Let's hope so.

Many people submit scans for R1 discs from DVD Empire, which seems to have the largest online collection of high-quality front and back scans of DVD artwork. Most all of their recent artwork is watermarked with the phrase "copyrighted material." As of the last update from DVD Profiler, they said that they would no longer accept watermarked cover scans, but I'll wager that they have hundreds--if not thousands--of older, watermarked high-res cover scans in their database.

If DVD Empire lodged a complaint with whatever body governs this kind of copyright protection, this latest explanation sounds credible to me. Since it would take hundreds of man-hours to view all of the coverscans in the database to look for--and delete--protected material, it makes the most sense for them to delete all the cover scans in the database. But if they do that, the subscribers who paid $25 are gonna be teed off, because the availablility of high-res scans was the main selling point of subscribing. So now they face a dilemma.

This explanation makes a lot of sense to me. We'll have to see how it plays out.

I doubt it's DVD Empire. They've been a long-standing advertiser with DVD Profiler.

This makes sense to me. Most dvd covers has a "Layout & Design", "Package Design", etc. copyright clearly stated on the back of the case. As mentioned above, Amazon uses the images for Promotion, whereas DvdProfiler uses them for profit which, if this turns out to be true, is probably why they are going after DvdProfiler and not places like Amazon, Dvdempire, etc. It seems logical to me that they would go after someone who is profiting from their copyrighted images, rather than those who are using them for promotion (and making money *for* them not *from* them). I hope this isn't the case, because it seems pretty trivial - I doubt Dvdprofiler is making millions off of this.

However, if they don't pursue legal action to try to stop it - wouldn't this set a precedent where anyone can distribute the images for profit? Remember a few years ago when Disney sued some daycare center in florida because they had unauthorized paintings of copyrighted Disney characters decorating their walls? As best I can remember, the argument was that, while they didn't really care about some little daycare center having a couple of unauthorized images of Mickey mouse or Donald Duck decorating their walls - if they knowingly allowed it to continue it could pave the way for anyone to use or profit from their copyrighted images. If they tried to purse legal action against other, larger copyright violators in the future - the violaters could always point back to this particular case and say "you allowed it here, so you have to allow it in this case". I don't think these companies can knowingly pick and choose which situations are big enough to pursue and which ones are not worth bothering with. I has to be all or nothing - copyrights have to be vigorously protected in every situation, no matter how trivial, to avoid legal complications down the road.

However, in this case, this seems to be exactly what they are doing - picking and choosing. Theoretically, this could work in Dvdprofiler's favor. If they are ordered to remove the images, they could always fight back and say that "a copyright is a copyright", and if they are required to remove the images, then everyone (online sites, store circulars, banner ads, etc) would be required to remove the images. Of course, they could no longer charge for the high quality images, or that argument would be invalid.

The simplest solution would probably be to charge just for the program as a whole, and not use the high quality Image Scans as the selling point to get people to pay the $25.

Of course, all this is just speculation at this point, and it may just turn out to be a technical error after all.

That is not a response. How is "What is your point?" putting anyone down? How is it being a "smart-ass"? You just throw out these allegations but never explain how that simple and polite question is offensive .

I had no dissatsfaction with your joke. I was not even aware that it was a joke. That is why I asked "What is your point?". I did not understand your post at all and simply wanted an explanation. While many got the joke, I doubt that I am the only one who was perplexed by it. So, I don't see why anyone made a big deal out of a simple question.

You know, this is a very valid point and it makes sense.

Therefore, it's probably wrong.

The litigous nature of our society and the entertainment and film industry in particular have hijacked our casual use of "nice" but basically valueless benefits such as looking at/keeeping scans of covers of the actual DVDs we bought.

[RANT] Jeez! What do they think we're going to do, make a profit on this on e-bay and not send them their cut!?!? Do you have to make a buck everywhere you go? Is this not the same deal with DVDCoverArt? [/RANT]

I want my DVDProfiler back! Now I'm getting impatient! Don't they understand the word "addiction?"

This post seems bogus to me. First there is no identification of the poster. We have no idea who Sonja is or how she allegedly came by this information. Second, the ESA is not to my knowledge involved with DVD's. So, why is so much attention being paid to an anonymous rumor?

Because it's a more plausible story to explain the site being down for more than a week. The hardware failures that IVS described do not generally cause this long of an outage.

How is it more plausible that a game software association is suing Intervocative? That was the point of my post. Sonja's post was not plausible at all.

Of course, the lawsuit story may not be true, no one really knows. But at the same time, the hardware-failure story is also somewhat questionable, because if they really wanted to get the site back up, it shouldn't take this long.

The lawsuit, or rather A lawsuit of some type, does somehow seem just as potentially likely as does a hardware failure, the more I think about it.

That might explain why they haven't posted any proper explanation or timeframe of being back up, perhaps...

For what it's worth, as a $25 subscriber, they could drop the cover scans completely and I would not care at all. I just like being able to catalog and have a url of my discs.

One problem I see with the whole thing is that IVS does not charge for High Res Scans. Never did!

They charge to open the program so you can view the scans in high res.

