ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (08/13/87)
[ ...And so ends our adventurous tale. ]
I just spoke with Ralph Guggenheim, Director of Animation at Pixar.
He has reviewed a videotape of my animation, consulted colleagues, and read
up on their legal rights regarding this situation. And, having done so, has
arrived at a determination, which is as follows.
Their work is copyrighted. Specifically, Red (the name of the
juggling unicycle) is copyrighted. They view Red as a copyrightable
character, much the same way Disney views Mickey Mouse. Thus, an animation
of Red juggling three balls around is (in their view) a copyright violation,
much as an animation of a Mickey Mouse-like character doing Mickey
Mouse-like things would be a violation of Disney's copyright.
They also feel that they have to aggressively protect their
copyright, or they will lose it forever.
Which brings us to licensing.
Guggenheim said that my animation is very good. So good, in fact,
that they fear that mass public confusion would result if the animation
were to go public. They fear that, no matter how many disclaimers are
pasted on the thing, it might be mistakenly assumed that Pixar contributed
to the Amiga version, or that Pixar used Amigas to generate the actual film.
This is not as ridiculous as it may sound. Pixar has already had
this problem with Luxo Jr. It is widely assumed that Luxo was computed and
rendered on the Pixar imaging system. It wasn't. It was done on a CCI
system (don't know the exact model number). So if Pixar had this trouble
with their own stuff, you can imagine the kind of mess that would result
with my animation. Therefore, Pixar feels it is inappropriate to license my
work for distribution.
Thus in conclusion therefore, I can't distribute the thing, nor can
I publicly display it. Anyone who may still have a copy of my animation
(through whatever means) *MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE IT BY ANY MEANS, NOR PUBLICLY
PERFORM IT.* I will not presume to ask anyone who has a copy to return the
copy to me, since we all know that you'd simply return *a* copy, not
necessarily *the* copy. Just keep whatever copies you may have to
yourselves.
This decision is not arbitrary on Guggenheim's part. He considered
their side of the issue, and what things they felt they needed to protect
(tangible and otherwise). He also considered the amount of work I put into
my animation, how much I'd like to see it distributed, and how I'd feel if I
couldn't. He thinks my work is impressive (especially since I pulled it off
in three days) and he respects that, but he feels that fundamental interests
of Pixar are at stake here, and as such, can't sanction my animation. He
said that, in time, Pixar's position on this may change, but for all intents
and purposes, my animation is to be kept to myself.
Now, let me make this next sentence perfectly clear. **DO NOT FLAME
PIXAR ABOUT THIS!** I am not a lawyer, I'm a technician. Legal questions
are best left to lawyers (and related lesser primates :-) ). Please know
that Pixar has access to a large and well-trained legal staff, backed by the
full faith and credit of Steve Jobs. If they say it's a copyright
violation, it probably is. I have no desire to have a judge tell me for
sure. If you want to file a class-action suit against them, be my guest,
but I think it will be a waste of a lot of time, and a lot more money.
**I'm perfectly content to leave this where it stands.**
As a fully-paid-up and respectable member of The International
Hackers' Guild, and as a person with (what I like to believe is) a
well-defined and noble code of ethics, I can and do respect their position,
and will abide by it.
----====>>>> HOWEVER!! <<<<====----
I did manage to talk Mr. Guggenheim into allowing me to give one
final public performance of the thing. He said that he doesn't want to see
me totally unable to derive benefit from my work, and agreed to let me show
it one more time, so that all those who haven't seen it and would like to
will have a chance.
This final performance of "The Dream Comes Alive" will be at the
next FAUG meeting, September 1st. After that, it will drop from sight, most
likely never to be seen again (sniff!). If you find that you'll be able to
attend this meeting, I think it will be worth your while to do so. I'll let
a more informed person announce FAUG meeting details (location, time, etc.)
since I don't know that information for sure.
I hope I haven't unduly inconvenienced the FAUG administration by
imposing this performance on them.
Hey! Don't look so disappointed. It's not like I'm never going to
do another animation....
