Jump to content
Due to a large amount of spamers, accounts will now have to be approved by the Admins so please be patient. ×
IGNORED

Another great resource gone


Recommended Posts

Arcade Artwork: Gone

 

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=51311.0

 

This from the official site http://localarcade.com/arcade_art/:

 

<quote>

The Arcade Art Library is temporarily offline. An announcement regarding its return will be made by March 28, 2006. The site will return, however all of those that have sent me private messages through BYOAC regarding the site *will* be contacted soon.

</quote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DMCA to the rescue again. Protecting innocent people from the evils of arcade artwork. Without it, my children might be subject to PacMan marquees. Heaven forbid.

 

God bless the United States of America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a double standard

 

we all beat our chests and spit venom when someone breaches MAME copyright and we are all looking for a legal way to download ROMS, however when copyright in another form is enforced to our disadvantage we cry foul.

 

Copyright is a legitimate legal interest and namco or midway or gottlieb or whoever own the rights to the copyright in these images.

 

accordingly, if they want to protect that right it is their prerogative.

 

Ric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a double standard

 

we all beat our chests and spit venom when someone breaches MAME copyright and we are all looking for a legal way to download ROMS, however when copyright in another form is enforced to our disadvantage we cry foul.

 

Copyright is a legitimate legal interest and namco or midway or gottlieb or whoever own the rights to the copyright in these images.

 

accordingly, if they want to protect that right it is their prerogative.

 

Ric

 

MAME ROMs to me are a different kettle of fish. For starters, they are entertainment. Things like artwork and marquees to me aren't. They are merely support material. Furthermore plenty of people slap MAME in a cab and charge money for it. I've yet to see someone put a copied pacman marquee on a wall and charge others to look at it.

 

Furthermore, MAME is a direct digital copy of games. That site had user-drawn vector artwork. These are not digital copies of the originals, but hand-drawn copies. "So what?" you ask. Well, I've played plenty of Galaga and Space Invader clones on PC and even in Flash and Javascript, but nobody complains. Sure, they're copies, but not digital ones. Someone took the time to recreate these for a bit of a laugh, and gives them away for free. Likewise this artwork site is the same.

 

And finally, sites like these offer an opportunity for preservation. I'm sure there are marquee scans floating around on the net that don't exist in real life any more.

 

So how long until other sites get pulled down? Are TAFA's days numbered?

http://www.arcadeflyers.net/

 

I value copyright protection for what it was intended for: to keep inventors safe from people trying to steal their ideas BEFORE they hit the market. A 20 year old PacMan marquee is hardly a piece of intellectual property that can be stolen (if I posted in here telling you guys I invented PacMan, what do you think the reaction would be?). I'm all for copyright as a method of protecting original work. I am not for the moden bastardisation of that law which allows a corporation to strongarm people who want to take a 20 year old piece of art and print it out for a home hobby, and then still not offer them a legal alternative to purchase that same art they desire.

 

Shit... I'm on my soapbox again. And before my morning coffee! That can't be good....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAME ROMs to me are a different kettle of fish. For starters, they are entertainment. Things like artwork and marquees to me aren't. They are merely support material. Furthermore plenty of people slap MAME in a cab and charge money for it. I've yet to see someone put a copied pacman marquee on a wall and charge others to look at it.

 

I disagree... I am a graphic designer and I can tell you now that if you stole MY artwork and intended to use it without my compensation or authorisation, I would be pissed and you would soon be taken to court!!!

 

Alot of time and effort goes into creating artwork and alot of money is paid by companies to use it.... much like the creation of arcade roms/ games. For someone to take this idea/ artwork that you have spent your time/ effort/ money on and just put it up on the net for all to use freely... you can begin to see why these people and companies are getting pissed off? Tracing something and using it for your own use... that may be different.... but putting it up for EVERYONE to use.... I dunno about that.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the free trade of information and artwork.... but I can see why some people want Artwork Sites brought down.

 

I hope this don't get ya too worked up Elvis.....

 

P.S: Think about this also..... how many games attracted you initally just because of the artwork it used? I would say that the artwork on cabs has alot to do with the initial attraction to the game.... and without someone paying someone to create this artwork, you may have never played what now might be your favourite game.... Just something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree... I am a graphic designer and I can tell you now that if you stole MY artwork and intended to use it without my compensation or authorisation, I would be pissed and you would soon be taken to court!!!

 

OK, hypothetical question for you:

 

Say you worked for a company who asked you to design some artwork for them. This is a "get paid and forget" job. You don't own the copyright once the job is done.

 

Now say you take the job, get paid and move on. If in 15+ years time you found a website with a collection of vectorised artwork, including a traced copy of that same work you did over a decade ago. Would you still feel the same?

 

I'm not trolling here... I'm actually very curious to know. I'm not a creative person at all. I can work with my hands, but the things I make are functional, and not pretty. Likewise I've written millions of lines of code in my life, and I've given every single line of it away gratis (licensed under the GPL of course, forcing others to give it away if they modify it later). So for myself, I just can't understand this attachment to something you created and already got paid for a decade and a half ago. Hence why I'm having troubles understanding why all this legal action is being taken. I mean really, these sites run for hobby users and often at a cost. Nobody's making billions of dollars off bootleg artwork that's only 2 years old or anything.

