Jump to content

Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?


Recommended Posts

Oh dear, banned from the ZX Vega Support group by Darren Branagh. Anyone know who he is? Claims to have brokered the resolution of horacegate between Andrews and Octav1us. Also a fervent arguer for Andrews Horace rights all the way back in August.

 

Does he work for Andrews or just an associate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Wizcat said:

 

10 years is interesting, as 2020 will be the 10th anniversary of Play Expo ... of sorts. It's been through a couple of parents and a number of venues (with potentially yet another change in 2020 too), but I remember the feedback from that first event being amazing.

 

It felt to me that prior to that the retro events were very niche. Dave Moore's idea to combine the retro with modern brought the whole things to a new audience and (imho) triggered a bit of a nostalgia explosion. 

 

I agree that 'retro' has always been around, but it seems to have become more commercialised in the last decade particularly

Social media no? It has allowed like minded folk to connect on a whole new level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lorfarius said:

 

And there was me thinking it was all dying down and we can all get back to saying the Speccy rules.

 

why tweet that? That was the agreement they made (rightly or wrongly) so to tweet it seems a bit ‘hmmm, the #FreeHorace hashtag has gone quiet, let me add some fuel on the fire to get everyone arguing again’

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Horace a, "family friendly character". 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

This whole thing seems utterly surreal. A weird pixelated, barely defined thing from forty years ago, cannot be described as anything really. Has he actually said what his plans for the IP (such as it is) are? Are we expecting a Saturday morning cartoon, a breakfast cereal... a theme park? I mean look, if he does own the actual IP, then I could understand him not wanting it to be used in anything graphic or in a particularly egregious context, but the formality and pomp this is taking on is beyond parody at this point. The most that will ever happen with Horrace, is a few hobbyist games will feature him and be largely given away. This whole circus is one of the most bizarre things I've ever witnessed from the industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bluejam said:

And there was me thinking it was all dying down and we can all get back to saying the Speccy rules.

 

why tweet that? That was the agreement they made (rightly or wrongly) so to tweet it seems a bit ‘hmmm, the #FreeHorace hashtag has gone quiet, let me add some fuel on the fire to get everyone arguing again’

 

 

 

 

 

 

it is ludicrous. I have no idea why Andrews insisted on it

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bluejam said:

And there was me thinking it was all dying down and we can all get back to saying the Speccy rules.

 

why tweet that? That was the agreement they made (rightly or wrongly) so to tweet it seems a bit ‘hmmm, the #FreeHorace hashtag has gone quiet, let me add some fuel on the fire to get everyone arguing again’

 

 

 

 

 

that was the agreement they made - to make a public statement - In fact here is the same thing from Andrews a few days ago where he quotes exactly the same statement. Octav1us' was a little later as they were taking time out from social media. I am sure you think there is a reason why Octav1us' statement is a bad thing and his is good despite being the same statement they mutually agreed... 

 

 

Since that post Octav1us has posted two further tweets

 

1) Asking for people to stop abusing the claimant

 

 

and 

 

 

2) saying they want to promote a game with the new found interest and do a charity stream

 

 

So it seems they want to move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...join in on a witch hunt on a fellow autism sufferer...

Maybe if someone has autism and / or you dont like them best block them

 

In case you missed it, earlier in this thread I revealed I also have autism. To have this 'you shouldn't have a go at autistic people' stance is a bit hypocritical, so are you going to stop whining at me?

 

And as for 'Autism sufferer', that's patronising and not exactly a reflection of it.

 

You might actually have had a point if I was attacking Kieran's autism. I'm not, and never have. I've pointed out he's a serial liar, he's selling a download of the Sinclair User magazine archive for personal profit (yeah, funny how Paul Andrews hasn't come down on this IP piracy from someone he pays to write books) and creates terrible retrogaming books/videos with glaring inaccuracies in them.

I don't see where his autism or my autism, comes into this. But hey, you keep bringing it up as if it's some kind of magical 'Here's Pete doing something really bad' angle that stands up to scrutiny.

 

rather than joining in with one of the worst people in the Spectrum scene to attack him on twitter #justsaying

 

As I said, I'm hardly a fan of Lee Fogarty, he has done some appalling things. Yet so have a few people who oppose him. I don't go in for this 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' nonsense, I just call out wrongdoing when I see it, I don't rigidly adhere to a 'side', that binary mentality doesn't work and it's childish.

 

"No proof of it..."

