User talk:Mysticat

From Lost Minis Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 23:47, 29 July 2010
Stephengroy (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 22:55, 31 July 2010
Thegrouch (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 1: Line 1:
 +FYI, I responded to your question here [[User_talk:Thegrouch]].
 +
 +
Hi Mysticat, Hi Mysticat,

Revision as of 22:55, 31 July 2010

FYI, I responded to your question here User_talk:Thegrouch.


Hi Mysticat,

I noted your statement regarding copyright law, as follows;

"Source unknown; but international copyright law determines photos of unpainted sculptures are the property of the holder of the rights to the sculpture, which is Mirliton in this case; they've given me permission to post any photos of their figs on here."

I don't doubt that your above statement is true, however I don't think this means that the party who took the photo looses any copyright they have claim too; in this instance it may be possible for more than one party to claim copyright. If it was the case that Mirliton held copyright of all said pictures, then one could argue that simply taking a photo of an unpainted miniature without permission is against copyright. These kinds of copyright laws are usually quite complex and I think unless we can cite a court case as an example it may be better to continue asking permission to use images from all known sources of the material.

All the best, Colin

BTW, great work on the Grenadeir CoC ranges :o)

_____________________________________________________________

"...one could argue that simply taking a photo of an unpainted miniature without permission is against copyright."

Yup. It is - hands down and flat outright. (I used to work in publishing - graphic art and photography.) But in here there is little to fear by simply crediting the copyright holders of still in production figs because it serves the financial interests of the copyright holders (which may be joint in the case of sculptor and manufacturer both retaining rights). They 're going to be more concerned with derivative works made for profit and for artists, taking credit where none was due. A photograph is a derivative work, but only a flat representation of only half (at best) of the entire sculpture, and for the purposes of this site, obviously not for profit (by us, anyway - downloader use beware of course). It could be argued that a single photograph is less than 50% of a sculpt's visible surface and that the combined background and lighting as the photographer's contribution is more than 50% of the piece, which might then render it an original piece of work if one goes by quantity alone; but quality also matters to deter this kind of cheating - the courts would consider that a "substantial part" is also defined by the importance of the subject matter with respect to the piece, regardless of its footprint on the photo, so here's the quality aspect of the judgement.

A series of multiple photographs would clearly be a different matter. That information could be translated into computer imaging that could, with a 3D printer reproduce the original sculpt, provided the scale is known. Then again, what could be done if the photos are taken by many photographers, none of them in collaboration? The person who puts them together to reproduce the piece as a whole would be in clear violation, even though he did not do any artistic work at all (even if he had pieces of the sculpture reproduced by different persons).

I can see this happening with the 3D printing technology as it becomes more available to figure owners. Imagine being able to scan in a 35mm fig and "print off" the same except in 25mm, already pre-painted by your specifications if you like. So much for the work of the hand and sable - and the green stuff, for you could use the software to sculpt via computer. These technologies already exist, but they are cost prohibitive for most. A holographic "print off" of a ghost floating in air would be tres cool. No more stands for floating figs if you go holographic. But you'd better not breath in the same room with your holographic plate! LOL

To sum: I believe every photo in here should name the copyright holder(s), the sculptor, the photographer and the uploader. We need to try to identify and credit the sculptors more. Where no person can be named, and if the uploader wants to risk it, then the warning "Source Unknown" should be stated to warn downloaders.

Glad you like the work I'm doing. I believe it is our job as chroniclers to try to keep a record of the copyright ownerships, so that these lovely figs can be brought back into play some day. I'm so glad Mirliton and MEGA are doing this, and my placeholding "Mirliton: TBA" notation will encourage them to find and dust off those molds.