Here's how it works;
1) Scans are submitted by users with no minimum requirements
2) The scans are stored on DVD Profiler's computer at a MAXIMUM resolution of 120dpi.
3) Premium users pay a $25 fee to get a few benefits. One of them is the ability to view high res scans.
4) no guarantee is made that the scans you will download are high res.

I'm not an attorney but it looks to me that this pretty much smashes the claim of the person who made that post because IVS doesn't charge for high res scans. They are charging for the ability to view them with the program.

I never tested this before paying my $20 a couple of years ago, so if one of you "standard users" will check something I would appreciate it.
Scan an image and see if you can add it to your DB and view it in high resolution in DVD Profiler.

Please let us know what you find.
Thanks

You can add a scan to your database and it will be high resolution. However, it will not be online. It will only show in your database on your computer. You need to lock the image so it does not get replaced by the online scans.

The online comment you made has no relevance to what I said. Your scans never show up online. What shows up online is the scan that IVS has in their DB. As far as the online DB is concerned, locking the profile only affects the data. The image is not affected by the lock.

If you update your profiles and the high resolution scan you added is not locked, it will be replaced by the update. At any rate, I certainly answered your question. You can add high resolution scans to your database. They will not be uploaded when you upload your collection.

I take it that you aren't the same EPKJ who posts in the DVD Profiler forum. If you were you wouldn't be trying to explain locks to me because you would have seen my sig and know who I am.

What exactly are you asking? Apparantly you have not made yourself clear. Also, you are now just being argumentative. I attempted to answer your question. You are not attempting to aid me in understanding how I have misinterpreted your question. You are just attacking me for pointing out a feature of DVD Profiler. If you understand locks, that is fine. Then what exactly is it that you want to know?

Your comments about locks had nothing to do with what I asked is the point I made. I asked a very specific question to anyone who is a "standard user" of DVD Profiler. I asked, if they were to put a high resolution scan in their local DB, could they see that scan in high resolution in DVD Profiler. I never checked this before going to the premium registration over 2 years ago.

You said that it can be done and then went on about locks. Why are you discussing locks? Are you a standard user of DVD Profiler?

Since you say that I hadn't made myself clear, I'm a bit confused about what portion of my question that you did not understand. Locks do not have any impact on this whatsoever. I am confused as to why you would deem it necessary to start telling me how the locks work in DVD Profiler.

So, if you are a 'standard user' then you have answered my initial question. The rest is irrelevant.

Dan, I don't understand your hostility toward someone attempting to answer your question. I now understand your question. The upgrade has nothing to do with viewing your own high resolution images. Before I paid for my membership, I frequently made my own cover scans and they showed up fine on my program. The upgrade merely allows you to download high resolution cover scans from IVS. When one upgrades, one must replace all the low resolution scans from IVS with high resolution scans from IVS. I hope this finally answers your question.

Dear EPKJ:

The reason why some of the members have been a bit tacky, a few even borderline upset with your posts, is that you either dont understand the questions or comments that are being posted correctly, OR act like you dont understand. THEN you rush to post your comments that sometimes have nothing to do with the request or comment of the previous member.

I am not trying to blame you for anything but explain to you why you are having some communication problems with some of the members.

I hope this helps you a bit with the rest of the members,

Cheers mate

Pro-B

EPKJ,
It isn't hostility, it's confusion about why you felt it necessary to 'teach' me about locks. I was attempting to be direct and precise because I asked about scans in the non-premium program and you immediately began discussing the online db, images in the online db, and locks.

Thank you very much for answering my question.

What all of this proves is; what changes in the program, when you go to the premium registration, is the download process of the images that IVS stores on their computer. The program detects the ID code of your registration and this tells their program what to send. If this is accurate, it makes my comment earlier inaccurate.
It allows you to download high res scans. It doesn't change your ability to view them. Attorneys have to view this differently.

The subject of paying for high res scans has been brought up. It looks as though this may be what is happening after-all.

Maybe someone can ask UKexpat to come in here and clear up this point for us. From what I understand this is the type of law he practices.

If they are being sued for selling high res scans and that turns out to be why they are down; they could be down indefinately.

The fact still remains that we don't know so this entire thread is speculative.

Well, you are wrong. A copyright owner has an absolute right in determine how his work is distributed. The covers are copyrighted. It does not matter that it is a "promotional material." Even the listings in a phone book is copyrightable. E.g., you cannot make and sell your own phonebook by copying all the names and numbers from the Yellow Book. As a law student who is passionate about copyright law, I do not see an easy way out of the $25 issue.

I have not seen the contract between the studios and Amazon or other retailers so I cannot comment on that issue. But it would be absurd for the studios to sue the retailers for using the cover images to help directly sell their products.

Please read Faust again . That's all I'll say on the matter. But I think you don't yet have a good understanding of the case, especially the dicta. We have too many lawyers on this forum .

BTW, and we can discuss this over private e-mail, if your last statement about the Yellow Book was true, there wouldn't be any other "yellow" type books (and there are, you've seen the commercials!)

The case name is Feist and Faust. In Feist, the work disputed is a white book. The Supreme Court decided that the arrangement (alphabetical) and selection of the numbers do not satisfy the creativity requirement of copyrightable work. While white books may not be copyrightable, Yellow Books which list the numbers by category are since there is more creativity involved. If the yellow books are not copyrightable, the commerical would not say that one has more content than another as both would be identical.