"But it's scientific fact"

 

Is that a pointed jibe at Paul Andrews, whose insistence on legally owning the Horace character isn't actually reflected in the UK's IPO database?

 

Good to see you're fond of Chris Morris's work. There are couple of 'Dave Jatt' trolls on Twitter who mysteriously sound a lot like you.

 

Trying to find any reason to have a dig at Paul Andrews or George Cropper in this thread, like a broken record, because yes... you really don't like them.. .even if it's now long gone past having anything to do with the Octavius Kitten video takedown issue.

Sinking to the depths of using someone who helped with the whole Vega+ scam/shit show and was shown to consistently lie during the Vega+ campaign?

Wow.

 

I see, I should just drop my determination to criticise that guy most people hate, and instead, have a determination to criticise the guy you hate.

Self awareness really isn't a strong point amongst Andrews's supporters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2019 at 09:04, Dudley said:

Well yes that’s sort of the point. Andrews knew they were someone he could bully.

 

Yep, staggeringly, Paul Andrews thought there would not be any comeback to his questionable actions...

 

 

That is absolutely astonishing, and highlights that he's very much out of touch with the retrogaming audience. He really has misjudged his potential customers, and probably hasn't realised the tiny band of vocal supporters he has, are mainly trolls.

 

Now, not everyone likes Octavius Kitten. Her videos aren't 'for everyone'. I get it, they're a bit silly, they're not cerebral, not dignified, and they can be a bit cheap-looking. And yes, I'm in the Octavius camp and I do like her stuff, but, if Andrews gets his way, don't go thinking he'll just stop at Octavius. He'll go after others, he'll actually make up a story to file in a  take-down. ChinnyVision and I have first-hand experience of this last week.

 

I used to be a supporter of Paul Andrews, until I discovered this nasty petty side to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Andrews can’t stop anyone from making video reviews of his “IP”. Horace. Jet Set Willy. Whatever.

 

If they’re game commentary videos then it’s “Fair Use”. It’s why he couldn’t do anything about George Bum’s Horace videos, despite them being not very “family friendly”

 

This makes me think it’s either ignorance or shit stirring of a topic that’s long run it’s course.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he can - he can issue copyright strikes against them and YouTube will honour those strikes. The person who has the strike issued against them has to appeal. Now, it's likely that a manual review will see the striked video put back up, but Andrews (or any other IP owner) can pursue a DMCA claim that will need to be fought against, incurring financial burden on the person fighting it. Simply saying 'fair use' doesn't mean you're going to win, even with just review footage.

 

This is all DMCA 101…

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Peter St John said:

Of course he can - he can issue copyright strikes against them and YouTube will honour those strikes. The person who has the strike issued against them has to appeal. Now, it's likely that a manual review will see the striked video put back up, but Andrews (or any other IP owner) can pursue a DMCA claim that will need to be fought against, incurring financial burden on the person fighting it. Simply saying 'fair use' doesn't mean you're going to win, even with just review footage.

 

This is all DMCA 101…

 

No he can't. As explained in this video, a review or let's play type of video comes under Fair Use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maryliddon said:

You're getting really confused between 'couldn't' and 'shouldn't' here

 

He absolutely can issue DMCA takedowns that either don't reflect the rights he holds or oversteps the legal protection those rights provide.

 

 


And you forgot ‘wouldn’t’... :coffee:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanR said:


And you forgot ‘wouldn’t’... :coffee:

no he didn't - he was talking about the facts of the situation - the facts are that he could. And youtube would act on it until it was proven otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, gone fishin' said:

 

No he can't. As explained in this video, a review or let's play type of video comes under Fair Use.

 

 

 

Which would be great if YouTube issuing a strike had anything to do with fair use or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2019 at 22:44, maryliddon said:

Lee's been messaging me on Facebook with info but I've steered clear of looking into it because conclusions I come to on the basis of Lee's word would get torn to shreds.

 

Nobody should ever forget that Lee Fogarty is the biggest pariah in the ZX Spectrum scene who lied repeatedly during the Vega+ scam and continues to do so now.

 

He has history of slagging off the retrogaming YouTubers behind their backs (especially at public events like Dizzy 30th, Spectrum 35th etc), but now sees an opportunity to cast himself as the good guy by suddenly switching sides to support Sarah/Octavius!

 

He's publicly claiming he's never heard of @Octav1usKitten or watched any of her videos until about a week ago (another easily proven lie) and now he's sending his lies to as many people as he can. Well, those that he hasn't blocked that is!

