One day my web host decided to go out of business and it sent me scrambling to fix the damage. Unfortunately, my forums were not preserved anywhere. I had basic user account information from registration emails. I attempted to restore the public posts from Google caches and a lot of manual MySQL data entry. It was rough few days of pure panic. Between Google banning me for bot-like behavior and them updating their caches faster than I could copy them, I barely pulled it off with only a few lost posts. I'm never letting that happen again.
"Awhile" has been in common usage as a single word for over 700 years.
If you wanted to get on his case about using it as the object of a preposition, you'd have some firmer ground to stand on, but he didn't use it that way.
I guess only nude portrate photographs are going to be allowed as someone owns the copyright on the clothes designs
Interestingly, fashion is not protected IP and is widely copied. That's why so much fashion has prominent branding. The brands are of course trademarked and can't be legally reproduced.
While much of the industry is lobbying hard for new protections, some people embrace its free culture.
The Last Starfighter game built from the 8-bit Orbiter game follows the film / game-within-the-film pretty closely. Obviously an Atari 800 couldn't hope to reproduce it visually but it is an excellent tie-in in terms of theme and play. It was leaked in the 80s and I played the hell out of it.
Atari's coin-op division also developed a Last Starfighter game that was very faithful to the game shown in the film. It was also unreleased. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why neither game was released remains a matter of speculation.
You could make new Mickey Mouse cartoons as long as you base then solely on the public domain aspects and can convincingly argue that your updates aren't taken from still-copyrighted material. And you will have to argue because Disney will sue your ass even though you are in the right.
See new "Sherlock Holmes" stories and the machinations of the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle for precedent.
Also, forgot to mention this, if you want to get in deep, check out Casey Muratori's Handmade Hero series of live-coding streams. See how a game can be built entirely from scratch without starting with prebuilt engines, special tools or middle ware. Follow along and make the game yourself. Every aspect is covered in incredible detail.
If you want to dip your toes into game development without needing to know anything, check out Tom Francis' GameMaker tutorials. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner.
No, they are a legal representative of the organisation asserting the copyright and making the complaint. That's all that matters. It's about misrepresentation. Read the clause and use your head. It doesn't matter that they are wrong about copyright ownership, they can't perjury themselves that way. Do you think everyone on the losing end of a copyright dispute is charged with perjury in a court of law?
It's shameful but Sony has nothing to lose by saying they own everything 100% of the time. This phase of the YouTube copyright claim process doesn't even involve the horrible DMCA. This prelude is all copyright enforcement theater. The bitch of it is going to be clearing YouTube's copyright strike against the owner of the footage. If this happens a couple more times, his channel could be shutdown permanently, even if the strikes are bogus.
Well, in that case, the person who filed the claim committed perjury because SONY didn't own the copyright to the video—they only had a license to use/redistribute it.
Whether or not they actually own the footage is beside the point. It's not perjury unless you can show that the person who filed the DMCA doesn't work for Sony. It's that simple and toothless.
If you RTFA instead of just commenting, you'll see that Sony had an exclusive license.
It doesn't say that at all. The article very clearly indicates it was a non-exclusive license.
I had issued a license for the claiming party to use my footage but they have no claim to any copyright for my content.
4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above. Such rights are protected by the United States and International Copyright laws and international treaty provisions. You may be held legally responsible for any copyright infringement that is caused or encouraged by your failure to abide by the terms of this Agreement.
The DMCA perjury clause simply requires that the claimant is a legal representative of the copyright owner — whether that copyright ownership conjecture is accurate or not is beside the point. The test for ownership is merely good faith and Sony has a lot of wiggle room there due to the widespread use and acceptance of automated flagging systems and the similarity of the licensed use and the original footage.
That data is very valuable which is why Microsoft is going through so much trouble to get it. It's worth way more than the $100-200 asking price for a retail copy of Windows. In an equitable universe, Microsoft would be paying people to use Windows 10.
There are more than a dozen companies distributing these cartoons on DVD and not paying anyone or asking permission. If they want to name-check "Superman", they can do that too. It's factual information, not product branding.
Where there might be a legitimate copyright issue is copying someone else's film transfer or encoded video, if something creative was done with the presentation, possibly including restoration. In similar cases, the court has ruled that exact duplication, even that requiring a high degree of skill, has no creative element and not covered by copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
I amazed at its 4K performance on a bottom-tier GTX 970. It runs incredibly well.
No Man's Sky, on the other hand — yikes.
Proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There is a difference between belief and disbelief. Stop pretending they are the same word.
One day my web host decided to go out of business and it sent me scrambling to fix the damage. Unfortunately, my forums were not preserved anywhere. I had basic user account information from registration emails. I attempted to restore the public posts from Google caches and a lot of manual MySQL data entry. It was rough few days of pure panic. Between Google banning me for bot-like behavior and them updating their caches faster than I could copy them, I barely pulled it off with only a few lost posts. I'm never letting that happen again.