P.S: Please propogate this message to any bulletin boards you may
frequent so that as many interested parties as possible will know
of this.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\
\_ -_ Bike shrunk by popular demand, dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac
O----^o But it's still the only way to fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
"Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctorpage@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (08/13/87)
>[ ...And so ends our adventurous tale. ]
There is one sentence that fills my mind at this time; one that (say
Amen, Brothers and Sisters!) makes us look past this and on towards
bigger and better things:
"Pixar is going to have competition at the SIGGRAPH Film and Video
show next year." -- Leo Schwab, August 9, 1987
I can hardly wait. In fact, I'll donate my own Amiga's extra CPU
cycles towards the realization of this dream. Maybe we could do
moving Jell-O (tm), and name it "Pixar Slime Mold" (only kidding).
Seems more fun than a class-action suit. Can you imagine the
Pixarians saying "hmmm, what should be do next year that will be
better than what Leo's doing?" Of course, they could go the corporate
route and HIRE Leo and not have to worry about competition, eh?
..Bob
---
Jell-O (tm) is a trademark for Jell-O brand gelatin. The above
reference is to a paper by Pixar (what a small world) in this year's
SIGGRAPH proceedings, where they describe a room of Amigas working to
solve a ray-tracing problem involving various gelatin-ous desserts.
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet} sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (08/13/87)
Why do I get the eerie feeling that we're going to see a juggling bicycle
on the Amiga? Why do I get the feeling that it's going to be five times
as good as the unicycle demo?
Naaaaah!
--
-- Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, {uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean
-- (the Empire guy) sean@ms.uky.csnet, sean@UKMA.BITNET
-- "I...am a shrubber..." -- The Shrubberwilkes@beatnix.UUCP (John Wilkes) (08/14/87)
In article <3737@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >[ ...And so ends our adventurous tale. ] And they lived happily ever after. (After a silly company in Marin went belly up, that is. That'd be the only happy ending I can see now.) > Now, let me make this next sentence perfectly clear. **DO NOT FLAME >PIXAR ABOUT THIS!** Sorry, I can't help myself. I think that the folks at Punxar(tm) are a bunch of jerks for taking this stand. >that Pixar has access to a large and well-trained legal staff, backed by the >full faith and credit of Steve Jobs. ^^^^^^^^^^ And he's well known as an a*sh*le, which probably explains why Punxar is behaving the way they are. >sure. If you want to file a class-action suit against them, be my guest, I'm up for it, anyone else want to contribute? Any lawyers out there? (Note: *no* :-)'s >**I'm perfectly content to leave this where it stands.** Not me. >"Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor Yeah, I bet getting pushed around by Punxar(tm) is just a barrel of fun. Punxar - Punks R Us - yeah, that's the ticket. Copyright 1987, Punxar(tm) All rights reserved. You may redistribute only if you think that wealthy punks shouldn't push around little guys. John Wilkes --- UUCP: {ucbvax!sun, lll-lcc!lll-tis, altos86}!elxsi!wilkes ARPA: elxsi!wilkes@lll-tis.ARPA USPS: ELXSI Ltd., 2334 Lundy Pl., San Jose, CA 95131 BELL: (408) 942-0900 "I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs." -H. L. Mencken
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (08/17/87)
In article <3737@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > They also feel that they have to aggressively protect their >copyright, or they will lose it forever. Protect it for WHAT?!?! Mickey Mouse I understand, Disney makes it's living off things like Mickey. If everyone had Mickey then obviously Disney would have some trouble pushing Mickey as a money making mouse. Last I heard Pixar made it's money off software and hardware. Not off selling movies or images of unicycles, be they juggling balls or not. What exactly does Pixar think it's accomplishing by aggressively protecting their copyright??? "The world will be safe from juggling Unicycles! We hold the copyrights and we promise not to allow them out. And if alien unicycles invade we'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law." :-) > Guggenheim said that my animation is very good. So good, in fact, >that they fear that mass public confusion would result if the animation >were to go public. They fear that, no matter how many disclaimers are Like I