Grader Notes

[DrWatson]

I haven't read the debate but if all it is amounts to griping that they will charge 15 for notes, I think you guys have it backwards. I'm surprised they EVER spent that kind of employee time giving out free notes and I view the charge not as a profit grab but as an effort to stop having dozens of people call them every day wasting company time and energy. I bet if they could do it over again graders notes would never have been open to the public at any price.

Yup. And I find it interesting that so many people in this thread think that they are entitled to the notes free of charge. Especially when oftentimes the person requesting the notes isn't the guy who submitted the book in the first place.

 

That's not to say I'm a fan of the pricing structure for the notes. Maybe CGC really is trying to discourage people from requesting the notes. If so, I'd guess they'll succeed. If they want to increase revenue, I'd bet more they'd do better with more reasonable pricing.

 

The notes have been paid for by the submitter. The notes were never generated for free.

 

Free notes would be some one going up to the CGC, handing them the book, the CGC listing the defects, that same person taking possession of the notes and then walking away without tendering payment. That would be free notes.

 

There are no free notes... at least not to the submitter.

 

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

[Mxwll Smrt]

Quit it now. You're wrong. Plain and simple. The notes wouldn't exist absent the task/ service order outlined by a payment to create a grade for the book. The notes are not CGC's - they're a derivative property absent rights - which is outlined as a work for hire. Now go read USC 17. Your argument is like saying because you were hired to play guitar on a song by an artist your now entitled to release that song however you see fit.

 

I've been telling you the law(s) in question all along - you just can't hear. This falls in a few places. The US Copyright Act (USC 17), State Contract Law.

 

You can't have an irrevocable non-exclusive license en perpetuity without consideration.

 

The disclaimer is deficient and the legal position is incorrect.

[Mxwll Smrt]

you're

[Mxwll Smrt]

.. but I laugh every time I see JCVD dancing away.

[Crows]

I can understand the cost to CGC having people calling and taking up employees time to look up notes all day. But that is the problem, they shouldnt be getting these phone calls because the notes should be available 24/7 online.

[fantastic_four]

This falls in a few places. The US Copyright Act (USC 17), State Contract Law.

 

Stop it with the vitriol--I've got no desire for argument, only discussion for the sake of sharing knowledge.

 

Which part of it? You pointed me at the entirety of copyright law. Your analogy of Elton John letting George Michael sing his song and giving up his rights isn't applicable--Elton John owns the rights to "Don't Let the Sun Go Down On Me", but owners of a comic don't have any copyright stake in comics they submit. The only thing that's copyrightable with the comic itself is the content, and that's owned by the publisher. The condition or set of defects on a comic isn't copyrightable--it isn't any kind of creative work and copyright law doesn't apply to it.

[Ogami]

This is not directed at Watson, only a response to a word he used: ego.

 

I don't buy CGC graded books because of my ego; I buy them because I almost exclusively buy books over the internet and I trust CGC's grading standard and restoration abilities. (And because CGC is the gold standard in objectivity for our hobby, if there is such a thing.)

[comicwiz]

@Mxwll Smrt - could CGC claim that the fee covers labour, administrative and storage (archiving) costs, enabling an on-demand service of recalling graders notes from that archive?

[jimjum12]

@Mxwll Smrt - could CGC claim that the fee covers labour, administrative and storage (archiving) costs, enabling an on-demand service of recalling graders notes from that archive?

 

.....I'd wager that CGC's lawyers have told them exactly that. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[DrWatson]

@Mxwll Smrt - could CGC claim that the fee covers labour, administrative and storage (archiving) costs, enabling an on-demand service of recalling graders notes from that archive?

 

.....I'd wager that CGC's lawyers have told them exactly that. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Jesus has decided to start charging on a per use basis... as well as trademarking, "God bless."

[Mxwll Smrt]

Don't take the position that you know what you're talking about and quit making assumptions.

 

It's a property rights issue governed by definitions and terms under copyright law and state contracts. The definitions and terms of an alleged non-exclusive license are paramount around a service which is clearly a work for hire. CGC's position is without merit or legal basis.

 

1. There is no such creature, other than in a comic board chat room, as an irrevocable non-exclusive license en perpetuity without consideration.

2. The submitter has all rights surrounding his property and how its used.

3. The property owner has the right to say no to the use of any derivative anytime he wants - and the notes are derivatives based on his property.

4. The notes are part of a process he paid for - they were created to support the grade of his book/ property. That was created for him and no one else.

5. The company was paid by him.

6. CGC has the right to control access to CGC products but have no interest or rights in the property (because they've been paid under clearly expressed terms).

7. The use of legal mumbo jumbo without merit or basis does not grant a license, either expressed or implied by conduct - especially where commerce is concerned.

 

Please also see:

 

Fair Use

Elements of the state based contract

Negligent Misrepresentation (Tort)

Material Concealment (Tort)

[jimjum12]

Don't take the position that you know what you're talking about and quit making assumptions.

 

It's a property rights issue governed by definitions and terms under copyright law and state contracts. The definitions and terms of an alleged non-exclusive license are paramount around a service which is clearly a work for hire. CGC's position is without merit or legal basis.