 

Nothing Lee Fogarty says can be taken as fact. He lied about not working for RCL until the last minute when the bank statements were revealed showing he was paid 14k! Then he was forced to admit he was a paid employee after all.

 

And World of Spectrum is a disaster since he took it over, an incredibly slow site almost nothing working and a whole lot of tracking private information being carried out behind the scenes.

 

Lee runs various Twitter accounts for his abuse, and keeps switching when the accounts invariably get locked. He has been caught operating accounts that he claimed at the time were not him, with even the other World of Spectrum moderators sheepishly announcing Lee was operating the main account when he was abusing people with it.

 

Only a fool would trust Lee Fogarty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/10/2019 at 07:50, maryliddon said:

Oh dear, banned from the ZX Vega Support group by Darren Branagh. Anyone know who he is? Claims to have brokered the resolution of horacegate between Andrews and Octav1us. Also a fervent arguer for Andrews Horace rights all the way back in August.

 

Does he work for Andrews or just an associate?

Darren Branagh isn’t a mod / admin of that group 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bluejam said:

Darren Branagh isn’t a mod / admin of that group 

 

Well I know that now. He collarred me on Facebook with a screengrab from here and said I should GROW A PAIR and ask him any questions I may have of him to his face.

 

So I did.

 

Refused to answer any of them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/10/2019 at 12:12, gone fishin' said:

Paul Andrews can’t stop anyone from making video reviews of his “IP”. Horace. Jet Set Willy. Whatever.

 

If they’re game commentary videos then it’s “Fair Use”. It’s why he couldn’t do anything about George Bum’s Horace videos, despite them being not very “family friendly”

 

This makes me think it’s either ignorance or shit stirring of a topic that’s long run it’s course.

 

 

In the context of a legal framework, you're completely right, and that's the way it should work at all times. But as others have pointed out, YouTube doesn't operate on that premise. I've been following a few content creators over the years who had videos taken down for copyright strikes - it was an incredibly drawn-out, tedious, and stressful endeavour. In some cases, the "fair use" defence ultimately allowed some videos to return, but in other similar cases, it didn't. And in the one case I followed last year,  the creator had the support/advocacy of their Multi-Channel Network affiliation who took up the legwork of responding and defending the creator to YouTube. I suspect that Octav1us doesn't have MCN representation, so staring down the double whammy of two immediate strikes would be highly stressful to say the least. Three strikes really does mean the end of your channel, and you'll be hunted down booted if you try and wiggle your way in through a new one, which is basically not even an option for anyone that has built up a profile. For someone like me that has maybe four or five videos, go for it YouTube, but obviously the stakes are much higher for someone like Octav1us who spent three years building up a 26k subscriber base.

 

In terms of IP ownership, has this been settled maryliddon, and others? I do think there should be more investigation if it hasn't. In the case of River West Brand, they essentially went behind the backs of ColecoVision homebrew publishers to register via shady means a trade mark for themselves that was already in wide use given that the original Coleco Industries registration lapsed in the late 1980s.

 

Out of interest, I did some trademark searches in Australia for marks claimed by Melbourne House, and I discovered that MH wasn't successful in officially registering any mark with "Horace" or even the distinctive Horace character graphic back in the day, and their applications actually lapsed way back in 1985. Take a look for yourself as I've cut and pasted some search results below.

 

The mark "Horace"

https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/384273?q=horace

 

The image of Horace #1

https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/384269?q=melbourne+house

 

The image of Horace #2

https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/384274?q=melbourne+house

 

Here's a link to the general search string for "Melbourne House"

https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/quick/result?q=melbourne+house#_384269

 

So far, the Horace saga seems eerily similar to the Coleco fiasco - an entity attempting to pre-empt or assert use over something that's already been in use by community actors, so much so that the community actors may actually have more of a claim if they wished to register. If it's not registered in the UK or Australia, I'm not sure on what basis they're asserting a registered interest. General allusions to owning IP isn't the same as an approved registration.

 

I know that Melbourne House eventually became part of a new software publisher, but there's no evidence that the successors registered anything with Horace, which isn't the least bit surprising given the focus was on new software titles and not IP for a obsolete platform. To repeat, I don't see how any entity can attempt to restrict or enforce Horace-type trademarks on the premise of news releases claiming general IP ownership over software titles. Marks have to be registered and any application would have to be supported by demonstrating an active marketing use. But to return to gone fishin's original point, "fair use" would normally be the grounds for protecting content creators such as Octav1us without worrying about mark registration.

