What? I'm still here, dude.

Oh yes, I forgot. Life is a discussion forum, there's an infinite number of opinions, but no right and wrong. And of course as it always is on the internet, the only time something is wrong is when it involves money.

Mine is not an extreme viewpoint, it just flies in the face of the "if it feels good, do it" mentality that pervades most internet forums. I'm well aware of fair use, but I'm here to tell you that it doesn't mean "it's fair to do whatever I want with something I buy", because as others have pointed out, the $10 you pay for a DVD doesn't give you any rights to the contents, you simply own a copy of the work. You can't alter it in any way, no matter whether anyone sees it in its altered state or not. I can assure you that if a tree falls in the forest and no-one's around to hear, it does indeed still make a sound.

The excuse has been used that cover scans are simply "source material" to make custom covers, but I don't think I need to point out that many of the covers posted have already been altered, and even if it's a "custom" cover that uses no elements of the original whatsoever, the artwork had to come from somewhere, and that's a violation of copyright.

You guys are missing the point, though. I've already said that I understand exactly why discussion of bootlegs is frowned upon. My point isn't even that hosting a forum for illegal cover art is wrong, although it is, and that's not just an opinion, that's a fact. My point was that to censor discussions of bootlegs while at the same time allowing the free exchange of work that violates copyright is hypocrisy in its purest form. Welcome to the internet, I guess.

For the time being at least, but you're at least due a warning from a mod.
What NCMojo was saying is that (on DVDTalk at least) you don't have the right to be a dick towards someone who disagrees with you, no matter how correct you may be in the matter under discussion. Calling someone an idiot is not a good way to get anyone to listen to your side of the debate.

While I wish the tone of this discussion were a bit more friendly, I have to agree with PDTV for the most part. Fair use is, IMO, a very misunderstood and over-invoked concept. Fair use is an affirmative defense to an action brought against a party by a copyright holder. Putting a digital copy of the cover of a DVD on a website as part of a review is almost certainly fair use. Putting up a high resolution scan of all of the cover art is almost certainly not.

Copyright holders enjoy very powerful legal rights, and, of course, one of the most notable of these rights is the right to control copies. You don't have the right to copy something simply because you purchased a copy of it. Creating a new cover using copyrights images or likenesses is not lawful simply because one classifies it as "fan art." Fan art often consists of unlicensed and therefore unlawful derivative works. Of course, the practical result is that many copyright holders don't mind fan art and some even encourage it. But it isn't fair use and it isn't presumptively lawful just because it isn't an exact copy. Remember Andy Warhol's iconic Campbell's Soup can paintings? Campbell's had every right to bring an action against him for copyright infringement and it would have been successful. But, the company saw the opportunity for free advertising and took it. In fact, Campbell's and Warhol entered into agreement some time later.

Bottom line, PDTV has raised some good points, albeit in not the friendliest manner. I can sympathize (I am often accused of being a dick in the HT forum). I too sometimes wonder where the proper place to draw the line is. I agree with 100% that a zero-tolerance policy with respect to discussion of violating copyrights is appropriate. It always seems odd to me that threads discussing archiving shows and movies from a DVR are always left open, when this is, IMO, just as clear of a violation of burning a DVD you rent from the store. I know that some people disagree with this, though.

DVD Talk is very interested in ensure that our forum is not used in any way to breach anyone's copyright or intellectual property. Should any studio or artist feel that content in the Cover Art forum infringes their rights we will remove the posts in question immediately.

I however feel that they benefit from Fan art and from people who use images in the collective public media to express their enthusiasm for products which they have legally purchased.

I wrote my name inside the cover of a book once - so even though they gave me space to do so, by your definition I still commited an illegal act?

The world and, by extention, copyright laws pertaining to cover-art are not that black and white - bootlegging the actual contents of a dvd is very black and white, hence, why we can talk about one, and not the other.