said, Pixar is making this Amiga out as being competitive with Pixar. >pasted on the thing, it might be mistakenly assumed that Pixar contributed >to the Amiga version, or that Pixar used Amigas to generate the actual film. If the orginal Pixar creation was available for people to see then the chance for confusion might be reduced. But then again if Pixar is so sure we'd all be confused then maybe the Pixar original isn't all that better hmm? And for yet another radical thought, following along behind my comments about being impressive... Copyrights were created for ONE reason. They were created so people would distribute their works without fear of their being unfairly used against the author's wishes. The key phrase above is DISTRIBUTE! If Pixar isn't going to do anything with unicycles juggling balls why should "We The People" grant them a copyright? Here we have Leo who it seems is interested in publishing his work for all to see, I haven't heard a word from Pixar. When you get right down to it the copyright law is there for US, not for Pixar. Pixar has a copyright only because WE gave it to them. We gave the copyright to Pixar so that they would make their work available. If they won't let me have Leo's, where can I get theirs? If they won't let me have theirs then I WANT LEO'S!!!! > Now, let me make this next sentence perfectly clear. **DO NOT FLAME >PIXAR ABOUT THIS!** I am not a lawyer, I'm a technician. Legal questions >are best left to lawyers (and related lesser primates :-) ). Please know >that Pixar has access to a large and well-trained legal staff, backed by the >full faith and credit of Steve Jobs. If they say it's a copyright >violation, it probably is. I have no desire to have a judge tell me for Ever been to a lawyer Leo? It's like making book. They don't say "That's a clear violation" they say the odds are such and such that we could defend that position sucessfully. Lawyers also CLEARLY understand the concept of "Who is this guy? Yeah I don't see any trouble fluffing him off in court. He couldn't afford the battle it would take to beat us." In any battle of Pixar vs Leo you're right, you'll lose probably even if you're in the right simply because they could afford to keep the battle going for decades if needed. Just look at the USA versus IBM or AT&T. IBM and AT&T have been able to maintain legal positions that they knew were losers for extensive periods of time. Purely based on the amount of money they had to gum the works with. (Then one day AT&T "woke up" and thought "Hey! We give in, dump the baby bells and we get to keep ALL the long distance money!") > As a fully-paid-up and respectable member of The International >Hackers' Guild, and as a person with (what I like to believe is) a >well-defined and noble code of ethics, I can and do respect their position, >and will abide by it. Time to break down and do the recumbent bike juggling balls before Pixar can move in and get the exclusive copyright on that eh? 1/2 :) > Hey! Don't look so disappointed. It's not like I'm never going to >do another animation.... That it's the issue here Leo. It's just that we're being shown once more that the little guy is growing more powerless with every year that goes by. When people make a habit of buying the pot at a poker game people learn to not play with those people any more. Sure Pixar may have a good hand, but yours looked pretty good too. But instead of finding out who has the better hand we have Pixar step in and raise the stakes to the point where it's crazy to go with "gut instincts" or feelings or even cold hard facts. By shaking lawyers in yer face Pixar has clearly shown that they don't want to risk your hand being proven the better. If they had you by the short one's you'd be in court. How to react? If Pixar doesn't wish to make copies of Red's Dreams available to me then I guess I fight back the only way I can. I slap on restrictions in the copyrights on my works that keep Pixar from being able to use them. They won't share with me, why should I share with them? Fairly simple logic. And so that Pixar can't buy out the pot on me let me state for the record that I'm not calling for anyone else to do the same. That might give Pixar enough of a hook to go after me for "conspiracy to deprive" them of something. And even though I could probably beat 'em I sure as hell couldn't AFFORD to beat 'em. Sad sad sad state of affairs if you ask me. Hell next thing you know the damn pirates will be sueing me for cutting in on their livelyhood with the "Pirated software? Just say *NO*!". All I need is a rich one coming after me and then I'm screwed right? Then again maybe Mrs. Reagan holds the trademark on "Just say *NO*!" and the