Grader Notes

[hockey&comicsguy]

What making the grading notes less accessible is going to do is add ammunition to those that believe comics are for reading and that CGC is turning comics into commodities.

 

 

 

Which is why someone like me is more content every day to simply buy raw books from respected dealers who know how to grade.

[comicwiz]

Copyrights?...has anyone ever asked permission from the

publishers to scan all the comic book covers shown on this

site?

 

mm

 

We are indeed in violation of copyright. Amazon.com is as well by showing book covers, album covers, etc etc etc for products on their site. What company would sue its customers using their copyrighted content in the exact way they're intended to be used? None in their right mind.--it'd be like preventing STDs by cutting off your wanker.

 

Ok, fair enough. And Marty Mann can respond to your dismissive tone on his own.

 

But I will add that CGC's level of crassitude is showing, for it to be charging for notes when for more than a decade, they have been doing HEAVY research borrowing, and using information, all related technical language, hobby descriptors, creator citations et al - things clearly not belonging to them - to build a grading enterprise on an already established institution at no cost.

 

I really hope the Gemstone Publishing and Overstreet Price Guide folks are taking notes.

[comicwiz]

 

 

I can't speak for whether they do or do not care (well, I would say that most employees do as they are good people) but I can tell you that you can care and also remain profitable. Only being concerned about the dollars is short lived.

 

That is the secret behind the lasting success of any business beyond just a stone's throw.

 

 

 

 

I agree. I'm just spit balling that their actions indicate they don't particularly care about the role you identified for them.

 

None of these changes they're making seem to be aiding in that role. Hence my speculation that they aren't particularly concerned about filling that role.

 

On the contrary. If tomorrow eBay decided it no longer would allow CGC graded books to be sold on its site because it failed to meet the eligibility criteria required of a 3rd-party authentication company, CGC would be very concerned.

[Transplant]

Copyrights?...has anyone ever asked permission from the

publishers to scan all the comic book covers shown on this

site?

 

mm

 

We are indeed in violation of copyright. Amazon.com is as well by showing book covers, album covers, etc etc etc for products on their site. What company would sue its customers using their copyrighted content in the exact way they're intended to be used? None in their right mind.--it'd be like preventing STDs by cutting off your wanker.

Not trying to be confrontational here, as I had hoped this question would just die from inattention. You're not violating copyright by taking a picture of the book you own and posting it here. It's not clear that the copyright to that image belongs to the publisher. But, if it did, the use here would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine.

 

If you make prints of the book or sell t-shirts with the image, you'll hear from a lawyer at some point.

[fantastic_four]

Ok, fair enough. And Marty Mann can respond to your dismissive tone on his own.

 

Dismissive tone? Where? None was intended.

[fantastic_four]

I really hope the Gemstone Publishing and Overstreet Price Guide folks are taking notes.

 

Can't imagine they mind--they love the hobby, CGC has helped the hobby, and that's as far as they care. Geppi's probably made far too much money on distributing to begrudge CGC for what they're doing.

[Jeffro.]

Ok, fair enough. And Marty Mann can respond to your dismissive tone on his own.

 

Dismissive tone? Where? None was intended.

 

It's how your typed word comes across sometimes.

[comicwiz]

I really hope the Gemstone Publishing and Overstreet Price Guide folks are taking notes.

 

Can't imagine they mind--they love the hobby, CGC has helped the hobby, and that's as far as they care. Geppi's probably made far too much money on distributing to begrudge CGC for what they're doing.

 

Last time I heard, it sounded like he could really have used the money.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ok, fair enough. And Marty Mann can respond to your dismissive tone on his own.

 

Dismissive tone? Where? None was intended.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ok, fair enough. And Marty Mann can respond to your dismissive tone on his own.

 

Dismissive tone? Where? None was intended.

 

It's how your typed word comes across sometimes.

