LOTR DVD cover art

[Elenopa]

I know there are people out there with too much time on their hands.

I have someone who has made me a DVD of LOTR and she is apologising that there isn't a decent cover to put on it. I did think about creating my own, but I wondered if anyone had already done so. There have been some pretty good fake DVD covers on this board in the past.

So, Anyone?

 

[Jan]

I have someone who has made me a DVD of LOTR and she is apologising that there isn't a decent cover to put on it.

I'm not sure I understand. You have a friend who gave you something she stole and then she apologized for not stealing artwork for a cover?

How odd...

Jan

 

[Flounder]

Here we go again with the stealing vs. infringement vs. sharing.

Giving copies to others will get you in trouble, while making your own DVD that you recorded from TV and keeping it for yourself is OK in the eyes of the law.
We've been over that ground before, I think.

But are we against custom covers now? Well, they also infringe on the trademarks and copyrights of the distributors.

 

[darth_librarian]

Rick Easton is the man around here for this kind of thing, and his site is at http://www.rixgrafix.com/index_064.htm

You will find plenty of LOTR covers there.

 

[Flounder]

Wait a minute...
We're talking about LotR:TLaDiS (Legend of the Rangers: To Live and Die in Starlight), not Lord of the Rings, right.

I don't see any TLaDiS DVD covers.

 

[GaribaldisHair]

Wait a minute...
We're talking about LotR:TLaDiS (Legend of the Rangers: To Live and Die in Starlight), not Lord of the Rings, right.

I don't see any TLaDiS DVD covers.

Neither do I, but the Lord of the Rings covers are pretty damn good ...

 

[grumbler]

But if you have an illegal DVD you will want to put another cover on it in case the police come knocking, eh? Unless you have hidden the illegal DVD inside a dead cat inside a Pakmara!

In any case, I would be surprised if Rick spent time making a custon cover for a non-existant DVD.

 

[Derian]

But are we against custom covers now? Well, they also infringe on the trademarks and copyrights of the distributors.

Actually, if they are for non-commercial gain and private use and include a copyright statement regarding the copyrights of the original artwork/graphics, then they likely woudln't be an infringement and would fall under Title 17: Fair Use clause.

I could be wrong. The law was originally written primarily for text documents and the notices that it makes about images, art, graphics, illustrations, etc. are a bit more confusing, but I believe that's how it reads.

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

Actually, if they are for non-commercial gain and private use and include a copyright statement regarding the copyrights of the original artwork/graphics, then they likely woudln't be an infringement and would fall under Title 17: Fair Use clause.

That's incorrect. Fair use is a not-fully-tested exception to US Copyright Law (Sec. 107 of US Copyright Law, which is itself merely _contained_ in Title 17 of the US Code: it isn't Title 17 in and of itself). Section 107, "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" relates to uses that can be considered criticism or comment (i.e. reviews), news reporting, teaching (in a face-to-face teaching situation rather than, e.g., a video to be sold to schools for showing in classrooms), scholarship, or research.

Many people make this same mistake, and think that fair use has to do with whether or not any money exchanges hands, or whether it's public or private, but that's not really the case at all. Yes, subsection 1 of Section 107 does state that the factors to be considered include "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes," but what people seem to forget is that that subsection doesn't exist in a vacuum. It refers to what has gone before in Section 107, that is, the specific parameters of fair use as stated above (criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research).

So, no: making an illegal/unauthorized copy of a piece of intellectual property for your own personal, private use - whether or not you include a copyright statement on the packaging - is _not_ exempt from prosecution as an infringement, because it is _not_ fair use.

Hope this helps.

Aisling

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

Here we go again with the stealing vs. infringement vs. sharing.

Giving copies to others will get you in trouble, while making your own DVD that you recorded from TV and keeping it for yourself is OK in the eyes of the law.

What's to go over? It's an infringement. Making a recording for yourself is time-shifting. Making a copy for someone else - even one other person - is distribution.

But are we against custom covers now? Well, they also infringe on the trademarks and copyrights of the distributors.

Yes. They do infringe on the trademarks and copyrights of the copyright owners (not the distributors, unless they also happen to be the copyright owners).

Let's call a spade a spade: stealing is stealing.

Aisling

 

[Flounder]

It's an infringement. Making a recording for yourself is time-shifting. Making a copy for someone else - even one other person - is distribution.

Agreed.

Let's call a spade a spade: stealing is stealing.

Sharing is sharing. Infringement is infringement.
Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

What's to go over?

The legality and morality of that distribution, the kitten exchange rate, the general meaning of life....

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

the kitten exchange rate

Hee! Got a poker game coming up?

Aisling

 

[sleepy_shadow]

Many people make this same mistake, and think that fair use has to do with whether or not any money exchanges hands, or whether it's public or private, but that's not really the case at all.

