Topic by Halamantariel

Posted: 8/10/2006 3:15 AM

Quote

Halamantariel

Player (104)

Joined: 1/30/2005
Posts: 562
Location: Québec, Canada

HiddenGamer wrote:

Plus another thing, they could just make their own avi movie from the rom and then emulator movie file DUH!

Don't DUH! me ... I said that in the post where I talked about watermarking ... I said that the only way to steal in the future would be to re-encode the movies.

Posted: 8/10/2006 5:23 AM

Quote

Unknown_User

Joined: 1/1/2022
Posts: 1716

Halamantariel wrote:

HiddenGamer wrote:
Plus another thing, they could just make their own avi movie from the rom and then emulator movie file DUH!
Don't DUH! me ... I said that in the post where I talked about watermarking ... I said that the only way to steal in the future would be to re-encode the movies.

gotch ya,sorry about that. Sometimes I read bits and pieces and I'm too lazy to read the whole thing. But these people are so lame, the nerve of them to edit out the disclaimer then go ahead and put their own watermark, I think they should definitely get in trouble for this. This is just like stealing a faq from gamefaqs and not giving credit for who made it. This is utterly pathetic. Yeah , its free to download and use from the internet, but you should never re-modify something that isn't yours and discredit who made it.

Posted: 8/10/2006 5:36 AM

Quote

Morrison

He/Him

Former player

Joined: 8/2/2006
Posts: 195
Location: USA

Can the TAS videos be copyrighted or trademarked? HG, pirate_sephiroth and I were talking about it in IRC tonight. Would it be possible to copyright a video that contains images, characters and a game that we don't have rights to? I'm being pessimistic, but if it was possible then preventing other people from using the vidoes made here could be a reality. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that all we can technically claim as our own are the buttons pressed.

twitch.tv/Retrogaming2084

Posted: 8/11/2006 3:23 AM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

Morrison wrote:

Can the TAS videos be copyrighted or trademarked?

I believe there's an inherent contradiction of rights in this idea. Technically speaking all the TAS videos published here break copyright: Prominently the soundtracks break copyright, and probably the graphics too. I'm pretty certain that the copyright owners don't really care (if they did, they would have shouted already). They might consider it "fair use". However, us claiming copyright on copyrighted material crosses a borderline. I would not even dare to try crossing that line. Some copyright owner might step in, and that's not something we want to experience.

Posted: 8/11/2006 3:40 AM

Quote

OmnipotentEntity

He/Him

Player (36)

Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2623

Wikipedia wrote:

In the United States, "derivative work" is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101: A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version." US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author.

And, unless you want to make the case that TASes are a work of parody or a teaching tool, we don't fall under fair use as well... We have no legal leg to stand on when it comes to copyright. However, Nintendo, Sega, Rare et. al. are probably glad that crazy fans of old games still exist because we mean cheap and easy money from remakes. So if we can get them to authorize derivative works, we can protect them under copyright and stop people from stealing movies, in theory. Honestly though, I don't think it's worth the trouble.

Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.

Posted: 8/11/2006 6:11 PM

Quote

nesrocks

He/Him

Player (241)

Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil

i didn't read many of the posts, but if we put a watermark, then the person stealing the video will easily put a bigger watermark right on top of our watermark, hiding it completely.

aka Nesrocks http://www.youtube.com/user/UoBtExFODA https://nesrocks.com https://twitter.com/bitinkstudios

Posted: 8/11/2006 6:18 PM

Quote

Unknown_User

Joined: 1/1/2022
Posts: 1716

Pretty much means that they can get away with it, and that guy that made the super mario 64 movie on youtube and made the edits could of gotten away of just keeping the video on there without getting in trouble.

Posted: 8/11/2006 6:48 PM

Quote

JSmith

Joined: 8/1/2006
Posts: 428

OmnipotentEntity wrote:

We have no legal leg to stand on when it comes to copyright... So if we can get them to authorize derivative works, we can protect them under copyright and stop people from stealing movies, in theory.

We could complain about unauthorized use of spezzafer's original .m64 file to create & distribute a derivative work.

Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host

Posted: 8/11/2006 6:56 PM

Quote

primorial_soup

Player (87)

Joined: 1/15/2006
Posts: 333
Location: Bangkok, Thailand

Update: ThiefAlucard has now added the following text to all the videos he took from this site:

ThiefAlucard wrote:

Im not the one doing this movies. The site I got them from are tasvideos.org but I got permission. If you want to see more of this videos go check that link.

print reduce(lambda x,p:p/2*x/p+2*10**1000,range(6643,1,-2))

Posted: 8/11/2006 6:57 PM

Quote

OmnipotentEntity

He/Him

Player (36)

Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2623

Sure, his .m64 file was used to create the movie file. However, that is too a derivative work of the ROM.

Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.

Posted: 8/11/2006 6:58 PM

Quote

JXQ

Experienced player (750)

Joined: 5/6/2005
Posts: 3132

That's funny because he didn't get permission. Especially because every page says that youtube.com is expressly forbid from reproducing the content found here. I've contacted youtube, but I can only make a claim against those works I am the author of. Bisqwit could make a claim against them all, being the site adminstrator, or the individual authors could do so as well. Once I have an e-mail back from them, I'll post what happened here.

<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)

Posted: 8/11/2006 9:37 PM

Quote

Tompa

Any

Editor, Expert player (2141)

Joined: 8/15/2005
Posts: 1934
Location: Mullsjö, Sweden

primorial#soup wrote:

Update: ThiefAlucard has now added the following text to all the videos he took from this site:
ThiefAlucard wrote:
Im not the one doing this movies. The site I got them from are tasvideos.org but I got permission. If you want to see more of this videos go check that link.

It's was me who made him do it=).

Posted: 8/12/2006 6:58 PM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

OmnipotentEntity wrote:

Sure, his .m64 file was used to create the movie file. However, that is too a derivative work of the ROM.

If an .m64 file is just a collection of timed keypresses, it can hardly be considered a derivative work of anything because it doesn't contain anything from the ROM. If anything, it's a product of the mupen64 emulator (and thus in theory might be subject to the emulator's license), but essentially has nothing to do with the mario64 rom.

Posted: 8/12/2006 7:15 PM

Quote

OmnipotentEntity

He/Him

Player (36)

Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2623

Except that is wouldn't have been created in a vacuum. 'A "derivative work" [is] a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works.'

Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.

Posted: 8/12/2006 7:33 PM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

A derivative work contains some ideas (even if modified) from another work. A robot which paints the Mona Lisa is not a derivative work of Mona Lisa. It's a robot which paints.

Posted: 8/13/2006 5:02 AM

Quote

OmnipotentEntity

He/Him

Player (36)

Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2623

Point. I concede. However, the painting itself is still a derivative work of Mona Lisa. Even if the program the robot runs on is not.

Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.

Posted: 8/13/2006 2:36 PM

Quote

Warp

Banned User, Former player

Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland

OmnipotentEntity wrote:

However, the painting itself is still a derivative work of Mona Lisa. Even if the program the robot runs on is not.

I agree. In this case the AVI video file is a derivative work of the game. Of course only a lawyer specialized on copyrights and such could tell for sure what would and would not be considered a derivative work...

Posted: 8/13/2006 3:14 PM

Quote

schneelocke

Joined: 11/11/2004
Posts: 400
Location: ::1

Warp wrote:

If anything, it's a product of the mupen64 emulator (and thus in theory might be subject to the emulator's license)

It wouldn't - copyright doesn't extend that far. In theory, the emulator could come with a EULA that stipulates something like this, but then, it's not clear whether EULAs are actually enforcable (depending on where you live) and/or (if they are) whether you have to agree to them in order to be legally allowed to use a program (first sale doctrine and all that), and it would be a question of contract law, anyway, not copyright law. Of course, IANAL, so everything I said above is probably wrong. :) As for the movies on this site, my (layman's) assessment would be that the .fmv/.fcm/.m64/... movies are not copyright infringement, but that the AVI/OGM/MKV/... versions would (technically) be. But it's not entirely clear to me, either, and of course, it's not that it's likely that anyone'll care much, in any case. :)

Posted: 8/15/2006 1:10 AM
(Edited: 8/30/2006 2:54 PM)

Quote

JXQ

Experienced player (750)

