Photo-Journal white spaces

[Metarog]

Hello all, I was wondering if anybody has the issue numbers of CBM that had those " Photo-Journal white space stickers" in them. I think there were at least a half dozen or so. There were even some that are listed as "does not exist" on the Unseen Gold website. http://www.comicrestoration.freeservers.com/unseenwants.htm

 

Thanks for you help and if anyone could PM me a scan of those sticker pages-you will have my deepest thanks.

 

[drbanner]

Unfortunately, CBM pulled a fast one with those and only released them in "CBM Special Editions" 2-4 (not sure if there was a #1 or not), but since they were all reprints of previous issues, I never bothered to get them...stickers or no!

[Metarog]

Thanks, I just verified that Gerber white space update #8 is in CBM Special #5, so there must be 4 more besides just the special editions unless they doubled up the inserts in some issues. Anybody know for sure?

[MikeS]

Set 1 - CBM Special Edition 2

Set 3 - CBM #75

Sets 4 & 5 - CBM Special Edition 3

Sets 6 & 7 - CBM Special Edition 4

 

Not sure where set 2 is.....

[MikeS]

Found it...

 

Set 2 - CBM #74

[Metarog]

Great job, many thanks to you. Now I can start to find them to complete those frustrating white spaces in my Photo-Journal. Thanks again.

[MikeS]

Not a problem. I scanned them while I had them out and sent them to you - check your e-mail.

[OldGuy]

That was a hell of a nice thing to do. 5 star rating for going the extra mile to help a brotha out.

[drbanner]

I agree! Now, can you post them in this thread?

[MikeS]

Thanks! Always like to help out....

 

As far as posting goes - not very adept at it, but let's see what happens (by the way, if this is something that shouldn't be posted due to some copyright violation, let me know!). These are kind of big images, so my apologies to those of you with slower connections (I actually lessened the resolution so they wouldn't take forever to load):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aman619]

wow---just looking at the nice graphics of the old Carter-edited CBM makes me sad. The magazine has really gone downhill under the new management. Less and less to read...and hurts the eyes to look at.

 

Does anyone here LIKE the new CBM

[PovertyRow]

Hey MikeS - actually in real like I am a Mike S too! We be goo folk (so SOME ay).

 

Seriously, thanks for the images. I am saving them and will print them out to slip into my Gerbers. VERY good of you!

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I really don't think scanning entire sections of a copyrighted magazine and posting them online for others to print or otherwise keep is entirely kosher. I'm surprised these haven't been removed, but I think they should be.

[Warlord]

What does the "fair use" practice of allowing duplication of limited pieces of copyrighted material say about scanning/posting 1 page out of each of 4 magazines (since that's pretty much the case here)?

 

Seems to me that a limited use like that is probably covered by the "fair use", but that's just IMHO, not that I've ever read any details about the law on that.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

It's not about how many pages in this case. It's about the fact that rather than scan them to show one or two friends who haven't seen the mag, large scans have been posted online for anyone to access (although granted, it's limited to these boards). As someone has already stated that they intend to print them off these scans for their intended use, we're beyond fair use and into copyright violation in a big way.

 

But I always tend to scream into the wind in these situations, I don't know why I bother to be honest.

[Zonker]

What does the "fair use" practice of allowing duplication of limited pieces of copyrighted material say about scanning/posting 1 page out of each of 4 magazines (since that's pretty much the case here)?

 

Seems to me that a limited use like that is probably covered by the "fair use", but that's just IMHO, not that I've ever read any details about the law on that.

 

Here's a test that might be helpful--

 

If you were publishing CBM for a profit, what would you consider fair use?

 

For me, fair use would be...

publishing scans of 1 or 2 to show how cool they are and encourage people to go out and spend money to get my magazine and all the stickers.

 

For me, fair use would not be...

publishing scans of the complete set so that people could avoid paying for my magazine.

 

Having said all that, I think it was lousy for CBM to package its white space stickers in the middle of reprints of what I had already bought in the monthly issues. At some point that kind of thing just invites piracy (kind of like the music industry's business practices were just 'begging' for a Napster to be developed-- and now that industry must fight a losing rear-guard legal action to avoid going the way of the dinosaur!)

 

 

Z.

 

[Arty]

Just wondering isn't it also a copyright violation that CBM publishes pictures of entire pages (covers) in their magazine?

And CBM did this to gain PROFIT...I think that's much worse.

 

Just look at those "grade this comic book" threads. Large scans have been posted online for anyone to access.

There's tons of pictures of copyrighted material (comic covers) on Ebay and Heritage auction site. Are we all criminals?

 

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Picturing comic covers is not inherently a copyright violation, and it's one of the intricacies of the whole copyright thing that allows price guides to exist.

 

If you were to reproduce the artwork from a comic book cover in its entirety as the cover of your periodical or as a print or lithograph or what-have-you, it's a copyright violation, yes. But here's the distinction - if you show a photograph of an individual comic book itself - one specific instance of that cover as an actual object - then technically you're not repurposing copyrighted material. So I could print a picture of *my* beat-up copy of Amazing Spider-Man #167 as an example of an existing object that has already been produced, but if I were to reproduce the exact cover artwork to #167 as the cover of my own magazine or as a print or pin-up, then it's a violation.

 

This is tough to explain but hopefully you get what I'm saying. The idea is that if your depiction of the cover is technically the depiction of a specific *instance* of that cover - an actual physical copy of that comic book - then you're cool. But the artwork *itself* is copyrighted and should not be reproduced etc etc.

 

 

[OldGuy]

On the off chance that these do get pulled I will be happy to e-mail copies of all of these pics to anyone who would like them. Just send me a PM.

 

In addition you can go to http://www.comicrestoration.com and click on the "unseen gold" link for picks of the missing books and copies of a couple of articles on the subject ripped from CBM by the author himself.

[rob_react]

here's the direct link to the info contained in this deadly serious copyright violation.

http://www.comicrestoration.freeservers.com/013-unseen.htm