feds will be after me? The courts have always said "Ignorance is no defense" in this country. But in a world grown as complex as ours how much longer can we afford this? Sure we have lawyers, but even lawyers are specialized now. And there will come a time where no single person can handle the whole mess. And even if there were one or two only the big corporations would be able to afford 'em... Sad sad sad damn state of affairs. One last thought before I hit the sack, is 'Pixar' trademarked? With these guys being so obviously anxious to aggressively defend stuff I guess we'd better start saying 'Pixar is a trademark of...' if it's needed. As well as find out what ELSE they have trademarked/copyrighted. Anyone heard of a service like those the doctors have that they can call to find out if a patient has a history of mal-pratice suits? Maybe a software industry listing of trademarks etc with ratings on how likely we are to get sued over not saying "XXX is a trademark of...". Like what are the odds on being bagged for using un*x without the *? Then when it's late at night we can look a word up and say hmm odds are 1/100,000 against me getting sued, I think I'll skip the trademark notice, I'm tired. Just one man's view. It ain't cast in concrete, discussion YES, flames NO. To Pixar, if yall are going to make video tapes of Red's Dreams available please E-Mail me the details. I've just never seen ANY offers from Pixar to buy/rent/freebie anything, be it unicycles or Luxo lamps. Scott Turner -- UUCP-stick: stride!l5comp!scotty | If you want to injure my goldfish just make UUCP-auto: scotty@l5comp.UUCP | sure I don't run up a vet bill. GEnie: JST | "The bombs drop in 5 minutes" R. Reagan "Pirated software? Just say *NO*!" S. Turner
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (08/18/87)
In article <328@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >[...] >By shaking lawyers in yer face Pixar has clearly shown that they don't want >to risk your hand being proven the better. If they had you by the short >one's you'd be in court. > >How to react? If Pixar doesn't wish to make copies of Red's Dreams >available to me then I guess I fight back the only way I can. I slap on >restrictions in the copyrights on my works that keep Pixar from being able >to use them. They won't share with me, why should I share with them? Fairly >simple logic. > >[...] >Sad sad sad damn state of affairs. I must agree (for the most part) with everything which Scott Turner has stated in his article. What seems to me to be at issue here is a larger corporation stepping on a smaller person, using lawyers as the weapon. I know that Leo copied his demo from [certain unnamed graphics corporation here], but when will we ever get to see either of them now? I finally was able to see "Andre and Wally B." a few months ago...and a smidgeon of Luxo Lamps (pretty nifty images, if I do say so myself)...at an animation festival. However, I am able to see many other animated shorts easier. If they want to use their demos only for business, well that is their business I guess. I just don't want them EVER using anything of mine for anything that sells their machines (not that my prgramming would be remotely useful to them...it wouldn't, but I think you get my point). However, the issues at hand are beyond logical 'rationalization' (just another four-letter word :-). I think that what is at stake here is now too emotional, and at the risk of offending others, maybe we should continue this over e-mail. I have blown up with anger over what I perceive as a human issue, but I must apologize for doing through netnews. It was more a cry for a more human approach to the world than anything to do with comp.sys.amiga. >To Pixar, if yall are going to make video tapes of Red's Dreams available >please E-Mail me the details. I've just never seen ANY offers from Pixar to >buy/rent/freebie anything, be it unicycles or Luxo lamps. As I said above, I have seen some of their stuff at an animation festival, though not too much. I've seen much more of Apollo's demos, for better or for worse. I very much agree that if Pixar is going to keep its demos pretty much to itself that it should not be too concerned (i.e. to the point of lawyers) with Leo's demo. They will probably not be making the character(s) in Red's Dream anywhere near as popular as Mickey Mouse, so any comparisons with the latter are pretty useless. >Scott Turner >-- -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
banzai@pixar.UUCP (Eric Herrmann) (08/19/87)
