wow, check out comicbookpedigrees.com

[TheLiamSturgess]

I'm only going to delete the ones that I know belong to someone and not a dealer. From now on, I'm only gonna take scans from places like Heritage, MCS and other auction sites. However, I do see this as a knowledge base. Like someone said, this isn't a place to show off your Peds, it's a reference site to see what the Pedigreed issues look like, info, etc.

 

That being said, if anyone owns a book that I uploaded using their scans, feel free to message me and I will take it down so you can upload it

 

I completely missed the thread in Gold

 

Liaton, I agree with your sentiment, here, but I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of you not owning the book in question -- it's a matter of you not owning the scan. Do you think that taking a scan that is the property of one dealer like MCS and posting it on the site belonging to another dealer without permission is OK? It isn't!

 

While I very much applaud Matt and Scott's effort, this is not a not-for-profit site like GCD. This is a commercial site.

 

I do see your point. The fact is, people use other people's scans and pictures online all the time. Obviously there are some people who would prefer that people not use them, and that's fine. I just think there's a point where public images are accepted as public images However, I will respect the owner's wishes to not use them if that's what they'd prefer.

[DrWatson]

I'm only going to delete the ones that I know belong to someone and not a dealer. From now on, I'm only gonna take scans from places like Heritage, MCS and other auction sites. However, I do see this as a knowledge base. Like someone said, this isn't a place to show off your Peds, it's a reference site to see what the Pedigreed issues look like, info, etc.

 

That being said, if anyone owns a book that I uploaded using their scans, feel free to message me and I will take it down so you can upload it

 

I completely missed the thread in Gold

 

Liaton, I agree with your sentiment, here, but I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of you not owning the book in question -- it's a matter of you not owning the scan. Do you think that taking a scan that is the property of one dealer like MCS and posting it on the site belonging to another dealer without permission is OK? It isn't!

 

While I very much applaud Matt and Scott's effort, this is not a not-for-profit site like GCD. This is a commercial site.

 

I do see your point. The fact is, people use other people's scans and pictures online all the time. Obviously there are some people who would prefer that people not use them, and that's fine. I just think there's a point where public images are accepted as public images However, I will respect the owner's wishes to not use them if that's what they'd prefer.

We had a cabin owner who used one of the graphics (photos) on a Getty Images web site on their personal cabin rental page without permission. When Getty discovered it, they fined the home owner $1200.

[TheLiamSturgess]

I'm only going to delete the ones that I know belong to someone and not a dealer. From now on, I'm only gonna take scans from places like Heritage, MCS and other auction sites. However, I do see this as a knowledge base. Like someone said, this isn't a place to show off your Peds, it's a reference site to see what the Pedigreed issues look like, info, etc.

 

That being said, if anyone owns a book that I uploaded using their scans, feel free to message me and I will take it down so you can upload it

 

I completely missed the thread in Gold

 

Liaton, I agree with your sentiment, here, but I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of you not owning the book in question -- it's a matter of you not owning the scan. Do you think that taking a scan that is the property of one dealer like MCS and posting it on the site belonging to another dealer without permission is OK? It isn't!

 

While I very much applaud Matt and Scott's effort, this is not a not-for-profit site like GCD. This is a commercial site.

 

I do see your point. The fact is, people use other people's scans and pictures online all the time. Obviously there are some people who would prefer that people not use them, and that's fine. I just think there's a point where public images are accepted as public images However, I will respect the owner's wishes to not use them if that's what they'd prefer.

We had a cabin owner who used one of the graphics (photos) on a Getty Images web site on their personal cabin rental page without permission. When Getty discovered it, they fined the home owner $1200.

 

All your points are well taken, guys.

 

Honestly, I'll just wait until I get my own Pedigree. Not worth asking each and every owner, IMO.

[Theagenes]

I'm only going to delete the ones that I know belong to someone and not a dealer. From now on, I'm only gonna take scans from places like Heritage, MCS and other auction sites. However, I do see this as a knowledge base. Like someone said, this isn't a place to show off your Peds, it's a reference site to see what the Pedigreed issues look like, info, etc.

 

That being said, if anyone owns a book that I uploaded using their scans, feel free to message me and I will take it down so you can upload it

 

I completely missed the thread in Gold

 

Liaton, I agree with your sentiment, here, but I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of you not owning the book in question -- it's a matter of you not owning the scan. Do you think that taking a scan that is the property of one dealer like MCS and posting it on the site belonging to another dealer without permission is OK? It isn't!

 

While I very much applaud Matt and Scott's effort, this is not a not-for-profit site like GCD. This is a commercial site.

