Print

[Aussie500]

The owner of the comic scans with the GM watermark sold by http://www.comicsoncdrom.com/ has requested their removal, so if anyone notices any of their scans in our collection could you please let us know so we can remove them

[comicartcom]

Aussie

I appreciate your consideration in this matter. But I also wish to explain myself so that fellow members can understandmy position.

First of all, I began the ComicsOnCDRom project back in 1989. My intention at that time was to make available to collectors wishing to read great stuff that would never be reprinted for the most part at an affordable price. To that end I would buy low grade collections and even single books like Planet Comics #1 which made the project pretty expensive. This was in addition to anything inmy own collection that could be used. Bud Plant first offered ComicsOnCDRom in 1998 and the Electro-comics download site went live in 2000 as a sub site and then in 2001 as it's own site.

Both projects are commercial entities and as such, in order for us to continue providing more issues neccessitated sales to put money back into books, labor, computers etc.

There are craploads of comic books that are inthe public domain and sometimes research is needed to determine what is or isn't. Some of that research is easily available, some can only be gotten by hiring someone in Washington DC who can do searches at the Library of Congress because most records are not available online.

Now, the differences between a public domain book, and a public domain file are vast. Planet Comics #1 is public domain because Jerry Iger did not renew ownership inthe 1960's and did not qualify to "recapture" copyright when Congress updated the copyright laws in 1978, 82, 84, 86, 1992 and finally again in 1998, so that comic was iretrievably placed into the public domain.. Anyone who owns a Planet Comics #1 can reproduce that book and publish it again.

However, the actual file that I created with my labor is my property. It did not exist before I created it. So while anyone can reprint Planet Comics #1, they may not use my files to achieve that purpose. Most especially to compete with me with my own product is the most egregious violation. All of my ComicsOnCDRom discs and Electro-comics files are sold with a "License Agreement". That agreement is contained within each download file, or on each CDRom. That agreement forbids extracting, decompiling, or redistributing any part of my files without prior authorization from Graffix Multimedia.

If someone who scans something wishes to put it into the public domain by uploading to your site or to usenet groups (where many of these images come from for files posted to this site), that is their right. But no one  has the right to post my files anywhere and if they do that still does not transfer rights to those files to those who download them. I'm sure that everyone does realize that any files they have given away the rights to by uploading for the purpose of giving them away loses any rights to them, like on this site or to usenet.

That said, there is an extremely large amount of my material on this site.. As of this moment we have counted over 130 files (I have listed them below) that are improperly posted on this site. They have been downloaded more than 11,000 times. That is an incredibly large amount of files, and without a doubt has impacted my business financially, which is something the owners of this site should be thinking about.

To be honest, if anyone who administers this site would have contacted me, I would have certainly "donated" some files to this site as I do think you are providing a valuable service to comic fans.I'm not concerned about competition. If you can make it.. more power to you! But you can't make it using my property without my authorization.

While I'm at it, I also want to bring your attention to other issues:

Microfiche comics were published by MicroColour.com. They paid for licensing to Marvel, DC and other copyright holders to do their microfiche and their images are their property just like my scans are mine.

Captain Marvel, Marvel JR, Marvel Family, Whiz, Master and other "Marvel Family" comics are under copyright to DC. The non Marvel Family titles are generally PD

Comics that reprint comic strips, like Terry & the Pirates have underlying copyrights which prevent republication. Terry is owned by Tribune Syndicate except for the first 3 years which were allowed to lapse. I'm not sure if copyright was recaptured, but I won't reprint that stuff myself.

The MLJ material you have.. Shawn of GoldComics.com got authorization from the Archie attorney to reproduce that material and I know they are largely his scans you have posted. Also, many of the MLJ titles are still held under copyright to Archie Publications. some are not, I don't remember which.

Blackhawk comicsare not PD. The copyright is owned by the daughter of the original publisher who licences the title to DC. Military is PD, Modern depends on the issue as some are copyright.

Police Comics may not be reprinted in full because Will Eisner's estate owns all rights to the Spirit

that's just for your edification. I have no dog in those fights and you can do as you will with those titles as long as you are willing to take your chances.

That all said, below is a list of files that have images drawn from my products. Please note that even though many issues do not have imprints, I have all the original scans and can prove my claim to all of these. This list may not be complete as we are still researching the remaining files. I ask you to remove them ASAP.

thanks for reading and please email me at removed if you have comments. But please no flames, I haven't flamed anyone here. I am asserting my rights, that is all.

thanks
Rich---------------------

[evilfabio]

"However, the actual file that I created with my labor is my property.'

It actually isn't.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation

MJ

[evilfabio]

BTW, please don't delete anything this guy says to delete, particularly...

Files with images that are not imprinted but come from either ComicsOnCDRom discs or Electro-comics files:

Again, he's wrong on the law with his GM watermarked files, but here he doesn't even bother to substantiate why these uploads are from "ComicsOnCDRom discs or Electro-comics files."  He just says they are.

And, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter if they are.

MJ

[boox909]

BTW, please don't delete anything this guy says to delete, particularly...