I apologize ahead of time for posting this reply on net.amiga. It seems like we should all go off to net.flame (I prefer /dev/null) or e-mail to discuss the "Pixar question", and get the hell off the amiga board. So I ask you to send replies directly to me, if you like. In article <328@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes: >In article <3737@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >> They also feel that they have to aggressively protect their >>copyright, or they will lose it forever. >Protect it for WHAT?!?! Mickey Mouse I understand, Disney makes it's living >off things like Mickey. If everyone had Mickey then obviously Disney would >have some trouble pushing Mickey as a money making mouse. You're confused. I don't blame you. Here you say that Mickey is aggressively protected, in order to make money. Next you say that Pixar is wrong in protecting its' characters: >What exactly does Pixar think it's accomplishing by aggressively protecting >their copyright??? "The world will be safe from juggling Unicycles! We hold >the copyrights and we promise not to allow them out. And if alien unicycles >invade we'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law." :-) Who knows, maybe Pixar might want to make money selling RD t-shirts. Who knows, they might want to sell video-tapes of RD. The idea is that the _creators_ of RD get to control the _distribution_ of RD. If they want to give RD out to everyone, that's fine. If they want to wait until next year and *then* sell video tapes, that is their right, as the creators of the character, Red. Got it? It is THEIR right to decide, not yours. Ok, you say, but a juggling red unicycle, well, _I_ could have thought of that. Ok, I say, you could have thought up a talking mouse, too, and made a hell of a lot more money/fame/whatever-turns-you-on, but someone beat you to it, and now you can't sell MM t-shirts, because you'd be ripping someone off, and they have more lawyers. >Copyrights were created for ONE reason. They were created so people would >distribute their works without fear of their being unfairly used against >the author's wishes. Gee, how about that. Does that mean that the author actually gets some degree over CONTROL of the distribution, perhaps even as she sees fit? Does that mean that she doesn't have to distribute it if she doesn't want to? What does it mean, the "author's wishes" -- does that mean that I get to tell her what she must do with it? >The key phrase above is DISTRIBUTE! If Pixar isn't going to do anything >with unicycles juggling balls why should "We The People" grant them a >copyright? Here we have Leo who it seems is interested in publishing his >work for all to see, I haven't heard a word from Pixar. When you get right >down to it the copyright law is there for US, not for Pixar. Pixar has a >copyright only because WE gave it to them. We gave the copyright to Pixar >so that they would make their work available. If they won't let me have >Leo's, where can I get theirs? If they won't let me have theirs then I WANT >LEO'S!!!! As you said, the copyright law is there to protect the author's creation against unfair use. Who is more apt to decide what the intended use of that art is, other than the author herself? Does that not imply that the law is there to protect the artist, not to gratify the masses? Once again, just because I copyright something doesn't mean that you have a right to distribute it for me. It means that I have the right to say who can or cannot distribute my work, and at what price, in what form. Just because RD hasn't been distributed yet doesn't mean it never will be. Luxo, Jr. made the rounds with the annual Festival of Animation last year, and there's no reason to suspect that RD won't follow in Luxo's ... er, hops. George Benson, apparently, won't allow unapproved pictures of his face to be published. His face is copyrighted, and all instances of his face must have the (C) stamped on his forehead. >Time to break down and do the recumbent bike juggling balls before Pixar can >move in and get the exclusive copyright on that eh? 1/2 :) Oh, incidentally, Pixar is starting a library of ALL POSSIBLE 3 minute animations on videotape (VHS and BETA, don't worry). We will generate, in sequence, all possible patterns on a screen and then combine all of those frames into all possible movies. We then will claim copyright on all of this work. Anything you produce thereafter will be OUR PROPERTY, and you will never work again. Even the static on your TV between stations will be OURS, and we will claim royalties on their transmission. Discount rates for large volume users will be announced shortly. >> Hey! Don't look so disappointed. It's not like I'm never going to >>do another animation.... >That it's the issue here Leo. It's just that we're being shown once more that >the little guy is growing