Hypocrisy! - Debate over legality of cover art forum.
 

I'll start by saying that I am SO glad I found this forum! With so many different DVD websites and forums, I couldn't believe that none of them went into the kind of detail I would have liked. Like most of you here, I'm into the minutiae of DVD collecting, like cover art, re-releases, etc. and this is the only site I've seen so far that really covers all that stuff. For this I'm extremely grateful.

However, there's a weird dichotomy that exists here and to me it's out and out hypocrisy. I've noticed that just about any serious mention of bootlegs gets censored, especially anything that could be construed as advocating the sale or purchase of unofficial DVDs, whether they're actually pirated discs (i.e., copies of existing DVDs) or true bootlegs (i.e., homebrew DVDs containing material that's never been officially released). I don't disagree with this, because any DVD site that expects to offer "inside information" on future releases or special promotions must of course maintain a favorable relationship with the studios and retailers.

For that reason, though, I find it hard to figure out exactly why so much space here is devoted to violating copyrights concerning cover art. Scanning a cover and posting it on the internet with or without alterations is no different than copying a DVD. In fact, the availability of these covers helps foster the practice of "renting & burning", which even for personal use is just as illegal as selling bootlegs. I am ready to abide by whatever rules govern this forum, but I had to point out the glaring discrepancy between quashing all mention of bootlegs as an alternative to retail DVDs while at the same time allowing the free exchange of copyrighted artwork that essentially allows anyone to simply rent and copy DVDs and then just print out a cover.

What say the moderators on this issue? My guess would be "we don't give a crap" or "we'll do what we like, thank you" but it seemed worth asking, and at the very least I wanted to be the lone dissenting voice in case nobody else felt like speaking up and pointing this out.

You know, there's a Forum Feedback area, and this ain't it.

If you're talking about the practice of posting upcoming DVD cover art, well I've got news for you... it's not illegal. The packaging art is provided by the studios to news sites and retailers.

We live in a visual world. How do you propose the studios sell their products?

Pretty sure they are referring to custom covers/inserts.

I think he's referring to the DVD Talk Covers, Cases & Inserts forum, not just posting cover art from news sites.
Anyhow, I'm not a mod or anything, but I think the difference between bootleg DVDs and scanned/modified/whatever cover art is that, bootleg DVDs are illegal, period, whereas the cover arts can be used for legal purposes. Especially when it comes to custom artwork, when people don't like the artwork that comes with a DVD, they can print something else that they like. And then there's all of the covers for people who want to put the snapper case DVDs into keepcases. I guess there are some that can use it for illegal purposes, but not all uses are illegal. So, yea, that's my opinon.

Saying posting cover art encourages bootlegs is like saying having images of CDs on other websites might encourage more music CD bootlegs. If people really want to bootleg, they will find a way to do it, and get a product out that looks like the real one. If it wasn't for cover art online, they would go to the video store, rent the DVDs (or steal them) and scan the artwork on their computer. Where there is a will there is a way. What you are attacking on here is a minority in the DVD collecting world of people who like to substitute cover art that is crappy from the studio releases for better looking custom art. I have quite a few DVDs in my collection with custom art, and never once considered using those covers for illegal purposes. And how would it be illegal for me to replace the artwork in a DVD I paid for? I own it, and can do what I please with it after it is mine (to an extent...I know I can't legally copy it and distribute it and such, but as far as how I want to display the DVD in my home, who cares???).

I think custom DVD art falls in about the same category as fanart, which as long as you aren't selling it would probably qualify as fair use.

Tomfoolery!

Wow. They are indeed very different, as far the instances on this site, anyways.

When people scan and print a cover, it is going to be to replace the cover for an official dvd that they have actually bought and paid for. Nothing illegal here - it's like buying a car, and giving it a new paint job.

Except paint isn't copyrighted. The imagery on a DVD cover --- photos, logos, etc. --- are indeed copyrighted. PDTV isn't entirely off base. Custom-cover art sites have been shut down by the studios in the past.

Yeah, but once you've bought the legitimate dvd, don't you have the right to use whatever cover you want on it? Even if you don't, it's long fucking way away from being the same thing ass bootleging the actual dvd. Add to that the the fact that no one's making any money on these covers, and I don't see the problem.

And if it's all that illegal, how does this guy stay in business?
http://designpaulchampagne.com/

My understanding is the reason being is that there was a concern that it WAS giving rise to bootlegs. It's really all corporate bullcrap that closed them down. Bootlegs will exist without the existence of dvdcoverart.com and others. I believe the motive to shut them down was to justify high salaries and was also politically motivated.