"Awhile" has been in common usage as a single word for over 700 years.
If you wanted to get on his case about using it as the object of a preposition, you'd have some firmer ground to stand on, but he didn't use it that way.
That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Interestingly, fashion is not protected IP and is widely copied. That's why so much fashion has prominent branding. The brands are of course trademarked and can't be legally reproduced.
While much of the industry is lobbying hard for new protections, some people embrace its free culture.
https://www.ted.com/talks/joha...
You better not have any tattoos.
The Last Starfighter game built from the 8-bit Orbiter game follows the film / game-within-the-film pretty closely. Obviously an Atari 800 couldn't hope to reproduce it visually but it is an excellent tie-in in terms of theme and play. It was leaked in the 80s and I played the hell out of it.
Atari's coin-op division also developed a Last Starfighter game that was very faithful to the game shown in the film. It was also unreleased.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why neither game was released remains a matter of speculation.
You could make new Mickey Mouse cartoons as long as you base then solely on the public domain aspects and can convincingly argue that your updates aren't taken from still-copyrighted material. And you will have to argue because Disney will sue your ass even though you are in the right.
See new "Sherlock Holmes" stories and the machinations of the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle for precedent.
http://free-sherlock.com/
s/Rickrolling/Consequences/
Also, forgot to mention this, if you want to get in deep, check out Casey Muratori's Handmade Hero series of live-coding streams. See how a game can be built entirely from scratch without starting with prebuilt engines, special tools or middle ware. Follow along and make the game yourself. Every aspect is covered in incredible detail.
https://handmadehero.org/
A good place to start might be the talks archived at the GDC Vault.
http://gdcvault.com/
You can read all back-issues of Game Developer Magazine there as well.
http://www.gdcvault.com/gdmag
And sister website Gamasutra has loads of stuff like this.
http://gamasutra.com/
More low-level and rudimentary topics are covered by a couple of good YouTube channels.
https://www.youtube.com/user/B...
https://www.youtube.com/user/c...
If you want to dip your toes into game development without needing to know anything, check out Tom Francis' GameMaker tutorials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you manage get past the summary and read the detailed three-part article you might actually learn something. Insightful, my ass.
In this case, the person who files the claim is not a legal representative of the copyright owner.
No, they are a legal representative of the organisation asserting the copyright and making the complaint. That's all that matters. It's about misrepresentation. Read the clause and use your head. It doesn't matter that they are wrong about copyright ownership, they can't perjury themselves that way. Do you think everyone on the losing end of a copyright dispute is charged with perjury in a court of law?
It's shameful but Sony has nothing to lose by saying they own everything 100% of the time. This phase of the YouTube copyright claim process doesn't even involve the horrible DMCA. This prelude is all copyright enforcement theater. The bitch of it is going to be clearing YouTube's copyright strike against the owner of the footage. If this happens a couple more times, his channel could be shutdown permanently, even if the strikes are bogus.
Well, in that case, the person who filed the claim committed perjury because SONY didn't own the copyright to the video—they only had a license to use/redistribute it.
Whether or not they actually own the footage is beside the point. It's not perjury unless you can show that the person who filed the DMCA doesn't work for Sony. It's that simple and toothless.
It doesn't say that at all. The article very clearly indicates it was a non-exclusive license.
I had issued a license for the claiming party to use my footage but they have no claim to any copyright for my content.
4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above. Such rights are protected by the United States and International Copyright laws and international treaty provisions. You may be held legally responsible for any copyright infringement that is caused or encouraged by your failure to abide by the terms of this Agreement.
The DMCA perjury clause simply requires that the claimant is a legal representative of the copyright owner — whether that copyright ownership conjecture is accurate or not is beside the point. The test for ownership is merely good faith and Sony has a lot of wiggle room there due to the widespread use and acceptance of automated flagging systems and the similarity of the licensed use and the original footage.
Big fan of Brogue and I find that the author did a great interview explaining how it works in his game here:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/07/28/how-do-roguelikes-generate-levels/
He gets more into how the terrain is generated as well.
That is a MUCH better article. Brian Walker has a good overview of dungeon pathfinding too.
http://www.roguebasin.com/inde...
It's "for all in tents and porpoises", dum-dum.
That data is very valuable which is why Microsoft is going through so much trouble to get it. It's worth way more than the $100-200 asking price for a retail copy of Windows. In an equitable universe, Microsoft would be paying people to use Windows 10.
There are more than a dozen companies distributing these cartoons on DVD and not paying anyone or asking permission. If they want to name-check "Superman", they can do that too. It's factual information, not product branding.
Where there might be a legitimate copyright issue is copying someone else's film transfer or encoded video, if something creative was done with the presentation, possibly including restoration. In similar cases, the court has ruled that exact duplication, even that requiring a high degree of skill, has no creative element and not covered by copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
At ease, soldier.