 

I do see your point. The fact is, people use other people's scans and pictures online all the time. Obviously there are some people who would prefer that people not use them, and that's fine. I just think there's a point where public images are accepted as public images However, I will respect the owner's wishes to not use them if that's what they'd prefer.

 

You may think that all you want but you're wrong. Do you not see the writing on the side of the scans from MCS that says "© MyComicShop.com"?

[TheLiamSturgess]

In all honestly, I actually missed the copyright symbol. My mistake, thank you for pointing that out!

[Theagenes]

In all honestly, I actually missed the copyright symbol. My mistake, thank you for pointing that out!

 

I just want you to know, Liaton, I'm not trying to be a jerk. honestly.

 

I really do agree with you in sentiment, but everyone these days thinks that if it's on the internet it's free -- and that just isn't the case. The example that Watson used above happens all the time. You don't have to have explicitly say that something is copyrighted for it to be copyrighted. You should also be aware that many images have metadata in them that the owners can search for with google to see who is using them illegally.

[TheLiamSturgess]

In all honestly, I actually missed the copyright symbol. My mistake, thank you for pointing that out!

 

I just want you to know, Liaton, I'm not trying to be a jerk. honestly.

 

I really do agree with you in sentiment, but everyone these days thinks that if it's on the internet it's free -- and that just isn't the case. The example that Watson used above happens all the time. You don't have to have explicitly say that something is copyrighted for it to be copyrighted. You should also be aware that many images have metadata in them that the owners can search for with google to see who is using them illegally.

 

I understand fully. (thumbs u The same goes for me, I'm not trying to cause any trouble. I'll stick to using scans that I create - that is, when I finally buy a Pedigree

[Aman619]

wow guys. its a research site about how cool Pedigrees are and an attempt to "collect them all" in one place. It appears Matt may have underestimated the level of "ownership involvement and pride" by the current owners of teh books themselves, and as to giving credit to the uploaders.

 

But really, The quicker EVERY Pedigree book gets a scan ought to be the goal.

 

right? there can be a sticky thread here on the Boards for owners taking their victory laps if they want to. (You know that MH Tec 162? um thats MY book ya know!")

 

But dont impede the uploading of the scans over petty squabbles relating to vanity. This project ought to be bigger than that.

[Theagenes]

In all honestly, I actually missed the copyright symbol. My mistake, thank you for pointing that out!

 

I just want you to know, Liaton, I'm not trying to be a jerk. honestly.

 

I really do agree with you in sentiment, but everyone these days thinks that if it's on the internet it's free -- and that just isn't the case. The example that Watson used above happens all the time. You don't have to have explicitly say that something is copyrighted for it to be copyrighted. You should also be aware that many images have metadata in them that the owners can search for with google to see who is using them illegally.

 

I understand fully. (thumbs u The same goes for me, I'm not trying to cause any trouble. I'll stick to using scans that I create - that is, when I finally buy a Pedigree

 

(thumbs u

[TheLiamSturgess]

wow guys. its a research site about how cool Pedigrees are and an attempt to "collect them all" in one place. It appears Matt may have underestimated the level of "ownership involvement and pride" by the current owners of teh books themselves, and as to giving credit to the uploaders.

 

But really, The quicker EVERY Pedigree book gets a scan ought to be the goal.

 

right? there can be a sticky thread here on the Boards for owners taking their victory laps if they want to. (You know that MH Tec 162? um thats MY book ya know!")

 

But dont impede the uploading of the scans over petty squabbles relating to vanity. This project ought to be bigger than that.

 

This is my overall point and goal, but it's obviously an issue to some people so I don't really know what else we can do.

[fantastic_four]

Drawing from the Heritage database is one thing but posting books that you know were bought by people on these boards is another.

 

I'm seeing no effective difference whatsoever. If we followed the suggested guideline that only owners post their own books, the database would end up being a tenth or less of its potential breadth and depth.

[fantastic_four]

I do see your point. The fact is, people use other people's scans and pictures online all the time. Obviously there are some people who would prefer that people not use them, and that's fine. I just think there's a point where public images are accepted as public images However, I will respect the owner's wishes to not use them if that's what they'd prefer.

 

This distinction is so trivial as to be meaningless. The underlying copyright lies with DC, Marvel, etc--legally we're all violating their copyright when we post scans of comic covers online. Are they going to sue us for it? Absolutely not, it would be stupid, they'd be kicking the consumers who buy their product which mostly serves to undermine their business of selling them in the first place. Same goes for Amazon or Diamond posting scans of comics (or music CD covers or paintings or any other creative work), it's a copyright violation, but one that Marvel and DC are happy to allow.

