KickStarter - The Electronic Gaming Monthly Compendium

[kitsunebi]

6 hours ago, StrykerOfEnyo said:

"...it's possible that we will we sell access to the Digital Archive at a later date, [but] we have no current plans to do so."

So, no matter what, it will require paid access in some form. Having a searchable database alone makes this really worth it, and since its paid access, it's not going to just disappear in a couple of years. The Archive will also remain exclusive to the Kickstarter backers for at least six months.

It's a great idea for all magazine publishers to sell their back catalog digitally.  As Phillyman said before, in an ideal world, Retromags shouldn't even need to exist because the publishers would be doing this work themselves.

The possible snags:

• if the official scans are lower quality than our scans, it's going to make it frustrating if we're also forced to remove ours, leaving only the low-quality versions available
• if the official scans actually ARE our scans, it's going to call all sorts of ethics into question.  Is it OK for a publisher to sell their own copyrighted material?  Yes, of course.  Is it OK for them to sell scans created by other people without asking or compensating them?  Dunno if there's legal precedent for that or not. 

We put a lot of work into creating scans to be shared freely without any benefit to ourselves whatsoever.  And any publisher is of course free to tell us to stop sharing scans of their mags.  But if any publisher is also free to come along and tell us that we need to stop sharing our scans so that they can take our work and sell it, it's going to make any sensible person question if they should ever bother scanning anything ever again.  I don't mind volunteering my time and effort for a non-profit cause.  But if I'm working for free and someone else is selling my work for $$$, that makes me a chump and might not even be legal.

[tcaud]

It's a real question of how they would market their archive. If they are going back into print (good luck with that) then that's one thing... they would have their back catalogue readily available along with their current stuff. But otherwise things get murky. Would they be hosted on Amazon Kindle? Some other digital store platform (Windows Store? Google Play? Itunes?). All that stuff's temporary.

I wonder if they are trying to seize on Game Informer's cancellation.

It's worth pointing out that EGM itself is in no danger of being lost to history. Although most of the small town library collections have long since been purged, all the bigger libraries (large city libraries and university libraries) still have the copies (they NEVER throw away a magazine). Far easier for limited print games to be lost to time than EGM...

Edited October 21 by tcaud

[TresHombres]

Speculation markets are the f***ing pits. I have similar feelings about Limited Run Games and Analogue.

Adding: To what Kit said about a publisher owning the rights to a magazine but do they own the right to benefit from the work of others? Well, let's say I owned a really nice old car but I decided to leave it outside. Kit sees the car and says that's a shame to let it go dirty like that. So he cleans it every week changes the oil etc. I see him do this but let him do it. People come by to marvel at the car. So then I decide to charge people money to see it, and I don't compensate Kit for his work. I think it would be easy for me as the car owner to say well, thanks for the effort, but I don't owe you anything.

Now ME as a person, I would definitely have been paying him the entire time for that service and thanking him for it. But legally I would owe him nothing if I chose to be a jerk.

 

Edited October 21 by TresHombres

[kitsunebi]

I'm not sure an analogy is needed, but a more accurate one might go like this:

Someone makes a piece of art and releases a limited number of prints.  The original piece was soon after lost or discarded, and 30 years later, all that exists are a number of those prints scattered around the world in the hands of collectors.  I decide more people should have  a chance to see that art, so I take photographs of it and put it online for everyone to see for free.  The original artist sees that their limited edition artwork from 30 years past has found new popularity and decides to cash in, as is their right.  Unfortunately, they have no way of creating new prints from the original assets, as the original piece of artwork is no longer in their possession.  All they can do is make copies of the existing prints.  But the artist says to themself: "why should I pay some professional to make new reproductions of these prints when those photographs that guy took are so popular?  I'll just take his photos and sell them."

 

Does EGM have the right to tell us to stop making and sharing scans of their mag?  YES

Does EGM have the right to make their own scans of their mag and sell them? YES

Does EGM have the right to sell the scans that we created?  I don't know.

[tcaud]

Publishers have the right to order the destruction of illegitimate copies of their material (they need a judgement for that). They cannot claim ownership of digitizations of that material because those are derivative work. Whether or not EGM has the right to use those scans is dependent on what the licensing terms are. (so ask Eday I guess?)

[kitsunebi]

18 minutes ago, tcaud said:

Publishers have the right to order the destruction of illegitimate copies of their material (they need a judgement for that). They cannot claim ownership of digitizations of that material because those are derivative work. Whether or not EGM has the right to use those scans is dependent on what the licensing terms are. (so ask Eday I guess?)

Well if that's the case, the question all scanners here would have to ask is, does Retromags have the right to negotiate the sale or use of my work without my approval?  Because Retromags didn't create my scans and is no more owner of them than any of the other sites I upload them to.

[Silvercube]

With Game Informer shutting down a few months ago and EGM sharing this Kickstarter initiative, the need for Retromags will continuously be higher in demand.