Files with images that are not imprinted but come from either ComicsOnCDRom discs or Electro-comics files:

Again, he's wrong on the law with his GM watermarked files, but here he doesn't even bother to substantiate why these uploads are from "ComicsOnCDRom discs or Electro-comics files."  He just says they are.

And, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter if they are.

MJ

Whoa! That's dynamite stuff! Thanks for that law case MJ...I look forward to attempting reading it.

B.

[Aussie500]

The case simply states that under USA law you cannot copyright a copy, since to copyright something in the first place it needs to be an original work. l will only be permanently removing scans that l can see originated from one of comicartcom's sites. If l find the above are not marked in anyway to prove this and thus could have originated else where, they will not be removed
l am aware of some of the other problems mentioned by comicartcom concerning some of the other comics, although l disagree on the MLJ titles, l checked them before uploading them and the copyright on those particular issues was not renewed, the Pep comics were renewed from #72 our collection only goes up to #65

[Serj]

I told you by PM if you want anything removed you follow out DMCA policy 100% if you want them removed asap and in a timely fanshion.

Posting the list here has just delayed the process cos I have not seen the list till this morning when I would have picked a email up last night or before. Also the list has now been removed from this post as its been move to a staff room.

Next if you are considering legal action against us you might want to start removing all your scans etc from dc++ and the bit torrent scene, ebay as they are also trading yours scans.

If we find any comics you listed with the watermark GM then I will remove them personally. I have all the files backed up on my PC so can easily find the files that are GM water marked etc without having to download them all, but unless you can prove you own the non watermarked comics they will remain on the site. This is because if you have no proof you made them anyone can say "i made that scan so remove it". We won't remove a file just because you say its from your site. Chances are the scanning community made others and we have those copies so you just cant go on name alone so they stay in the end.

Thanks for your post.
We will also forward this matter onto our legal team and see what they have to say about it.

[comicartcom]

Serj

I will be sending an email to the address you posted to me, but I had seen this string & felt it was appropriate to discuss here as well.

I will be commenting on some of the things that have been said here by members, including commenting on the legal cases cited by various members.

However in the meantime to answer those that think "most likely they got the scans for free from the internet in the first place"

here is a link to a page I set up to prove without a doubt that is not the case for 99.99% of what we used for our products.

http://www.comicsoncdrom.com/comparison/

this page has copies of my original scans - as large as 2.5 mb, so it could take some download time -
copies of the images from teh corresponding file on this site
a photograph of the comic used

and to my 99.99%
we did use internet sourced files for Jungle Comics #1, Jumbo #82, and Web of Evil 5 & 11, which is why I didn't have those issues in my list. Those are files that anyone CAN use and if I suspected they were from my cd's, I can't be sure on one hand because I did not watermark them and also because if the scans were freely put out for use by anyone from the original scanner, I don't care about them

about eBay, DC++ & bit torrent Serj, we stop them as we can and even if someone on DC++ is downloading our files, using that as a defense for why you can isn't exactly a defense. Stealing is stealing and I really cannot believe that anyone on this list would start shoplifting because they saw someone else shoplifting at the market and then if they got caught, I can't imagine you using that defense to a Judge.

thanks
Rich========================

[evilfabio]

"Stealing is stealing and I really cannot believe that anyone on this list would start shoplifting because they saw someone else shoplifting at the market and then if they got caught, I can't imagine you using that defense to a Judge."

Again, I'd rather use this defense to a Judge...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation

I understand the admins on this site removing your watermarked files as a courtesy, but legally you can't demand anything.

MJ

[evilfabio]

BTW...

"http://www.comicsoncdrom.com/comparison/"

For someone who claims not to be concerned about this site or competition, going to the trouble of putting up a specific page trying to prove various uploads here came from you is pretty bizarre.  Not to mention going through every upload to this site.

Since the law isn't on your side, all you're really doing is alienating would-be customers.  I'll certainly never give you a dime again.

MJ

[comicartcom]

Fabio

if you read that entire Wikipedia article, you will see it really doesn't help your argument because to quote from the Wikipedia:

"Moreover, this case has not been cited by any appellate-level circuit court meaning that it has no mandatory legal authority and its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed"

also:

"This concluded that the ruling "is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the United States"

and also:

"The Group went on to obtain supporting opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist who found that, "as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether...the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting". UK museums therefore continue to claim copyright over photographic reproductions of items in their collections"

To go further, someone commented on a previous case that you cannot copyright a copy.

they have the case wrong and the interpretation, which is often quoted incorrectly.
The case involved was between several small publishers against one of he big US publishers who reprinted many books that had been in the public domain because previously they had no interest to American readers. Suddenly many years after writing the novels, the author became incredibly popular and the company in question republished all of his boosk and tried to assert copyright privelage aginst all other publishers issuing the books.

The case went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was not you couldn't copyright a copy, but you couldn't assert copyright over the original publication, thereby preventing anyone else from printing the same. But they still needed to print from the original printing & other publishers may not use the contemporaneous printings issued by other publishers to achieve themselves. That was the ruling.