That is not a mistake. Extent, nature and intent... notably influence whether a copyright holder will *ever* perceive something as harmful, and take action against it. What is permissible is sometimes not determined by theoretic interpretability of a single law -- but also its practical application, realistic applicability and occasional conflicts with other laws.

So, no: making an illegal/unauthorized copy of a piece of intellectual property for your own personal, private use - whether or not you include a copyright statement on the packaging - is _not_ exempt from prosecution as an infringement, because it is _not_ fair use.

Exceptions exist, even outside the arguable realm of fair use. For example -- oftentimes one may copy, for one's own personal use (and nobody else's use) material which one is licensed to use, even if the license does not mention that particular way of copying.

Laws in multiple countries give a licensee of copyrighted material either a full or limited (but unrestrictable by licensor) right to backup (and use the backup copy if they cannot access the original).

Furthermore, if a backup cannot be made to identical format and media (or this would harm the effectiveness of the backup against data loss), the right to backup will often extend -- to decoding, recoding and storing in different format, onto different media.

Essentially, when direct backup is complicated, the right to backup takes us into the land of derivative works -- possibly even reverse engineering. Derivatives and engineering which are not authorized, but may be permissible regardless -- to protect investment, and exercise rights which one has been granted.

Yes. They do infringe on the trademarks and copyrights of the copyright owners (not the distributors, unless they also happen to be the copyright owners).

In strictest interpretation, this would make even attaching a label to a disk case infringement -- a peculiar form of creating a derivative work.

Let's call a spade a spade.

Utterly and completely agreed.
Let us not confuse rakes with spades.
If one steps on a rake, it can have dire consequences.
Stepping on a spade can be slippery, but won't cause
quite the same effects.

 

[Demon]

the kitten exchange rate

Hee! Got a poker game coming up?

Aisling

Going wildly off topic, I was at a Buffy convention a few weeks back, and the actor who played Clem was there. I asked him what happened to the kittens after the poker games, and he insisted that Clem made sure they all had good homes

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

That is not a mistake. Extent, nature and intent... notably influence whether a copyright holder will *ever* perceive something as harmful, and take action against it.

But are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the rights holder can take action as a matter of law, and therefore the question of whether or not infringement has taken place. Rights holders may elect not to enforce their rights for many reasons or for no reason - but that doesn't mean that they are unenforcable or that no tort has been committed if they are violated.

Regards,

Joe

 

[sleepy_shadow]

But are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the rights holder can take action as a matter of law...

From the viewpoint of theoretic interpretability... yes, agreed... irrelevant. From a viewpoint of practise, agreed with notable reservations.

As mentioned, a degree of derivation may become allowed under certain conditions, and the border of where derivation for personal use becomes unpermissible... is not exactly the clearest of borders.

--------

For another example... let us imagine my command of some language is poor. I obtain a license to peruse a work of intellectual property. It becomes evident: the work is written in a language I cannot understand.

Am I allowed to translate that work... either with my personal mind, or a computer... in written or audible speech... either partially or completely... from one language into another, for my own personal understanding and use?

Should I translate personally, with my own mind, how many pages of notes and quotations may I keep, to assist myself during translation?

---------

Should a chatty alien with digital memory and teraflops of processing power buy a DVD instead of me (exact reproduction would overlap with harmless retelling of personal experience to its chaps) would it be permitted to watch the movie? Retell what it saw (free speech)?

With such questions, we are entering shaky ground. Formal definitions and laws are no longer holding water. Yet one old question does. Did the chatty alien, by retelling the story... receive unearned profit, or damage the deserved income of someone else?

Law is ultimately designed to prevent harm. If harm does not occur... grounds for applying law to punish someone... are inherently and decisively weakened.

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

Many people make this same mistake, and think that fair use has to do with whether or not any money exchanges hands, or whether it's public or private, but that's not really the case at all.

That is not a mistake. Extent, nature and intent... notably influence whether a copyright holder will *ever* perceive something as harmful, and take action against it. What is permissible is sometimes not determined by theoretic interpretability of a single law -- but also its practical application, realistic applicability and occasional conflicts with other laws.

Yes, but what I'm explaining is fair use, and what it means. And believe me, I know. Whether a copyright owner decides to pursue an infringement is another thing entirely, but the term "fair use" is often thrown around very liberally by people who do not understand the law. And "fair use" is not about stuff you're copying for your friends to see, whether or not money changes hands.

Exceptions exist, even outside the arguable realm of fair use. For example -- oftentimes one may copy, for one's own personal use (and nobody else's use) material which one is licensed to use, even if the license does not mention that particular way of copying.

Yes, and I mentioned time-shifting as something distinct and different from distribution. _Making a copy for yourself_ is not what we were talking about.