This EGM archive leaves a lot of uncertainties - they revived themselves several years ago with another website and have done a variety of projects over the years, with many disappearing - even their own website (egmnow.com) has removed various posts and now is mostly a depository of reviews. It's difficult to say what will be the longevity of the EGM archive. Certainly it would be wonderful to have this eternally - though this is beyond our control. I am mostly supporting this Kickstarter initiative due to the fact that many of the historical EGM contributors will be part of the compendium in some way and can cherish the hardcover book, though also recognize the archive may not necessarily be a website that will be accessible online for many years later in the future.

Retromags provides a community collaboration external from corporate restrictions. Speaking of the Retromags community, can the administrators please share how the Retromags website is doing in terms of operations? Perhaps with the momentum of the EGM Kickstarter, now (or in the next few weeks) would also be a great time to revive further visibility messages for funding Retromags and share any concerns for its own operations into the future.

Thanks to everyone who has volunteered their time in scanning magazines and many additional support initiatives. Your contributions have not gone unnoticed and you are all deeply appreciated!

[TresHombres]

Hey I just wanted to point out that this might be the first  civil discussion that has ever existed in the history of the internet and we should be proud of this fact haha

[Areala]

4 hours ago, TresHombres said:

Hey I just wanted to point out that this might be the first  civil discussion that has ever existed in the history of the internet and we should be proud of this fact haha

We're a pretty civil place around here. I think it helps that most people who frequent the forums were alive when these things were being published in the first place, and with age comes back pain wisdom, or so I'm told.

*huggles*
Areala

[Maxcross]

...

Edited October 24 by Maxcross

[kitsunebi]

4 hours ago, Maxcross said:

$35 to purchase a Canon multifunction device does not magically grants special rights over other people's original creations.

So, if someone wants to steal your scans, take it on the chin, with a smile.  Remember, you stole them first.  From the original creators.

First off.  $35 hahaha don't I wish.  I've spent around $800 on scanning equipment.  As in: has no other function other than scanning and is used for no purpose other than for scanning mags.  But I get your point.

Second.  My scans are stolen, all the time.  As soon as I upload a scan here, it's reuploaded to someone else's Internet Archive account within hours (not right now while they're down, of course.)  Heck, I even had the reverse happen once when one of my scans was "stolen" from the Internet Archive and uploaded HERE.  As you say, you have to take it on the chin.

What I'm NOT prepared to accept is someone else SELLING my scans.  I did not create them expecting to be paid, and I certainly didn't create them so that someone else can make money off of them.  If a publisher wants me to remove all of my scans from RM and purge them from the Internet, that's their right and I would have to comply.  And it would totally make sense that they would want my "free" scans taken down if they had plans to sell their own scans. 

But though I'm no lawyer, it still feels to me like it would surely be illegal for a publisher to sell my scans without asking.  So if they're going to be selling anything it would need to be something they made themselves or something they hired someone to make for them.  Which to be fair, could be exactly what they're doing.  There's rampant speculation in this thread simply because the information about the source of their digital archive is SO VAGUE, but they may very well be creating all of their scans in-house, making all of this worry over nothing.  (Well, unless you happen to be someone who scanned issues of EGM and are worried you're gonna have to remove your scans, which I'd say is a pretty likely possibility).

[tcaud]

6 hours ago, Maxcross said:

This comment is not intended to be incendiary in any way.

I just wanted to point out the obvious: without the talent and hard work from the original creator, any scanning, cleaning, photoshopping, uploading, hosting or any other effort after the fact is rendered moot. 

That's probably the reason why you don't scan, clean, photoshop, upload or host a blank page.

$35 to purchase a Canon multifunction device does not magically grants special rights over other people's original creations.

So, if someone wants to steal your scans, take it on the chin, with a smile.  Remember, you stole them first.  From the original creators.

Let me understand your argument... you say that if a cosplayer is photographed then they receive automatic ownership of the photo?

[yurioberg23]

This is Amazing!!

[kartracer3]

I don’t want to confuse things further but is it possible they have access to the original files/pages from when the magazine was published and will be using those in the archive?

[kitsunebi]

They specifically say it will be a mix of original data elements and scans.  I assume most of their older stuff will be scans and all of the newer stuff will be digital.

[Maxcross]

...

Edited October 24 by Maxcross

[kitsunebi]

Seems like you're missing the point.  Do we have the legal right to release scans for free?  No.  And we sure as hell don't have the right to try to profit off of them (which is why scanners with Patreons really upset me).

No one is arguing that our scans are legal or that we own our scans.  What we're arguing is that the publishers don't own our scans, either.  They can ask for them to be removed, they could conceivably even pursue a harder punishment, but they can't just turn around and slap a price sticker on them and sell them as if they were product they created, even if the words and images within that derivative product are their own.

