papa@bacall.UUCP (Marco Papa) (01/06/87)
Today I received a copy of Deluxe News from Electronic Arts. It featured an article on NewTek's DigiView, and as part of that article it included a picture of Dave Wecker's HAM GLASS image with NO credit attributed to Dave. Very unprofessional! -- Marco Papa Felsina Software
chapman@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Brent Chapman) (01/07/87)
In article <2249@bacall.UUCP> papa@bacall.UUCP (Marco Papa) writes: >Today I received a copy of Deluxe News from Electronic Arts. It >featured an article on NewTek's DigiView, and as part of that article >it included a picture of Dave Wecker's HAM GLASS image with NO credit >attributed to Dave. Very unprofessional! I've been told (though I haven't seen for myself) that the ray-traced are Amiga-formatted versions of pictures that are on the MicroVAX demo tapes (note that Dave works for DEC...). As such, it is possible that either they are public domain, or that Dave is not the original creator anyway (not that I don't thank Dave for converting them to Amiga and then posting them!). It's possible, in other words, that EA hasn't really done anything wrong this time... Brent -- Brent Chapman chapman@eris.berkeley.edu or ucbvax!eris!chapman
tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (01/07/87)
In article <2249@bacall.UUCP> papa@bacall.UUCP (Marco Papa) writes: >Today I received a copy of Deluxe News from Electronic Arts. It >featured an article on NewTek's DigiView, and as part of that article >it included a picture of Dave Wecker's HAM GLASS image with NO credit >attributed to Dave. Very unprofessional! Actually, that picture is captioned: " A 320x400 computer generated image displayed in Digi-Paint in 4,096 colors." That makes it sound more like it was created by Digi-Paint. In all fairness, it is possible that that pic was shown using Digi-Paint and credit was not known.
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (01/08/87)
Whether or not Dave W. was the video artist, the source of the image should be clearly cited. None of the art presented in Deluxe News was very clearly referenced. If they got something from what they believed to be the public domian, they should have clearly said so. What I'm really curious about is the Deluxe Library diskette with the digitized impressionist paintings on it. I don't know if they have obtained the rights to reproduce the images; I'll assume for the moment that they did. What bothers me is that they imply that I can freely use the images in my own work. It seems like this could get leagally sticky, as most of the works of art from the impressionist era are currently protected under copyright. Prehaps, they don't have to worry about me, and legally it's up to me to seek permission, and they can say whatever they want. By the way take the time to write a letter to the Editor. I wrote to EA to complain about the copy protection after my dPaint disk crapped out. They actually to the time to wirte back, acknowledging that they read my letter. Maybe, if enough annoyed users take time to wirte, they'll change their minds, and well be able to buy a useful (read that copyable) version right in the store. I don't care if I have to pay a little more. The idea of having to send the cover from the manual in with more money and waiting three weeks before you can use a program is stupid. I won't consider using a program for real business until I have a copy I know that I can back-up. The back-up method on the copy proof disks isn't workable since you've always got to put the master in at least to get started. I might consider a copy proof scheme akin to "prolock III" that is used on the IBM PC, as that one doesn't require the master be present for every single invocation of the program. --Bill Bill Mayhew Division of Basic Medical Sciences Northeastern Ohio Universities' College of Medicine Rootstown, OH 44272 USA phone: 216-325-2511 (wtm@neoucom.UUCP ...!cbatt!neoucom!wtm)
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/14/87)
In article <353@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP writes: >What I'm really curious about is the Deluxe Library diskette with >the digitized impressionist paintings on it. I don't know if they >have obtained the rights to reproduce the images; I'll assume for >the moment that they did. What bothers me is that they imply that >I can freely use the images in my own work. It seems like this >could get leagally sticky, as most of the works of art from the >impressionist era are currently protected under copyright. How do you figure that? The impressionist paintings are all over 52 years old (max copyright). Have the museums since re-copyrighted them? I kinda doubt it, though they may control peoples ability to photograph them. If there's a copyright law that would cover the old masters paintings, I'd like to hear how it works. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (01/18/87)
> > How do you figure that? The impressionist paintings are all over > 52 years old (max copyright). Have the museums since re-copyrighted > them? I might have been wrong about some/all impressionist paintings being protected. I was going on the experinece that I had when I was in Paris two years ago. At the Louvre, you're not restricted in carrying a camera and can photograph anything in sight as long as you don't go waving a flashbulb around. At the Gerre du Pomme (sorry if I misspelled that!) that houses Impressionist era work, they are very surly about confiscating one's camera while in the galleries. I asked the interpreter why that was, and she said that is was becuase of copyright restrictions. Perhaps she was wrong, or some of the younger works are still protected. --Bill (I hope this is more than 75%, Ugh!)