 

In terms of the actual software or code ownership via copyright, that's a slightly different matter, but as alluded to already, this could entail copyright ownership by a publishing house, depending on whether the author was directly employed, or worked as an independent contractor. It looks like it rested with Melbourne House, but at the same time there's still a sense of ambiguity about the larger questions of copyright. Do we really know the deal at this point?

 

Has anyone here tried to reach out to Alfred Milgrom to see if he can recall the arrangement with Melbourne House titles? EDIT: I see now that you did, maryliddon - what did he recall? And anything further with Atari?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Evener said:

 

Has anyone here tried to reach out to Alfred Milgrom to see if he can recall the arrangement with Melbourne House titles? EDIT: I see now that you did, maryliddon - what did he recall? And anything further with Atari?

 

 

 

I've been busy this week but will be back on it next week.

 

I think I have a clear idea of where the IP if owned, would have changed hands.

 

For each change of ownership, there would be a legal agreement showing the terms of that change.

 

To make a watertight case that you own the IP of an old game like this you would need copies of each those agreements.

 

Horace's IP has changed several times. The changes and accompanying agreements needed would be:

 

  • William Tang creates Horace. Employment contract assigns rights to Beam
  • Beam sold to Infogrames, purchase contract lists Horace as an IP
  • Beam's sale to Krome, purchase contract showing that Beam IP stayed with Atari
  • Atari's bankruptcy (2013), settlement showing the sale of IP to new Atari
  • Sale to Andrews from new Atari, contract of sale of IP

 

It'd be highly unusual to have that level of proof for such an old game.

 

Sometimes the sale price can reflect the lack of provenance for what's sold. Sometimes the sale contract will say it's a case of buyer beware and there is no indemnification for the buyer if it turns out the IP didn't belong to the seller.

 

In terms of Horace? I'm pretty sure that William Tang's was working under an employment contract assigned anything he made to his employer Beam.

 

When I asked Alfred about the IP sold to Infogrames when they bought Beam, he said he doesn't remember Horace, or any of the older Beam games, being mentioned in the contract. I asked him if there may have been a catch-all in the contract saying all Beam IP was part of the sale. He said there might have been, but he can't clearly remember. It's possible someone may have that sale contract. I will dig.

 

Krome bought Beam from Infogrames. I know they said on Twitter that they don't own Horace, but I would love to see the purchase agreement to be sure that was the case. I need to talk to someone at Krome.

 

The Southern District of NY court handled Atari's bankruptcy. I have registered for a PACER account that means I'll be able to look at the documentation about Atari's bankruptcy. That account will be approved soon. During the bankruptcy, there was an IP auction, and I have seen a few lists of the IP on sale. I didn't know any Beam titles on those lists, but these are hardly definitive.

 

I have not seen Andrews IP purchase agreement. He won't share it or any details about what he owns and what documentation he has verifying a chain of ownership. I would like to see that contract :D

 

I did talk to Atari, and they said this IP does not belong to them and I should speak to William Tang. It is entirely possible they did own the IP, sold it to Andrews, but the person I was talking to wasn't aware of it.

 

So that's the framework I'm working within. As I said earlier it may well mean proving Andrews UK owns this stuff.

 

What is annoying me is these things are not proof of ownership:

 

  • Andrews UK claim that they own the IP
  • Youtube accepting a copyright strike
  • Recent edits of Wikipedia articles claiming Andrews UK ownership

 

Yet that is all we currently have.

 

That doesn't warrant the level of aggressive certainty some are showing about Andrews UK ownership.

 

I'm not saying he doesn't own the IP I would like to see the strength of evidence available that makes the case he does.

 

And if it's weak, it's challengable in several ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, maryliddon said:

Yet that is all we currently have.

 

That doesn't warrant the level of aggressive certainty some are showing about Andrews UK ownership.

 

I'm not saying he doesn't own the IP I would like to see the strength of evidence available that makes the case he does.

 

And if it's weak, it's challengable in several ways.

 

I've been following your comments with interest @maryliddon and several things concern me.   What is your unhealthy preoccupation with this gentleman and his IP?  Is there a reason you've become so emotional involved in this drama?  Everyone else has moved on from it, even the YouTuber (who is now seeing her Patreons start to leave).  Are you being paid to try and discredit this gentleman or do you have a personal axe to grind, or perhaps you're unhappy that you didn't purchase the Horace I.P first?  We'd love to know, your audience awaits! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.