 

1. There is no such creature, other than in a comic board chat room, as an irrevocable non-exclusive license en perpetuity without consideration.

2. The submitter has all rights surrounding his property and how its used.

3. The property owner has the right to say no to the use of any derivative anytime he wants - and the notes are derivatives based on his property.

4. The notes are part of a process he paid for - they were created to support the grade of his book/ property. That was created for him and no one else.

5. The company was paid by him.

6. CGC has the right to control access to CGC products but have no interest or rights in the property (because they've been paid under clearly expressed terms).

7. The use of legal mumbo jumbo without merit or basis does not grant a license, either expressed or implied by conduct - especially where commerce is concerned.

 

Please also see:

 

Fair Use

Elements of the state based contract

Negligent Misrepresentation (Tort)

Material Concealment (Tort)

 

....let me get this right....are you saying that due to my hiring CGC for 15 dollars to slab and grade my comic, I now have exclusive rights to someone else's opinion? I thought we had a right to free speech in this country. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Mxwll Smrt]

CGC and their lawyers can claim anything they want - the question is tht if push comes to shove, will a court of law find merit and basis for those claims. I don't think so. I believe its a property rights issue. BTW, CGC and NGC are looking into it. They're not here to abuse submitters, dealers, etc. I believe it was a simple mistake (a business decision) and can be easily remedied. They don't want to this up - they have a good thing going.

[comicwiz]

4. The notes are part of a process he paid for - they were created to support the grade of his book/ property. That was created for him and no one else.

 

This point probably defines it best, especially in light of MrBedrock (Richards) comments earlier in this thread.

 

I had thought that CGC might claim that once the book is returned to the customer, they divest themselves from the obligation to secure/maintain the materials required to support their assessment.

 

Following this "time-limited" service scope one further, if the customer called and requested access to this information, CGC could say that the service component expires once they return the book, and/or that they only maintain supporting notes under a time-limited period.

 

It isn't unusual for data providers to make the latter case, because there are costs associated to maintaining the data, and in such cases, it is up to the vendor to make the customer aware they purge data older than 6 months or a year. In my experience, not all vendors do because they feel it is a drawback that they don't provide archiving capabilities.

[Mxwll Smrt]

IMO, the law says you've paid them for their opinion - that the notes are directly related to the grade, which is why you hired them - for a grade of your property and a piece of lucite to protect it. Again, the comic is yours - it's your property. They were hired to perform a service.

 

 

[Mxwll Smrt]

Thank you.

[jimjum12]

CGC and their lawyers can claim anything they want - the question is tht if push comes to shove, will a court of law find merit and basis for those claims. I don't think so. I believe its a property rights issue. BTW, CGC and NGC are looking into it. They're not here to abuse submitters, dealers, etc. I believe it was a simple mistake (a business decision) and can be easily remedied. They don't want to this up - they have a good thing going.

 

.....personally, I wouldn't have handled it this way. I would have transferred it to the paid membership package or sold the notes to the submitter for use as they saw fit. Their lawyers are probably going to spin it in much the same way as if you or I were giving a critique on a novel or a film. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

P.S. CGC prfobably didn't realize in the early days just how large one million is

[Mxwll Smrt]

I think it was a simple and erroneous business decision that can be remedied quickly. However, I also believe that if they bow up and look to take a legal position they might get their heads handed to them in the form of a summary judgement. JMO.

[fantastic_four]

Don't take the position that you know what you're talking about and quit making assumptions.

 

It's a property rights issue governed by definitions and terms under copyright law and state contracts. The definitions and terms of an alleged non-exclusive license are paramount around a service which is clearly a work for hire. CGC's position is without merit or legal basis.

 

1. There is no such creature, other than in a comic board chat room, as an irrevocable non-exclusive license en perpetuity without consideration.

2. The submitter has all rights surrounding his property and how its used.

3. The property owner has the right to say no to the use of any derivative anytime he wants - and the notes are derivatives based on his property.

4. The notes are part of a process he paid for - they were created to support the grade of his book/ property. That was created for him and no one else.

5. The company was paid by him.

6. CGC has the right to control access to CGC products but have no interest or rights in the property (because they've been paid under clearly expressed terms).

7. The use of legal mumbo jumbo without merit or basis does not grant a license, either expressed or implied by conduct - especially where commerce is concerned.

 

Please also see:

 

Fair Use

Elements of the state based contract

Negligent Misrepresentation (Tort)

Material Concealment (Tort)

 

I really don't understand why you keep throwing copyright law around--but you've got a hodge-podge, wide blanket of laws in your post that are just about impossible to address without going into loads more detail. You're referring interchangably to property law and copyright law--I know very little about property law, so there might be something there you have to share that might apply to CGC's use of their customer's property--but first, can we agree that the owner of a comic has no copyright to anything they're submitting to CGC? Focusing on property law might lead us to new ground, but talking about copyright law related to CGC has me wanting to exit stage right from our subthread until you clarify what you're thinking.

[Mxwll Smrt]

PM sent.