Joined: 5/6/2005
Posts: 3132

copyright@youtube.com: Hello there, In order to take action on your request, we will need to receive a written communication (email is sufficient) that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see Section 512(c)(3) of the Copyright Act to confirm these requirements): (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted. (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. JXQ Hi. In response to what you need for copyright infrigement, I am including the following information / questions. 1) (All that was necessary was my real name, which they e-mailed me asking for. Whatever name you give them will be plastered up on the page of the movie you are trying to remove, so give a fake name if you are wary of that.) 2) http://tasvideos.org/movies.cgi?id=447 http://tasvideos.org/movies.cgi?id=536 3) (direct youtube links to videos) 4) My e-mail is: (e-mail removed) The complaining party: (url of this person's youtube account) Since you are youtube, I think you have the information necessary to contact this individual. 5) I believe that this person's use of the material specified above is not authorized by the copyright owner, it's agent, or the law. 6) I assert that the information in this notification is accurate. Extra information: First of all, the two pages specified in paragraph (2) contain the following words: "Reproduction of all material from this site is expressly forbidden for the following sites: SpikedHumor.com , YouTube.com." Secondly, your own user page states: "You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: "(i) you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service;" These two statements should be enough for the removal of the videos in question. copyright@youtube.com Thank you very much for your notification, the content has been removed. Hope this helps, The YouTube Team ---- This person's entire account got suspended, which was more than I expected to happen, but I think it's fair. I've seen others post our content on youtube, but with all the same information clearly stated in the description, and authors not taking credit for the video. That I have no problem with. Anyway, I posted this in case someone else finds videos being misrepresented and they are wondering the procedure to do something about it.

<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)

Posted: 8/15/2006 1:31 AM

Quote

Bisqwit

Editor, Active player (296)

Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth

FODA wrote:

i didn't read many of the posts, but if we put a watermark, then the person stealing the video will easily put a bigger watermark right on top of our watermark, hiding it completely.

Precisely. I don't wish to go on a competitive war, it will just annoy the audience. I'm already doing the most I dare to discourage video ripping without upsetting the watchers of the AVIs.

Posted: 8/17/2006 5:45 PM

Quote

DK64_MASTER

Joined: 10/24/2005
Posts: 1080
Location: San Jose

FODA wrote:

i didn't read many of the posts, but if we put a watermark, then the person stealing the video will easily put a bigger watermark right on top of our watermark, hiding it completely.

I didn't read many of the posts either, but a brilliant, or extremely stupid idea just came to me... What if the emulators themselves provide a watermark while you play the game? This could eliminate confusion between console and emulated runs (which inherently is off topic). Or even better yet, allow for a user-provided watermark. Downside, of course, is the fact that a watermark is an eyesore, and may cover some of the gameplay.

<agill> banana banana banana terracotta pie! <Shinryuu> ho-la terracotta barba-ra anal-o~

Posted: 8/18/2006 12:17 AM

Quote

Bag_of_Magic_Food

He/Him

Active player (277)

Joined: 5/29/2004
Posts: 5712

I don't see why you want a watermark in the first place.

put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude

Posted: 8/18/2006 12:43 AM

Quote

DK64_MASTER

Joined: 10/24/2005
Posts: 1080
Location: San Jose

Bag of Magic Food wrote:

I don't see why you want a watermark in the first place.

To signify that TASvideos created the video.

<agill> banana banana banana terracotta pie! <Shinryuu> ho-la terracotta barba-ra anal-o~

Posted: 8/18/2006 1:48 PM

Quote

JXQ

Experienced player (750)

Joined: 5/6/2005
Posts: 3132

More information: Youtube's privacy policy writes: "We may release personally identifiable information and/or non-personally-identifiable information if required to do so by law, or in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with state and federal laws (such as U.S. Copyright Law) or respond to a court order, subpoena, or search warrant." Let me translate this for you. Once you give them your name, they will plaster it all over where the movies in question used to be. And if you (repeatedly) e-mail them requesting the removal of it, they will ignore you. So give them a fake name and they don't question it. I also got a few more videos removed using this same template with no questions asked (plus fake name).

<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)

Posted: 8/18/2006 1:53 PM

Quote

Fabian

Former player

Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711

JXQ wrote:

More information: Youtube's privacy policy writes: "We may release personally identifiable information and/or non-personally-identifiable information if required to do so by law, or in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with state and federal laws (such as U.S. Copyright Law) or respond to a court order, subpoena, or search warrant." Let me translate this for you. Once you give them your name, they will plaster it all over where the movies in question used to be. And if you (repeatedly) e-mail them requesting the removal of it, they will ignore you. So give them a fake name and they don't question it. I also got a few more videos removed using this same template with no questions asked (plus fake name).

I didn't get this quote when you posted it, at all. Where the hell does it say they're free to post your name wherever they want? Is that part of "U.S. Copyright Law" in some way? I mean there's certainly no court order or whatever going on, right?

Zoey Ridin' High <Fabian_> I prett much never drunk