 

I don't see much harm in posting a scan of a pedigree comic to Matt's site even if you don't own it.

[fantastic_four]

You may think that all you want but you're wrong. Do you not see the writing on the side of the scans from MCS that says "© MyComicShop.com"?

 

I have, and it's wildly_fanciful_statement. They're copyrighting their own violation of Marvel and DC's copyrights (that Marvel and DC are generally happy to allow to promote sales)? Yeah, THAT'LL hold up. They just do that to make it difficult to re-use the scans because it costs them time and money to create them. Not that I blame them for marking the scan's pixels up in the slightest, but they can't claim a copyright on a scan of artwork they don't own the copyright of themselves. The fact that it's a copy of the original comic art doesn't make it an exception to copyright law. Comics, which are by nature copies, are created by the express direction of the copyright holders, but that doesn't mean they've given up their rights to the art.

 

The combination of the CGC label along with the art of a comic does create a new, separately copyrightable piece of art--which is itself STILL a violation of CGC's and Marvel/DC's copyrights unless you get permission from them. Which it'd be pointless to do since a scan of a comic cover generally isn't something they care about in the first place.

[tth2]

but they can't claim a copyright on a scan of artwork they don't own the copyright of themselves. The fact that it's a copy of the original comic art doesn't make it an exception to copyright law. Comics, which are by nature copies, are created by the express direction of the copyright holders, but that doesn't mean they've given up their rights to the art.

Uh, no. Very simplistically, a copyright exists with respect to the underlying work (the comic itself), which is owned by the publisher or whoever the publisher has assigned to, but a separate copyright also exists with respect to the scan/photograph of the underlying work, which is owned by the person who took the scan or photograph.

 

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. The Mona Lisa image itself is now no longer protected by copyright, since it`s long fallen into the public domain. However, if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, my photograph of the Mona Lisa is fully protected by copyright, which I own. The underlying copyright status of the source document is irrelevant.

[fantastic_four]

but they can't claim a copyright on a scan of artwork they don't own the copyright of themselves. The fact that it's a copy of the original comic art doesn't make it an exception to copyright law. Comics, which are by nature copies, are created by the express direction of the copyright holders, but that doesn't mean they've given up their rights to the art.

Uh, no. Very simplistically, a copyright exists with respect to the underlying work (the comic itself), which is owned by the publisher or whoever the publisher has assigned to, but a separate copyright also exists with respect to the scan/photograph of the underlying work, which is owned by the person who took the scan or photograph.

 

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. The Mona Lisa image itself is now no longer protected by copyright, since it`s long fallen into the public domain. However, if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, my photograph of the Mona Lisa is fully protected by copyright, which I own. The underlying copyright status of the source document is irrelevant.

 

Uh, yes (forgive my condescending mocking of your own condescending mocking ). The underlying copyright isn't valid for the Mona Lisa, but it's valid for the large majority of comic cover scans--they're still copyrighted. Some of the older Golden Age stuff is open.

[tth2]

but they can't claim a copyright on a scan of artwork they don't own the copyright of themselves. The fact that it's a copy of the original comic art doesn't make it an exception to copyright law. Comics, which are by nature copies, are created by the express direction of the copyright holders, but that doesn't mean they've given up their rights to the art.

Uh, no. Very simplistically, a copyright exists with respect to the underlying work (the comic itself), which is owned by the publisher or whoever the publisher has assigned to, but a separate copyright also exists with respect to the scan/photograph of the underlying work, which is owned by the person who took the scan or photograph.

 

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. The Mona Lisa image itself is now no longer protected by copyright, since it`s long fallen into the public domain. However, if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, my photograph of the Mona Lisa is fully protected by copyright, which I own. The underlying copyright status of the source document is irrelevant.

 

Uh, yes (forgive my condescending mocking of your own condescending mocking ). The underlying copyright isn't valid for the Mona Lisa, but it's valid for the large majority of comic cover scans--they're still copyrighted. Some of the older Golden Age stuff is open.

Different issue. Assuming for a second that there was still a valid copyright in the Mona Lisa, the copyright owner might have a claim against the person who took the photograph for violating the Mona Lisa image copyright, but it doesn`t mean that the photographer doesn`t have a valid copyright in the photograph.

[Paratrooper]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 

 

I love lawyers hashing it out

[seanfingh]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 

 

I love lawyers hashing it out

 

Well, FU Trooper. That's a lawyer lashing out, beeotch.

[DrWatson]

I thought FF was in IT.

[Paratrooper]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 

 

I love lawyers hashing it out

 

Well, FU Trooper. That's a lawyer lashing out, beeotch.

 

Ouch? is that a correct response to a lawyer lashing? Just trying to be polite