Jump to content

Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?


Recommended Posts

If you're referring to something the Youtube creator has said she, from what I've read anyway, said she didn't know whether he was or wasn't the IP holder but that he hadn't provided documents proving that he indeed was, thus not showing having the right to issue a strike.

 

Which is fair enough no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, amc said:

If you're referring to something the Youtube creator has said she, from what I've read anyway, said she didn't know whether he was or wasn't the IP holder but that he hadn't provided documents proving that he indeed was, thus not showing having the right to issue a strike.

 

Which is fair enough no?


its interesting, a narrative has been throughout, that Andrews doesn’t have the ip and he is bluffing, just trying to bully and extort.

 

however, if you are negotiating the rights to use a character, surely there can be no doubt that Andrews IS the holder and he has an interest in making sure his ip is used correctly ( whatever that may be). And that both parties have now reached hopefully an amicable agreement.

 

what I’m saying is, can the attacks on him now stop?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get an idea of how things are, check out the list of trademarks Submersive have been hoovering up. 
 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmowner/page/search?id=1289048&domain=1

 

Now, obv Andrews own the Manic Miner (and Jet Set Willy) IP and have done since August last year. Up until fairly recently, Steve Wilcox of Elite thought he owned it and even sent out lawyers letters to a couple people demanding money. Course, his latest failed Kickstarter of Manic Miner/JSW playing cards was cancelled due to copyright claims. Then, Play Expo Manchester comes along in Easter this year and there’s Matthew Smith making appearance and there’s talk of him possibly making another Miner Willy game as he now claims to own it again. 
 

Anyway, the Horace thing is thankfully all over and sorted, the Spectrum community again brought back from the edge (®️™️©️ Tim Langdell).

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

Andrews is the IP holder. No one who actually knows anything about the situation is disputing that. 

 

As a new member, would it be possible for you to share more details about how Andrews acquired the IP for Horace? My understanding is that this circa 1980s IP resides with the creator (William Tang, maybe Alfred Milgrom for the Horace design, or Beam Software, I think) for 70 years after death. I noticed that other members are searching the UK IP Office, but I'm not clear if a trademark search would necessarily reflect newly acquired IP ownership. To my untrained ears, this discussion about ownership has echoes of the Coleco trademark dispute involving River West Brands and the latter's assertion of ownership within the Coleco retro community. Interestingly, that whole situation burst into public view with a similar trajectory - copyright strikes against YouTube videos featuring the Coleco name, which River West asserted was necessary because of the portrayal of 8-bit games beside the Coleco name with sexualized content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It reminds me of when Gamergate groups tried to make donations to women's charities to try and deflect criticism. It's easy to weaponise a charity when the charity aren't aware of their existence being used as such. Thankfully the ones who Gamegate groups donated to were aware and refused the money.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Evener said:

 

As a new member, would it be possible for you to share more details about how Andrews acquired the IP for Horace? My understanding is that this circa 1980s IP resides with the creator (William Tang, maybe Alfred Milgrom for the Horace design, or Beam Software, I think) for 70 years after death. I noticed that other members are searching the UK IP Office, but I'm not clear if a trademark search would necessarily reflect newly acquired IP ownership. To my untrained ears, this discussion about ownership has echoes of the Coleco trademark dispute involving River West Brands and the latter's assertion of ownership within the Coleco retro community. Interestingly, that whole situation burst into public view with a similar trajectory - copyright strikes against YouTube videos featuring the Coleco name, which River West asserted was necessary because of the portrayal of 8-bit games beside the Coleco name with sexualized content.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually see it as them basically saying that you're probably not making enough money using our IP to make it worthwhile chasing you for money so we insist that you donate to charity instead. They need to be seen to be doing something to protect their IP otherwise it becomes harder in the court room. I imagine saying if you donate to charity it is a lot less time consuming than chasing after a few pounds every couple of months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tony said:

I usually see it as them basically saying that you're probably not making enough money using our IP to make it worthwhile chasing you for money so we insist that you donate to charity instead. Otherwise if they let people off for free then it becomes harder for them to argue against bigger players if they have to take legal action in the court room.

 

Surely chasing someone for money and chasing someone for a donation to charity involves the same amount of work on your part?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, K said:

 

Surely chasing someone for money and chasing someone for a donation to charity involves the same amount of work on your part?

 

I'd have thought you'd get them to sign a contract saying they are going to donate x amount to charity per a unit sold and that's the end of it. Bascially you trust that they are upholding their end of the bargain. But if you want to get the money from them - there is a lot more work involved making sure they are actually sending you the amount you owe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tony said:

 

I'd have thought you'd get them to sign a piece of paper saying they are going to donate x amount to charity per a unit sold and that's the end of it. Bascially you trust that they are upholding their end of the bargain. But if you want to get the money from them - there is a lot more work involved making sure they are actually sending you the amount you owe.

 

Not really. The important thing is to be seen to be defending "your" IP, and to remove anything you think infringes on it. It doesn't matter whether someone wants money paid to them or to some charity - I would imagine that there is almost no money whatsoever at stake in a situation where you're talking about infringing the intellectual property associated with Horace Goes Skiing by someone using Horace in a niche Youtube video.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point I'm trying to make though. There is no real money to be made but they need to be seen doing something. A quick agreement to promise to donate money to charity is a lot easier than getting them to send you tiny bits of money every few months. Making your legal or accounts team chase up after a few pounds a month probably isn't worth your time when you can draw up an agreement based on trust that you can then bring up in court that you enforce your rights to your IP when a much bigger player infringes your rights.

 

I don't think insisting on a donation to charity is trying to shame someone. It's just trying to be seen as doing something which they need to do. To my untrained eye I'd imagine it's a lot less paperwork unless they resist and you have to go down the legal route.

 

Whether there's an actual need to go after those people is another question. I just don't see asking for a donation as trying to shame them in the way you suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ste Pickford said:

I think invoking a charity is used by companies as a kind of magic spell to deflect any criticism of their actions. That's the only reason, really, and why I become immediately skeptical when a donation to a charity is suggested in cases like this.

 

 

im sure you are an IP holder yourself, how do you feel about others using them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

 

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ulala said:

 

 

im sure you are an IP holder yourself, how do you feel about others using them?

 

I would object to someone selling copies of my product, or selling merchandising or similar spin-offs based on my IP.


I would not object to someone creating a satirical sketch or comedy skit that included my IP, and as far as I understand it, I wouldn't have any legal basis to object to such treatment anyway.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ste Pickford said:

 

I would object to someone selling my product itself, or merchandising or similar spin-offs based on my IP.


I would not object to someone creating a satirical sketch or comedy skit that included my IP, and as far as I understand it, I wouldn't have any legal basis to object to such treatment anyway.

 

So if all of my youtube videos now feature Plok getting a bit "handsey" shall we say, that would be absolutely fine?

 

 

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.