more powerless with every year that goes by. That doesn't follow from our discussion. We were discussing whether or not Pixar had a right to keep Leo from distributing his work. Apparently, his work falls under our copyright. So, he can't distribute without our permission, which it happens that we don't want to give out, so that we can exercise our right to distribute through normal channels. Ergo, he won't distribute his work. In a few months, you'll see RD with the FOA, and in a year or so you can buy it on video tape. Simple enough? The condensed version: He did, we didn't, so he won't. >How to react? If Pixar doesn't wish to make copies of Red's Dreams >available to me then I guess I fight back the only way I can. I slap on >restrictions in the copyrights on my works that keep Pixar from being able >to use them. They won't share with me, why should I share with them? Fairly >simple logic. Well, that's your right, to control distribution of your work as you see fit. I doubt that an excusionary clause, saying that "no employee, family of employee, former or future, of Pixar, Inc. may use or distribute this work for any purpose" would hold up in court, but I doubt that anyone from Pixar would ever have a reason to challenge such a provision to your work. >One last thought before I hit the sack, is 'Pixar' trademarked? With these guys >being so obviously anxious to aggressively defend stuff I guess we'd better >start saying 'Pixar is a trademark of...' if it's needed. I suspect that as a company name, the name Pixar is trademarked, but I don't see little (tm)'s anywhere, neither have I heard of any policy telling us to use them. I think it would only matter if another company put out a machine called a Pixar. Hey, maybe we can sue AT&T(tm) for putting out their Pixel machine, which is obviously so similar to ours. Then, we can go on to sue Epyx games. This is great! >To Pixar, if yall are going to make video tapes of Red's Dreams available >please E-Mail me the details. I've just never seen ANY offers from Pixar to >buy/rent/freebie anything, be it unicycles or Luxo lamps. Apparently, Pixar just signed an agreement with some video company to distribute Luxo, Jr. It'll probably be overpriced, all 3 minutes of it, but you'll be able to buy/rent it, anyway. If you want a copy of RD, why don't you e-mail me? I'll compress all zillion frames of it and e-mail them to you. >Scott Turner Did you know that Pixar spelled backwards is raxiP? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night flights on a music ship, leaving on a never-ending trip Just say YES! Eric Herrmann ucbvax!pixar!banzai
kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/21/87)
In article <1015@pixar.UUCP> banzai@pixar.UUCP (Eric Herrmann) writes: >[...] We were discussing whether or not >Pixar had a right to keep Leo from distributing his work. Apparently, his >work falls under our copyright. So, he can't distribute without our >permission, which it happens that we don't want to give out, so that we >can exercise our right to distribute through normal channels. [...] Yup, Pixar has a right to keep Leo from distributing. Yup. Yup. Haven't heard a voice on the net claim otherwise. Of course, whither Pixar is being very _smart_ to keep Leo from distributing is a whole other ball game. We've got about 100 active posters here, but a readership of 12,000. It's scary as hell to argue from small statistical samples, but so far two articles have agreed that in each case the authors are incensed enough at Pixar's bad form to steer their companies away from spending $60,000 each on Pixar gear. Proportioned up to the full readership, that suggests Pixar has so far alienated about $7,200,000 of possible business. Of course, the returns aren't all in yet, so it could be a lot more. Netters don't have to organize a boycott; Pixar folks are doing the organizing just fine by themselves. Red's Dream must have been gonna earn a bundle for Pixar, and Leo's Dream wipe it all out, to make these kind of losses worthwhile. Would have been so easy to have Leo's demo start with a screen saying: "And if you think this is slick, you should see it on the original Pixar hardware." What have we got now, potential 200,000 systems that belong to a lot of graphics types and could have been doing free advertising for Pixar? Kind of reminds me of the story of the farmer, the mule, and the two by four. It isn't that the farmer wants to punish the mule, but it does take quite a lick to get its attention. Wonder what it will take to wake up Pixar? Kent, the man from xanth.
soesancd@SouthBank.UUCP (08/25/87)
Could you please send me more details, or a copy of the Red Dreams Demo.
Ta very much.
0lyde.