you don't know CPU and you think this is a cool collectable (since it is, even though it's a repro) it might be worth that price to him? Not to mention, if he ever decides to sell it, he would likely get his money back from someone else on eBay who wants one. Personally, I think CPU should just sell these on eBay for $100 each...it seems that this is what the market will bear. Why not give the people what they want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Climber Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some idiot is about to be taken for $100 with 25 minutes to go. I don't know man, he might know it's a reproduction but just doesn't know where to get them. Not every Atari collector is a member here. If you don't know CPU and you think this is a cool collectable (since it is, even though it's a repro) it might be worth that price to him? Not to mention, if he ever decides to sell it, he would likely get his money back from someone else on eBay who wants one. Personally, I think CPU should just sell these on eBay for $100 each...it seems that this is what the market will bear. Why not give the people what they want? It's kind of a strange science... Once you pop several on Ebay, they no longer seem "rare" so people will put them off to get other things first and they will stop selling....but once they are gone it's a mad dash to get one! I'm guilty of it too though, out of print homebrews is my poison. When they are readily available I put them off for other stuff, always waiting just one more week/etc, but once they are sold out I end up paying double the price because I HAVE to get one, lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennybingo Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some idiot is about to be taken for $100 with 25 minutes to go. I don't know man, he might know it's a reproduction but just doesn't know where to get them. Not every Atari collector is a member here. If you don't know CPU and you think this is a cool collectable (since it is, even though it's a repro) it might be worth that price to him? Not to mention, if he ever decides to sell it, he would likely get his money back from someone else on eBay who wants one. Personally, I think CPU should just sell these on eBay for $100 each...it seems that this is what the market will bear. Why not give the people what they want? It's kind of a strange science... Once you pop several on Ebay, they no longer seem "rare" so people will put them off to get other things first and they will stop selling....but once they are gone it's a mad dash to get one! Very true...I assume the same will happen as soon as Albert starts making those Halo repros as well...I see repros of that game on eBay all the time for ridiculous prices...sometimes well over $100. Amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Climber Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Boulder Dash is another good example, I'll admit I haven't bought one yet...but someday they will be gone and I'll end up paying more if I don't get one soon, lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zwackery Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 copyright hehe I'm with Andy Warhol who copied a famous tomato tin and a sugar water brand without permission, didn't do him any harm.... artist Rainer Gross copied the Apple logo, McDonalds logo, youTube and a bunch of other logos, I asked him personally if he got permission to copy them, he said he never asked....his art sells, so there.... Both Warhol and Gross did not do 100% reproductions of the works in question, i.e., Warhol enlarged/repeated the Campbell's soup can and Gross is (quite smartly) only using part of the corporate logos, so in these cases the art is transformative of the original work and thus is not seen as violating copyright (at least by the copyright holders). For comparison's sake, Mattel's lawsuit against MCA over "Barbie Girl" was dismissed (parody related to nominative use), and Mattel never went after Todd Haynes for using modified Barbies in Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (however, Karen's brother Richard - who did not like the portrayals in the film - did get the film pulled because of the use of unlicensed music). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckodb Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Another 1 just popped up on ebay tonight. eBay Auction -- Item Number: 290816071771 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mxyzptlk Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Another 1 just popped up on ebay tonight. eBay Auction -- Item Number: 290816071771 LOL, it is not yours, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPUWIZ Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Oh wow, that is one of the originals from 2002. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lentzquest Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 At least it says clearly in the description that it's custom made, so it's not being passed off as an old commercial release. It's also seldom these days that I see an auction for anything Atari that doesn't have the word "rare" in the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceDice2010 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 No time to post a dissertation, but suffice it to say that legally, sure, Atari could shut down just about anybody using a photograph of their copyrighted artwork. Taking a photograph of a copyrighted work has been shown to amount to reproducing the work. Of course, this is where the distinction between legal decisions and business decisions come into play -- Atari "could" pursue legal avenues in these instances, but they will ultimately choose not to because it only causes more business problems for them than it solves, not to mention there wouldn't really be much recouped losses in the form of legal fees by simply shutting down websites. This is why we saw those C&Ds earlier without much more than smoke and mirrors behind them -- Atari has someone in their legal department essentially on retainer, so might as well have them do SOMETHING with their salary, but it's likely none of those cases would have turned into anything more. The legal side may say it's a big deal, but the business side says it's not worth it, and 99% of the time the business side wins. Unless you're Apple vs. Samsung, that is. From a glance, I'd say Phil's site would likely be considered a fair use for educational purposes, provided the judge in question was somewhat nice about interpretations. Phil's site doesn't have any ads or anything on it, so he's not even indirectly generating any revenue at all from the copyright material, and it can pretty easily be argued that the intent of his site is to inform viewers as opposed to anything else. It would be up to the dude in the robe, of course, but I'd honestly say there's a pretty good argument for Phil's site being fair use. The funny thing that Phil mentions about eBay sales and the like -- photographing an item for sale has generally been considered something to not require prior authorization. Again, depends on the dude in the robe, but generally, it's considered okay to take a photograph of a particular item -- for example, an Atari 2600 box -- explicitly for the purpose of selling that particular item, since it would be unreasonable to prevent sales of items in this way. The best rule of thumb when business law is concerned is the "reasonable person" standard, and I like to think it somewhat applies to copyright -- if we couldn't take pictures of items in order to sell them, it's not too far of a leap to say that we couldn't really sell anything at all, since the photograph is "sort of" tied into the right of first sale in the right to resell. "Sort of" in this case meaning, again, it all depends on the dude in the robe! For the most part, just about everything we do on AtariAge is going to fall into that "technically infringing but a poor business decision to pursue" crevasse, which is why we don't really ever see anyone making repros or the like suddenly "disappear". Of course, "doesn't care" doesn't make it right, but nonetheless, without that "doesn't care" mentality, we wouldn't have a LOT of stuff we have available now, so I like to think it's part of the "better good" style breaches of ethics. For a large amount of information, this site is good about photos and copyright: http://www.danheller...copyrights.html He pretty much nailed it on copyright law. One thing that is important is that there is a huge distinction as it relates to copying a ROM and a photograph. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that they will win. When looking at issues of using photographs one has to take into account the intent of the use of the photograph. Taking a photograph of your child in a Mickey Mouse t-shirt and using it in a personal web album is much different than taking the same photograph and using it in a commercial brochure for a travel agency that is marketing a cruise that has naked card dealers dealing out poker hands the whole cruise. As for a label variation website, Atari would soon start to run out of legal grounds to sue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lentzquest Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 That one on ebay's at over a hundred now with more than a day still to go. That's crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Both Warhol and Gross did not do 100% reproductions of the works in question, i.e., Warhol enlarged/repeated the Campbell's soup can and Gross is (quite smartly) only using part of the corporate logos, so in these cases the art is transformative of the original work and thus is not seen as violating copyright (at least by the copyright holders). For comparison's sake, Mattel's lawsuit against MCA over "Barbie Girl" was dismissed (parody related to nominative use), and Mattel never went after Todd Haynes for using modified Barbies in Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (however, Karen's brother Richard - who did not like the portrayals in the film - did get the film pulled because of the use of unlicensed music). Mind you, Campbell's did try to sue later on, by that time Warhol was famous and his copying of Campbell's actually worked in their favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lentzquest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Wow, $172.50. CPU really may wanna consider making these for auction one at a time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckodb Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I just dont understand why somebody would pay that much for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mxyzptlk Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I just dont understand why somebody would pay that much for that. It is a pretty awesome cart though. I got mine from a guy who got banned from here awhile back for around $70-80 shipped. This is before I knew better, but I am happy with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seethransom Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Blimey, I will just say that I will respect your wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.