All the rest of your stuff about archival/backup copies is in the same realm as time-shifting, or personal use copying. It's all completely irrelevant to the question at hand, which was making a copy or copies for friends.

In strictest interpretation, this would make even attaching a label to a disk case infringement -- a peculiar form of creating a derivative work.

Again, the difference is making it for yourself, or making it for someone else (i.e distribution - whether or not any money changes hands). I can label my own taped-off-of-SciFi videotapes of B5 however I want, because they're my copies on my shelf, and they're not being distributed or exhibited publicly in any form. Once you distribute, the game changes.

Aisling

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

From the viewpoint of theoretic interpretability... yes, agreed... irrelevant. From a viewpoint of practise, agreed with notable reservations.

Well, by that logic, all law is theoretical until someone files a suit.

For another example... let us imagine my command of some language is poor. I obtain a license to peruse a work of intellectual property. It becomes evident: the work is written in a language I cannot understand.

Am I allowed to translate that work... either with my personal mind, or a computer... in written or audible speech... either partially or completely... from one language into another, for my own personal understanding and use?

Yes.

Should I translate personally, with my own mind, how many pages of notes and quotations may I keep, to assist myself during translation?

To assist yourself during translation? You can keep all of your notes all through that process. Where it gets dicey is here: if the book belongs to someone else (i.e. a library), and you finish your work, and at the end you have a professional-grade translation of the whole thing, you probably should buy a copy of the book, because if you keep those notes, you are in effect keeping an entire copy of the book. No different than photocopying a book from the library. Then again, if you're just keeping it for yourself, who'll know? Not saying this is _right_; just that it's patently unenforceable, and not worth most copyright owners' time and money to pursue.

Now, if you then take that translation and make copies for other people who speak your language - even if it's merely a photocopy of a sloppy, handwritten, hastily-prepared translation...that's a meaty, pursuable infringement on two grounds: the unauthorized making of copies, and the unauthorized preparation of a translation.

Should a chatty alien with digital memory and teraflops of processing power buy a DVD instead of me (exact reproduction would overlap with harmless retelling of personal experience to its chaps) would it be permitted to watch the movie? Retell what it saw (free speech)?

Oh, this is just silly. Are you asking that if some alien or cyborg had a DVD-quality memory and sat through a movie and was able to "recall" it absolutely perfectly and completely, would his "retelling" of it (i.e. a showing of the film) be an infringement? Well, yeah. It would. Because it's no different than you taking a digital camcorder into a theater and making a recording of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and showing it to your friends.

Aisling

 

[sleepy_shadow]

Oh, this is just silly.

My example is silly. But that silly example... is necessary to re-emphasize the importance of factors which your approach needlessly de-emphasized.

Are you asking that if some alien or cyborg had a DVD-quality memory and sat through a movie and was able to "recall" it absolutely perfectly and completely, would his "retelling" of it (i.e. a showing of the film) be an infringement? Well, yeah. It would.

Yet we perform similar actions in limited extent. We discuss. Discussing, we occasionally describe -- sometimes exactly, sometimes with modification. We quote too, sometimes even illustrate our point with screen captures.

No... we don't have DVD-quality memory... but essentially through discussion, we are retelling things. Distributing extracts, quotations are derivations.

You would suggest that a cyborg retelling a whole movie would violate copyright. I might agree. However, what differentiates a cyborg retelling it all... from people debating an episode at B5TV?

-- Extent (hardly a significant portion)
-- Precision (hardly an exact representation)
-- Intent (hardly meant to distribute)
-- Ability to harm author's interest (cannot replace watching the episode)
-- Ability to obtain unearned profit (nobody would pay for such activity)

Sometimes, factors like intent, extent, precision and profit... can make all the difference needed to grant some activity protection.

They are damn fuzzy... but they *can* merit consideration when determining the permissibility/fairness of some use of copyrighted material.

 

[AnlaShokGrey]

You would suggest that a cyborg retelling a whole movie would violate copyright. I might agree. However, what differentiates a cyborg retelling it all... from people debating an episode at B5TV?

The difference is an exact copy of the entire movie or a bunch of people talking about bits of the movie. The two just don't compare. Here, we are engaging in discussion and commentary; we are not posting excerpts of copyrighted works, or copyrighted works in their entirety.

Sometimes, factors like intent, extent, precision and profit... can make all the difference needed to grant some activity protection.

They are damn fuzzy... but they *can* merit consideration when determining the permissibility/fairness of some use of copyrighted material.

Well, sure. Every copyright owner has the choice of whether or not to pursue infringing behavior, and of _course_ they're going to base that decision on many factors, including (but not limited to) intent, size, and whether or not money changed hands. That's not what I was discussing, however. I was merely clearing up the actual facts of US copyright law as regards Sec. 107.

Aisling