 

:popcorn:

[fantastic_four]

Not trying to be confrontational here, as I had hoped this question would just die from inattention. You're not violating copyright by taking a picture of the book you own and posting it here. It's not clear that the copyright to that image belongs to the publisher. But, if it did, the use here would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine.

 

If you make prints of the book or sell t-shirts with the image, you'll hear from a lawyer at some point.

 

Here's what makes me say we're violating copyright--try posting Disney comic covers here and then sending an email to Disney's legal department telling them you did it. Try being a teacher and posting any image of any Disney product or trademark on your class bulletin board--if Disney finds out in any way, you WILL get a call from their lawyers, and they will absolutely tell you to take it down. They want total control of how their characters are displayed to the public, and copyright law apparently allows them to do it.

 

My interest in this began when I started wondering in the mid-1990s what I could steal and slap onto a web site of my own creation and what I couldn't--my understanding is that companies have total control of the display of images of their products to the public if they choose to exert them...Disney is just the only company I've heard that exercises their rights regularly.

[fantastic_four]

It's how your typed word comes across sometimes.

 

I intend it quite frequently--when someone else is being a , I make extra effort to be a right back to them. In that specific case, where was there a dismissive tone? I've re-read and can't find it, nor was I trying to stir up mess with him.

[fantastic_four]

Ok, fair enough. And Marty Mann can respond to your dismissive tone on his own.

 

Dismissive tone? Where? None was intended.

 

 

I find that graemlin offensively dismissive within this context.

[VintageComics]

Not trying to be confrontational here, as I had hoped this question would just die from inattention. You're not violating copyright by taking a picture of the book you own and posting it here. It's not clear that the copyright to that image belongs to the publisher. But, if it did, the use here would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine.

 

If you make prints of the book or sell t-shirts with the image, you'll hear from a lawyer at some point.

 

Here's what makes me say we're violating copyright--try posting Disney comic covers here and then sending an email to Disney's legal department telling them you did it. Try being a teacher and posting any image of any Disney product or trademark on your class bulletin board--if Disney finds out in any way, you WILL get a call from their lawyers, and they will absolutely tell you to take it down. They want total control of how their characters are displayed to the public, and copyright law apparently allows them to do it.

 

My interest in this began when I started wondering in the mid-1990s what I could steal and slap onto a web site of my own creation and what I couldn't--my understanding is that companies have total control of the display of images of their products to the public if they choose to exert them...Disney is just the only company I've heard that exercises their rights regularly.

 

I've looked into it in the past. There are "fair use" laws that allow you to use for educational purposes. As long as you are not using them to make money and are using their characters within reasonable quantity (this is where it gets ambiguous) you are well within your rights to reproduce their characters.

 

 

[comicwiz]

Not trying to be confrontational here, as I had hoped this question would just die from inattention. You're not violating copyright by taking a picture of the book you own and posting it here. It's not clear that the copyright to that image belongs to the publisher. But, if it did, the use here would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine.

 

If you make prints of the book or sell t-shirts with the image, you'll hear from a lawyer at some point.

 

Here's what makes me say we're violating copyright--try posting Disney comic covers here and then sending an email to Disney's legal department telling them you did it. Try being a teacher and posting any image of any Disney product or trademark on your class bulletin board--if Disney finds out in any way, you WILL get a call from their lawyers, and they will absolutely tell you to take it down. They want total control of how their characters are displayed to the public, and copyright law apparently allows them to do it.

 

My interest in this began when I started wondering in the mid-1990s what I could steal and slap onto a web site of my own creation and what I couldn't--my understanding is that companies have total control of the display of images of their products to the public if they choose to exert them...Disney is just the only company I've heard that exercises their rights regularly.

 

I've looked into it in the past. There are "fair use" laws that allow you to use for educational purposes. As long as you are not using them to make money and are using their characters within reasonable quantity (this is where it gets ambiguous) you are well within your rights to reproduce their characters.

 

 

The fair use doctrine falls apart when use is motivated primarily for the desire of commercial gain.