 

Based on your last statement though, it sounds like you are morally opposed to everything this site is about and against the existence of all scans (of gaming mags, at least, none of which are old enough to be exempt from copyright - not that the "original" copyright law was anywhere NEAR life + 70 years), so I've gotta ask, why are you here?

[Maxcross]

...

Edited October 24 by Maxcross

[kitsunebi]

LOL, slow down,friend.  No one is trying to censor you.  "Why are you here?" isn't the same thing as "why don't you leave?"  I was just curious as to what someone who believes that violating copyright is wrong was doing visiting a website which is nothing but copyright violations.  Most of us have our own personal (and non-legally defensible) view on the morality of breaking copyright that goes something like this: if the product is no longer able to be legally purchased and the copyright owner has not made any effort to re-offer their copyrighted material in over 10 years, then we feel morally (if not legally) OK in providing scans of that material so that it can be appreciated again.  If the publisher DOES make that material available, or expresses their wishes for us to remove our scans, it would be morally wrong of us to offer them up for free, taking away potential profits from them, the rights holders.

There's something similar to that written right below the masthead of this site's main page, actually.

You clearly have your own moral compass as well if you're opposed to violating copyright but OK with downloading scans.  That's fine, no need to explain, it's veering too far away from the crux of the discussion.  That point being once again ignored in the above post.

I don't have anything more to say.  I was considering how best to clarify the point I was trying too make before this conversation went sideways, but I realized that the best way to do that would be to directly quote things I already said.  There's no point in doing that - if it didn't register once, twice isn't going to make a difference.  So by all means, stick around.  Everything I needed to say on the topic is already on record here, so I'll be the one to bow out of this thread.

[Phillyman]

4 hours ago, kitsunebi said:

visiting a website which is nothing but copyright violations.

[E-Day]

On 10/23/2024 at 11:18 AM, kitsunebi said:

They specifically say it will be a mix of original data elements and scans.  I assume most of their older stuff will be scans and all of the newer stuff will be digital.

Having worked on a magazine from the original source files myself (GamePro August 1995 using the original QuarkXPress files from a Mac, exported to Illustrator and tweaked in Illustrator on Windows), I can say that while the results can't be touched by the best scan, the amount of time it takes to get everything right is far more than scanning an editing an issue.

So even if they have their original layout files from the 90s they would be better off just scanning everything. But I know they contacted us in 2016 about using our scans for a similar project to this, so maybe they did spend the time doing it the hard way!

[JHD]

On 10/21/2024 at 4:27 AM, kitsunebi said:

Is it OK for a publisher to sell their own copyrighted material?  Yes, of course.  Is it OK for them to sell scans created by other people without asking or compensating them?  Dunno if there's legal precedent for that or not. 

I am neither a lawyer nor an American, but this is what I know.

Here in Canada,  one of the few copyright related lawsuits that resulted in a final judgement is called Breen v. Hancock House Publishing.  In a nutshell, Hancock House published Professor Breen's PhD thesis without his permission and sold it as a book. It was a commercial failure and the publisher ultimately went out of business. 

As part of the judgement, Professor Breen received the remaining unsold inventory of the book (since he owned the copyright). He could have, if he so chose, sold those books himself (though I understand that he did not do so). 

Arguably, then EGM (or whomever the rights holder is) has the legal right to sell (or do whatever else they wish) with material in which they own the copyright -- even if the scan was created by a third party. It would be the same situation if another publisher decided to reprint back issues of the magazine and sell them. EGM could seize and then resell those reprinted issues themselves. 

[TresHombres]

[tcaud]

9 hours ago, JHD said:

I am neither a lawyer nor an American, but this is what I know.

Here in Canada,  one of the few copyright related lawsuits that resulted in a final judgement is called Breen v. Hancock House Publishing.  In a nutshell, Hancock House published Professor Breen's PhD thesis without his permission and sold it as a book. It was a commercial failure and the publisher ultimately went out of business. 

As part of the judgement, Professor Breen received the remaining unsold inventory of the book (since he owned the copyright). He could have, if he so chose, sold those books himself (though I understand that he did not do so). 

Arguably, then EGM (or whomever the rights holder is) has the legal right to sell (or do whatever else they wish) with material in which they own the copyright -- even if the scan was created by a third party. It would be the same situation if another publisher decided to reprint back issues of the magazine and sell them. EGM could seize and then resell those reprinted issues themselves. 

You may be right here. Somehow I don't think EGM would do that, but other publishers might. Watermarks might be called for then.

I'm a believer that if you benefit from another's work you should compensate them the value of the work regardless of whatever legal stipulations may be relevant.

Here's one for you: does EGM have ownership of the ads in their magazine?

Edited October 28 by tcaud

[vDaedalus]

Quote

Until we get that email from EGM, the EGM collection will be up.

Where might one find said collection? Came here immediately after seeing the kickstarter...