~ Mysticat

_______________________________________________________________________________

My 2 cents. I'm dubious about the notion that the copyright holder owns the rights to any photos of their copyrighted works. It makes sense to me that they can stop people from using such photos, but not that they can just take them and use them as they see fit. i.e. it makes sense to me that they can say 'you can't do that', but not 'what you've done is now mine'. Meaning that in this particular case I would be surprised if we really could use photos from anywhere of figures that Mirliton has the rights to simply because they said it was okay to use the photos that they took.
Regardless of the actual legalities, I believe that we should just play it safe and not use any images (be it from ebay, blogs, other collector web sites, etc.) without consent. If nothing else it would seem the polite and respectful thing to do.
I'm pretty sure that this particular image is from ebay. I've asked lots of ebay sellers for permission to use their images on the wiki, and the different responses are kind of interesting. A small handful flat out just say no, or simply ignore my inquiry. I've never pursued why but it seems that they feel that they've invested the time and effort (which I understand since I struggle with getting good photos myself) and that they are somehow losing something by giving permission to use the photos. Of the rest, about half simply don't care one way or the other. The photos have served their purpose and they are done with them. These people are not interested in being credited. The rest are happy to grant permission as long as they are credited with something like 'Image provided courtesy of xyz'.
Now, I might actually know who the ebay seller was in this particular case, I will check on that and try and get permission if I'm right.
-- Thegrouch 13:08, 25 July 2010 (MST)


I think the base markings needs its own page.
SGR
_____________________________________________________________

On a different tack, I re-uploaded copies of the painted Mi-Go and Deep One from the CoC 6502 box set into secondary 'Additional Images' names, leaving the primary slots free to be replaced with bare metal images (I'm assuming that Mirliton has images for these two). I had originally just posted those two as placeholders, for the primary slots the preference is for bare metal or primed images.

______________________________________________________________

I've removed the questionable ghost fig... and I will be taking a photo of my own bare metal fig. Thanks for making room for the Mi-go and Deep One... have replaced just now.

No need to dig out the camera (unless you can get an ever better picture). I tracked down the ebay seller and secured permission to use the photo (as well as a bunch more from his auctions). Waiting to hear back on how he wants to be attributed and then I'll repost it. Thegrouch 19:28, 25 July 2010 (MST)


Which brings me to this request.... would the owners of the following vehicles move them to the alt or painted spot to make room for Mirliton's unpainted photos on http://recipesrealm.com/wiki/index.php?title=Call_of_Cthulhu , please and thank you :) : 6502d Byahkee, 6502h Ghoul (A), 6502i Hound of Tindalos, 209 Ghouls, 209a Ghoul B, 209b Corpse in Casket, 209c Ghoul C, 216a Dimension(al) Shambler

For the Byahkee, the three ghouls, and the hound, I think that the current images on the wiki are better than those from the Mirliton site and should be left as is. For the Dimensional Shambler go ahead and just overwrite that image. It is a subset of the existing 'additional' image and so nothing is lost there. The Corpse in Casket was originally posted by Stephen (I think) and I think it is worth posting up as an alternate since it shows a considerably different angle. Thegrouch 20:59, 25 July 2010 (MST)


And if you have any like photos on the Nightmares page, please do the same there as well. Mucho gracias.

Why not just use the one pic for those figs that are in multiple lines? There is nothing in the heirarchy better than a crystal clear photo (like you've been posting), of unpainted minis. See the Tomb of Spells entries.
SGR
______________________________________________________________
OH! The Traveller Sea Bear from http://www.mirliton.it/popup_image.php?pID=17267 is way cleaner than the one we have currently. I didn't know they got Traveller also!!!
SGR
_______________________________________________________________

Didn't know they had Traveller, but I was wondering what that fig used to be called... now I know! LOL Think I should just overwrite the existing pic?

Nice. I hadn't noticed that before. Hopefully they will release more of those, I really like those Traveller aliens. 20:59, 25 July 2010 (MST)

_________________________________________________________________

make a category

Instead of creating the category itself first, create a line of miniatures by that manufacturer in it.

So just add the category tag at the bottom

Personal tools