 

The idiom to let sleeping dogs lie poorly applies to insomniacs. In the case of Disney's unrelenting history of crushing infringement wherever its happening, maybe Disney has every intention to get the attention of some of those misusing the imagery and content of its newly acquired portfolio of characters. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

[VintageComics]

Right, which is why I replied to his teacher/schoolboard comment.

 

That is an example of fair use for educational purposes.

 

Website design for commercial purposes is a different matter all together.

 

 

[comicwiz]

Not in the context of your reply, but my response was more on the broader dialogue (as evidenced in past discussions) on the use of characters in Overstreet ads or dealer Websites. The "fair use" argument is constantly brought up, and I'm not one to buy into it because all it takes is a motivated copyright owner to change the rules of use. Namely, that Marvel never had that kind of history or track record, but its new owner does.

[fantastic_four]

I've looked into it in the past. There are "fair use" laws that allow you to use for educational purposes. As long as you are not using them to make money and are using their characters within reasonable quantity (this is where it gets ambiguous) you are well within your rights to reproduce their characters.

 

Do you recall where you heard it? My ex-girlfriend and her sister--one is a teacher and the other works in a public library--have both independently been told the opposite with regards to character images. If memory serves, Disney's position is they don't want teachers intentionally or unintentionally portraying their characters to students in a negative light. The end point there is that it's Disney's choice as a copyright and/or trademark owner (depending upon what's being displayed) to control how their property is being displayed to the public.

 

I wish the adversarial overtones related to this topic would go away--I myself have an intellectual interest in the topic, it's the only reason I'm discussing it. I don't think I started them and don't know where they're coming from.

[Mark 1]

Not trying to be confrontational here, as I had hoped this question would just die from inattention. You're not violating copyright by taking a picture of the book you own and posting it here. It's not clear that the copyright to that image belongs to the publisher. But, if it did, the use here would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine.

 

If you make prints of the book or sell t-shirts with the image, you'll hear from a lawyer at some point.

 

Here's what makes me say we're violating copyright--try posting Disney comic covers here and then sending an email to Disney's legal department telling them you did it. Try being a teacher and posting any image of any Disney product or trademark on your class bulletin board--if Disney finds out in any way, you WILL get a call from their lawyers, and they will absolutely tell you to take it down. They want total control of how their characters are displayed to the public, and copyright law apparently allows them to do it.

 

My interest in this began when I started wondering in the mid-1990s what I could steal and slap onto a web site of my own creation and what I couldn't--my understanding is that companies have total control of the display of images of their products to the public if they choose to exert them...Disney is just the only company I've heard that exercises their rights regularly.

 

I've looked into it in the past. There are "fair use" laws that allow you to use for educational purposes. As long as you are not using them to make money and are using their characters within reasonable quantity (this is where it gets ambiguous) you are well within your rights to reproduce their characters.

 

 

What about when comic book characters are used in advertisements for the comic book dealer? Such as an ad in The Overstreet Price Guide?

 

I've seen plenty of ads using copyrighted protected characters and wondered how they get away with that. The intention is to make money with those ads and using those characters in ads appears to be a legal issue.

 

[comicwiz]

I've looked into it in the past. There are "fair use" laws that allow you to use for educational purposes. As long as you are not using them to make money and are using their characters within reasonable quantity (this is where it gets ambiguous) you are well within your rights to reproduce their characters.

 

Do you recall where you heard it? My ex-girlfriend and her sister--one is a teacher and the other works in a public library--have both independently been told the opposite with regards to character images. I memory serves, Disney's position is they don't want teachers intentionally or unintentionally portraying their characters to students in a negative light.

 

I wish the adversarial overtones related to this topic would go away--I myself have an intellectual interest in the topic, it's the only reason I'm discussing it. I don't think I started them and don't know where they're coming from.

 

Disney has been known hold a firm stance on preserving the artistic style and integrity of the character, meaning if a 4 or 5 year old drew one of their characters crudely because they draw like you'd expect a 4 or 5 year old might draw, they wouldn't allow it.