Now I want to make a comment here.. it seems that some people are angry at me for wanting my material removed from this site. You have no right to be angry at anything. Yo have been allowed to download for free material that belongs to me - without my consent. The only person here is should be angry is me and I haven't used angry words towards anyone here.

I put up the link to the page with the images so that those of you who seem to think I got my material from some anomalous cloud can see that I am only asserting my rights over my property and that I have the proof for those that seem to doubt it.

Fabio, if you aren't going to buy my products again.. I'm not sure I would want your business anyway if you were going to upload my property like a pirate anyway.. Get real.

For anyone who is irritated about having my sourced material from this sorry, I'm sorry - but as my first post said, this was done without my consent and as all of my CDRom or Download product states my files are not for decompiling, extracting or redistributing of it's content.

You guys don't need my files anyway.. you've been doing just fine sourcing your own stuff, which makes it even more outrageous that any of you may be irritated. You have benefitted for some time from  my property for free. That time is over. Move on.

Rich===================

[evilfabio]

Hey, Rich.  Not only did I read it all -- unlike you, I actually understand it.

""Moreover, this case has not been cited by any appellate-level circuit court meaning that it has no mandatory legal authority and its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed"

Instead of picking and choosing what you think helps your case, let's look at the whole paragraph...

"Several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though it has yet to be endorsed specifically by the Supreme Court. Moreover, this case has not been cited by any appellate-level circuit court meaning that it has no mandatory legal authority and its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Feist v. Rural, explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability, seems to support the fundamental reasoning behind Bridgeman."

Bridgeman asserted copyright for the exact same reasons you have.  They lost.  The ruling that "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality" is the law of the (U.S.) land.  The ruling has never been overturned, and the Supreme Court "explicitly reject[ed] difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability."  All the objections you post are with regard to ENGLISH law.  If I remember correctly, you're in Florida, Rich.  Unless you want to move your shop to the U.K., English law doesn't apply to you.

Again, you have no legal rights here, Rich.  Speaking of moving on, perhaps you should.

MJ

 

[cimmerian32]

Rich, I'm in no way angry at you for wanting your scans pulled from the site...  they're not that great.   What upsets me, is the manner in which you asserted your copyright (I'll leave the legality of said to those who care).  Plastering your name/initials/tag over the actual art, thereby ruining each page, and destroying, at least in part, the very thing that we as scanners are trying to preserve (you ARE trying to preserve this, not just in it for the money, and so that others can pay for the continued expansion of your collection, right?)...  THAT's what has had me hacked off at you for quite some time.  But, in a weird way, I owe you at least a modicum of gratitude, as it was your ruined scans, and a few others that were just terribly ugly copies, that ushered me into the world of scanning in the first place...  So, thanks!

[evilfabio]

Amen, brother.  (Again.  And you could be a sister; if so, forgive me.)

I'm more than happy schooling guys like Rich on copyright laws they don't fully understand.  And I really don't like guys like Rich attempting to bully people with legal rights they don't have.  But what you've said really gets at the heart of it... preservation vs making a buck.  Rich can talk about employees and warehouses and what not on his site, but I more imagine it's him in his garage (can selling public domain comics really be a big industry?)  This is just a guy trying to protect his nut, whatever little it may be.  It's about bucks, not preservation or service to anyone but himself.

MJ

[Yoc]

If ComicsOnCDRom brought us Joshua aka cimmerian32 then we owe them a big thank-you!
You rock Josh!


-Yoc

... it was your ruined scans, and a few others that were just terribly ugly copies, that ushered me into the world of scanning in the first place...  So, thanks!

[cimmerian32]

Thanks, Yoc & evilfabio...  I'm just glad ya'll dig what I do

[evilfabio]

I wanted to add a couple thoughts without trying to antagonize Rich (if he comes back).  I don't know what (if anything) happened with the non-watermarked scans Rich was trying to have removed from this site; I don't remember what was on his list before it was deleted, so I don't know if the scans are still here.  But I wanted to say: 1)  I don't think his putting up a page comparing a single comic he has in his possession with a download from this site says anything about all the other scans he claims came from him and 2) even if he has a comic in his possession, it doesn't mean he had it in his possession at the time of the scan.  Collectible comics are sold and re-sold.  A specific copy of a comic could have multiple owners; the current owner of the comic is irrelevant.

Again -- from a legal standpoint -- it doesn't matter if the scans came from Rich, watermarked or not.  But the admins have said they'll delete the watermarked files out of courtesy, which I think is reasonable and respectful.  I just want to make sure that courtesy doesn't extend to non-watermarked files.  (I know Serj and Aussie posted they wouldn't remove non-watermarked scans, but that was before Rich posted his "comparison" page.)

MJ

[evilfabio]

BTW, as a slightly less non-antagonistic aside, did anyone else note the irony of someone profiting off the work of others (the original comic creators) labelling others as "pirates"?

MJ

[BobS]

He may persuade you not to allow 'his' scans here, but he's fighting a losing battle. Ha ha.

They'll be available as torrents....

Bob