 

Or am I just smoking crack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Elvis

 

You are not smoking crack

 

But let me give you another example - Gottlieb's fierce protection of all copyright.

 

Someone wrote the PROM code for the game chip and the sound chip for the System 1 games between 1978 - 1980. The games have all been sold and for the most part resold or scrapped. The chips are all PROMS, not the easiest chips to burn/copy, however they will shut down any site that puts up the ROM images.

 

Why? Becuase, as the owners of the copyright in the code they have the right to exploit or prevent exploitation of the code as they choose.

 

Similarly with artwork, Namco etc own the right to exploit the images and the alterntive right to prevent exploitation.

 

both ROM code and artwork rperesent a creation, someone's work. the owner has the right to exploit it as they see fit

 

As to coproate motivation, that is another thread for another day

 

Ric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, hypothetical question for you:

 

Say you worked for a company who asked you to design some artwork for them. This is a "get paid and forget" job. You don't own the copyright once the job is done.

 

Now say you take the job, get paid and move on.

 

you could say the same thing about the game designer/programmer. They made the game and have since moved on. :tomato

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Becuase, as the owners of the copyright in the code they have the right to exploit or prevent exploitation of the code as they choose.

 

Similarly with artwork, Namco etc own the right to exploit the images and the alterntive right to prevent exploitation.

 

both ROM code and artwork rperesent a creation, someone's work. the owner has the right to exploit it as they see fit

True. At the end of the day copyright is a black and white issue. Those who own it are free to do as they please with their own work. Again, I think my issue is the whole "it's ours, and we can sell or it hide it and destroy it and nobody can do anything about it" corporate mentality.

 

As to coproate motivation, that is another thread for another day

Currently resisting all temptation to get on my big anti-corporate soapbox... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem that i have with this is when people sell copies of artwork. I dont have a problem with people who just print it out for private use. End of story as far as my point of view is concerned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the idea of the artwork was so people can rebuild\Restore thier old machines and may be build some replicas so that our generation is not forgotten ??? It would be better for our children to play the old games then look at some pictures in a book ? ... Also i dont think even playing these old games on a computer even compares to the real thing

(Red Baron on a computer does not have the same feel as the sit down cabinet ) :)

 

I really hope he gets his site up and going again otherwise i will be stuffed if i want to build more cabinets :( And i would rather not import all the artwork in from overseas ..I'd rather spend my money locally and get it printed by local people :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could say the same thing about the game designer/programmer. They made the game and have since moved on. :tomato

Not true. The game designers/programmers at no time held any ownership of the product they created. Most developers or inventors who work for larger organisations sign a contract that states they have no right to any intillectual property they create on company time or using company resources.

 

Unfortunately with the arcade artwork they have to make it black and white, no shades of grey so if you duplicate in any way their copyrighted property they will go you and you legally are the bad guy.

 

It sux but I understand it. There's too many knock off products all around the world cheating those who had the original ideas or the people with the balls to back them financially out of big $$$'s. I'd much rather have to put up with the inconvenience we do every now and then than have it be a free for all.

 

That's not to say I don't buy illegal knockoffs. But when you look at what is already out there, imagine how bad it would be if it were legal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the idea of the artwork was so people can rebuild\Restore thier old machines and may be build some replicas so that our generation is not forgotten ???

 

That's why it causes a stir. The people who host the artwork and those that contribute do it for that reason which is great.

 

But think about it. You are going to build yourself a replica Pac-Man machine. You want it to look like the real thing rather than a generic cab so you duplicate the artwork. All is good and you get to have your machine and everyone thinks it's great.

 

But one day for whatever reason the machine has to go. Someone decides to buy your machine over a generic cab with the same game because yours looks like the real thing and pays you $300 more than the generic cab gets. Have you then just profited from duplicating copyrighted material? Probablynot intentionally but most likely you have.

 

And that doesn't take into account the scumbags who use these resourses specifically to make cash. How many replica instruction cards etc do you see on eBay for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah true ! I can see your point micro ....

 

 

They wont be happy until everything is gone and there will be nothing left so then they can say ":evilWell at least nobody can get our 20 year old pretty pictures now!!!! Muhahahahaha[evil laugh]:evil"... So ends the Arcade Generation ..

I hope our kids kids like looking at pictures !!:x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at least nobody can get our 20 year old pretty pictures now!

Yeah, that's my beef with the whole scheme. While I appreciate that these laws are put in place for a reason, it seems silly to me that the copyright owner also has the right to destroy the artwork if they choose (or let it die - same thing in this case), and nobody can stop them.

 

I'm sure if Picasso rose from the grave and went around setting all his paintings on fire there'd be a stink about it.

 

Yet another example of how the world has dumped common sense in favour of the almighty dollar ("I'm not making a buck out of this, so I'm going to hide it from the world and sue anyone who tries to peek!"). And the world continues it's steady decent into hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...