What threads are these and how does what they are describing any different that people recording shows from TV onto tape (which I'm pretty sure was ruled legal as fair use).

There aren't any current threads, but they come up in the HT sub-forum fairly often (usually people asking how to copy stuff from their DVR to their computer, how to remove commercials from recorded programs prior to burning them onto DVD, etc.)

Recording shows onto tape (or DVD, or a hard drive in a DVR) for purposes of later viewing (what the Supreme Court called "time-shifting") is fair use. The threads I mentioned are asking how to make copy for their collection (called "librarying"), which is not fair use. You can record a movie on HBO to watch later in the month, but if you burn that same movie onto a DVD and stick it on your shelf as part of your collection, it is no longer fair use.

Post reported. If you cannot have a civil discussion, I see no point in allowing you to abuse me or anybody else on these boards.

And for the record of those interested in having an intelligent coversation, the reason I said that (about the money changing hands issue) is because it's OK for fan art, as long as it's not sold for profit, and it's certainly OK for something like Star Trek New Frontier, which could be a complete copyright rip off of something Paramount owns, but it's not since they are not selling a product. There are real life scenarios I can point to that are far more obvious and extreme than fan made covers for DVD to back up that you would have a hard time convicing me it's illegal even if money doesn't change hands.

This is not true. The fact that something is not done for profit does not make it legal. It could influence a finding of fair use, but it is not dispositive. And ST New Frontier is more certainly actionable copyright violation, but Paramount has allowed it. If Paramount did not want to allow it, the fact that it was not done for profit would not make it permissible.

Then I guess the laws have changed. I've done fan art myself and have had it published and as long as I acknowleged the original copyright holders, it was OK.

Not that I am a lawyer or actually know myself. I just see examples where it is OK and such and use that as personal experience. If somebody versed in law can say what is actually right or wrong, all the better

There could be an exception for fan art that I don't know about. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I was wrong! But I don't think there is any exception that would cover something like ST:NF.

Of course, Star Trek NF is a far cry different than fan art appearing in some small press zine.

Very true! I am curious now about fan art in zines. I will have to look into this. Such an interesting subject!

Paramount has always taken a very hands off approach to fan ____ regarding the Star Trek stuff. They (or maybe Roddenberry originally) specifically allow fan produced Trek stuff so long as it is not sold for profit. I would be very surprised if they extend this leniancy to the other properties they own.

How many of you remember the Aliens total conversion for Doom II that was foxed by 20th Century Fox? It was a brilliant piece of fan produced game that totally blew away anything I had played at the time. Very easily classified as fan art, but most certainly not legal. Normally this kind of stuff is not prosecuted, but it certainly can be if the studios decide they want to.

Guys, like it or not, the cover art forum can be "illegal" --- "remixing" songs or "remixing" movie scenes is no different than "remixing" cover art. While personal use may fall under fair use, I'm pretty sure distributing said content (that is, posting it on here or on any site or newsgroup etc.) does start crossing the line. There's a vast gray landscape between someone making their own custom cover for their own use and Paul Champagne, but it's gray -- not white.

I agree with both Geoff and PDTV. Some people are exhuberant about the products they purchase and wish to do fan art to do that. Other people look at custom DVD covers as good easy sources for bootlegging. I think, on the whole, they are a net positive benefit. Sites with real CD/DVD covers are, on the whole, a net negative benefit (that is, not beneficial).

The music forum has mashup threads that don't get closed, the movie forum has "funny trailer" links that don't get closed; TV Talk doesn't have YouTube links to full episodes (even though they exist) and Video Game Talk doesn't have links to ROMs. This is all Geoff's decision.

In my mind I don't see any hypocrisy. Bootlegs are clearly commercial transactions and, in my opinion, are worse than YouTube links to TV episodes. Geoff has the right, at his discretion and ultimate responsibility, to draw the line somewhere. It's not hypocritical for him to draw it at a point different than what you might be comfortable with.

Very well said.