Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by maryliddon

  1. 1 hour ago, emmbux said:

    Intellectual Property (IP) and Copyright are two different things.

    Design copyright for domestic items is significantly different to other forms of copyright in that the legal protection far shorter and varies from country to country. The average is about 15 years and can be as low as 3 years. In the UK it's usually limited to 10 years from the point of the time the design was brought to market. The Commodore and Commodore 64 trademarks are undoubtedly owned by someone but the actual design copyright for the Commodore 64 case would have expired decades ago. Ironically the internals of a Commodore 64 would have more legal protection than the exterior design case as the internals of the computer would be covered by IP and patents.


    It's the same reason the market has filled with cheap NES, SNES, Gameboy, Mega Drive clones. The design copyright has expired to the point that Nintendo and Sega would be on near impossible legal ground trying to sue anyone for anything other than trademark infringement and the internals of these cheap clone systems are all emulators or SoC boards.

    That’s interesrting though from a bit of research it sounds like UK protection if 3D design is > 10 years and recently got a boost to 70 if you can demonstrate the design shows artistic craftsmanship.






    Crikey the change to 70 years of protection for 3D works is retrospectively applied. The c64 case in the UK may not be public domain?











  2. 4 minutes ago, merman said:


    Cloanto holds the rights to the C64 and Amiga ROMs, and THEC64 contains licensed C64 (and VIC-20) ROMs.


    However the actual C64/Commodore 64 and Amiga names and logos are disputed.


    During Commodore's bankruptcy, Commodore Germany (a legal subsidiary) "bought" the rights to use the famous "chicken head" Commodore logo. When Escom took over the rump of Commodore International they made a separate deal to buy back the logo.


    But when Escom sold what it had to Escom, there was legal confusion over who owned the actual names of the products.

    The end result was Tulip took over Commodore and then Gateway bought up the Amiga line, with PR company Yeahronimo involved as a commercial partner to both. Yeahronimo went out of business and Cloanto licensed the ROMs from them.


    Oh what a tangled web...





    And yes, Subvert/its director may be acting like a dick. But acting like a dick and being legal are not mutually exclusive...



    I was more interested in the look of the c64. You could argue it’s so similar to the original it’d be easy to mistake it as an commodore product.


    This is the kind of litigation that can be brought for that kind of thing.




    I’ve no idea who’d own the look and feel of the Commodore 64.

  3. Funnily enough that may be acceptable usage of Horace.


    George's video's, for example,  are fine according to Andrew because:



    Sorry Gary missed this post amongst the hundreds/thousands of abusive tweets, posts and even people trying to call me, oh and posts about our offices burning down. I had actually never seen this before till watched it a few moments ago. The issue with the other channel was the use of Horace as a character/co-presenter if you will on the channel, and the way that was portrayed. The channel owner described to me as this as her ‘third person’ persona she has for YouTube, as Horace being in a sort of relationship with her online persona. So while George’s videos are not to everyone’s taste, this was a game review (of sorts) as opposed to using the character as above. So I could think of 12000 reasons why these two scenarios are different.


    Clear as day.


    I'm taking lack of response to this as confirmation it's not just okay for George, but alright for everyone do similar



    Hey, if you're saying the above is fine then that's grand. It set's a clear standard for what's AUH (Acceptable Usage of Horace)

    Given the current atmosphere, I'm sure a bunch of YTers would be keen to make videos portraying Horace as a priapic sexual assault enthusiast knowing there's no chance of reprisal from the rights holders.



  4. Quote

    I made it very clear I had sent one email to YouTube, and yes had asked for removal of those handful of videos but did not ask for a copyright strike, nor was I aware why or how two strikes had been issued by youtube having never emailed them before and having no plans to again as things stand, as that was not requested by me.


    This bit is the doozy. The channel gets copyright struck because someone else fraudulently claimed on his behalf but he has no plans to correct that fraud.


    If someone was causing trouble and claiming to be me I'd probably want to sort it out rather than not bothering to because the person claiming to be me wasn't me.


    I asked him on FB if he'd be happy for others to forward his statement to YT to put this wrong right. No reply.



  5. 40 minutes ago, Anne Summers said:

    The thing is, there's all these internet detectives going online to try and find evidence of ownership. They don't find anything and declare "there's no proof!"

    Which completely ignores the fact that there isn't some sort of great big centralised directory of who owns what. 

    The only way to know for sure would be to examine all of the contracts involved and get confirmation from all of the involved parties. It just isn't worth anyone's time and effort, just to satisfy the demands of the internet detective brigade. 


    I'd say given the often hard to verify provenace of IP ownership and that this particular IP would have had to pass through several bankruptcies to get to the current owner it's fair question to ask for anyone claiming the rights to this kind of thing to provide some solid proof to their claim.


    And you'd expect anyone who bought the rights would have that documentation to hand as they'd have been part of the sale.


    Or are you suggesting it wsn't worth the new owner's time and effort to verify they actually own this IP?


    FWIW I used to work at Beam Software, with both Fred and William, and knowing how shambolicly run the company was it would not surprise me if the rights ownership of the games they created was badly documented and unclear :D




  6. Very filmic


    I went the duplo route and got an already populated rack, the Erica Synths techno system. It’s a kind of a 909 made out of bits, a bass module, mixers, a couple of fx and a sequencer. I’m finding the amount of options for hooking things up a little overwhelming with the modules I’ve got already. :)


  7. Having an emormously good time live playing with a little modular rack with some analogue drums and a bassline. I just need more hands to get a bit more variation :)




  8. On 17/09/2019 at 14:41, Wools said:


    I don't want to be one of those pricks who says 'I know the truth, but I'm not telling!' but that's totally what I appear to be doing. :facepalm:


    I wasn't there at Lionhead when it all fell apart on Unity, but came in soon after and heard some stories that all seemed to collaborate with each other. All I'll say is publicly, everyone went their seperate ways but over the years, the fans have blamed Lionhead or Nintendo. But the version of the story I've heard is the blame lays squarely at Jeff's door.


    Then again, could all be bullshit! Just don't take the Unity dev story at face value.


    I've not seen anyone bashing on LH or Nintendo over Unity.


    And the end of the project was amicable (I handled the contractual side of things for Jeff)


    It's a shame the thing never came together as a game but the experience and technology kickstarted a whole new set of opportunities for Llamasoft which I know Jeff is grateful for

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.