I agree it's no different than fan art, and you cannot criminalize collectors who simply use the DVD artwork to replace snappers or to get better looking DVD art for their DVDs. I am one who is a fan of the original posters for DVD artwork, so that's what the majority of mine has been. Perhaps the poster is copyrighted, but as long as money doesn't exchange hands, you will have a very, very hard time convincing me it's wrong.

Uh, no. Spending $10 on a disc doesn't give you the copyright to the film and promotional material.

That just is an example of how this whole going after certain sites is more politically motivated. He's even still selling his Star Wars box, which was one of the first studios to go after dvdcoverart.com. If it's not politically motivated, then I have no idea what to say about it, but clearly, I would put his site more on the side of wrong than dvdcoverart.com because money is exchanging hands in this instance. I appreciate what he's doing, and may order a box from him at some point, and I do not think he should be shut down, but it's clear hypocricy for a studio to shut down a free fan site and this stays up.

But you can photocopy pages of books you own. There is a thing called fair use. I would challenge what you are saying. Fair use would permit me to exchange the DVD cover art with custom made art without penalty. Now, if I tried to sell it with that same art, or produced my own copies of the movie with custom art and sold those, then that $10.00 I spent on it would not be sufficient to permit me to do that, but the $10.00 I spent is sufficient to give me some fair use rights.

When creating threads please use a more descriptive title so people know what the thread is about.

Also this is probably something that would be better in the Feedback Forum since that's specifically for commenting on the forum layout itself.

Thanks :D

Here in dial-up land with a five year old 'puter I don't bootleg anything and don't have the wherewithal to take liberties with artwork etc.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to <s><strike>put words in our mouths</strike></s> guess what moderators might say. Anyhoo, the fact is that it would be for the site owner to make that kind of policy decision. He might do so on a prompting from a member or one of the mods/admins or he might just come to a decision and let everyone know.

Like it matters.

There haven't been that many people posting in the cover forum (other than, perhaps, BuddyRevell who's been keeping the original covers to 80's classics alive :up: )

Most of the people that post in the forum, are merely posting "ads" showing what they're working on (or have finished). The finished product is usually on a site that requires $$$ for "credits".

As John D. pointed out, I'm talking about the print-it-out yourself covers that include the full artwork, not just front shots used for marketing purposes. Studios have no problem with sites using box shots for promotion of upcoming titles, but I think they'd have a real problem with reproducing the complete packaging at full size.

If you go to http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/pdtv_members you'll see that we show front-of-box shots all the time, but you won't see the full covers available for download.

Sorry, but that's still illegal, even for personal use. Copyrighted material can be shown in a review, but not altered, even for your own use. Sure, the FBI isn't gonna knock down your door, but it's still illegal. It's the same as making a "backup" copy of a videotape, it's actually not "fair use" as many have claimed, and since plenty of people have gotten away with it, nobody considers it illegal, even though it always has been and always will be.

Contrary to popular opinion, violating copyright does not require you to be selling the resultant artwork, it's still a violation of copyright.

It's real simple, folks. Look at the words... "copy" "right". The right to copy. If you didn't create the artwork, you don't have the right to copy it, period. Either there's a lot of copyright violation going on, or there's a hell of a lot of professional DVD reviewers in this forum. The only fair use of a DVD cover is promotion and review, and you don't need the whole cover for that.

Oh for Pete's sake. It is NOT "politically motivated"!!! Get over yourself. Paul stays in business because he has come to an AGREEMENT with certain studios, directors, etc. If you spent more than five seconds on his site you'd know that.

Studios have two options when they find a site that violates their copyrights (which is basically what Paul was doing early on, and I never said he wasn't). They can shut the site down, or they can agree to let it continue to exist, WITH THE PROVISION that they can change their minds at any time.

Finally, since the question "Well, if ______ is so illegal why has ______ been doing it for years???" comes up so damn often, here's the definitive answer:

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T GOT CAUGHT YET!

Clear enough? Good.

OMFG, you people are amazing. If you walk up to somebody and slap them in the face, is it okay as long as you don't steal their money??? Idiot.

And with that, our newest, coolest member was shown the door... -rolleyes-

Look, this is a discussion forum. People discuss things. Sometimes their opinions and your opinions will differ. That's okay. No need to get sarcastic, or make insulting or derogatory comments.

uh... what

So it's illegal to put little stars over the dirty bits on adult dvd covers? Because that's what you're claiming.

Seriously, there's a fine line out there and I'm not enough of a law expert to know where it's currently drawn, as it's a gray area that the courts and legislatures seem to have taken multiple stances on. That said, I do know that if people who said all piracy was just fine and dandy were on one end of the spectrum and you were on the complete opposite, the legally correct viewpoint would fall somewhere in between those two extremes.