PDA

View Full Version : New Defiance info



Kain's Ancient Blade
24th May 2003, 21:30
I got the new Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine and it has an article and two new screenshots (which i'm pretty sure haven't been seen yet) of Defiance.
The first shot is of Raziel sneeking around in front of a stain glass window, probably the one from Vorodor's mansion. Maybe he's doing a stealth move on someone.
The other picture is of Raziel passing a well and heading for what seems to be a glass house.
Either way i'm just so excited about any info Defiance related, and I'm sure everyone else is, so I decided to post it.

LOK series. My anti-drug.

Umah Bloodomen
25th May 2003, 00:37
Originally posted by gehntheberserker
Do you have a scanner? :D

If so can you upload them please?:D Thanx

We've had this discussion before. Keep the magazine articles out of the forum.

blincoln
25th May 2003, 02:00
Hopefully Ziff-Davis weren't lying when they sent me a postcard saying the first issue of my EGM subscription was on its way =).

Lozza Mate
25th May 2003, 03:39
Has Chris@crystal actually told us we aren't allowed to post scanned images from magazines?

Riovanes
25th May 2003, 03:59
Lozza, I promise I'm not trying to be rude when I say this...

It doesn't matter if Chris says we can or can't. Standard copyright law in the United States (which would be the point of origin for the scanned picture, making it therefore susceptible to US law) states that copyrighted materials may not be reproduced or distributed in ANY form without EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION from the author or creator of said material. It doesn't matter what Chris thinks on this subject (no offense meant) - it's a law, and as much as you may hate it or think it's stupid, it's there for a reason - so no, no posting of copyrighted images unless you have the consent of the publisher/author.

And no, owning the magazine does not constitute reproduction rights. Have a look at the inside, usually page four or five in those magazines - it will state quite clearly what you can and cannot do with the contents.

That said... Have a nice day.

BAH!!!

Umah Bloodomen
25th May 2003, 05:29
Originally posted by Lozza Mate
Has Chris@crystal actually told us we aren't allowed to post scanned images from magazines?

Who do you think handled the other threads where the copyright laws were being violated? (Including editing yours?). :rolleyes:

I wholeheartedly agree with how Rio expressed the matter, but to break it down into laymen's terms:

It is one thing if the images are posted on the internet. The purpose of doing so is to share it with everyone in their brother, and not on a paid-subscription basis in hopes to generate a potential following to purchase their magazine to obtain more info than what they offer on the web. No one is losing money, however it is courteous to still ask for permission before using net-based media on third-party sites.

The magazines are obtained through payment from their subscribers and normal consumers. The object of them is to get paid for supplying the general public with the information contained within their publication. If one person scans the magazine, that's ten times the amount of people (possibly even more) who views that information, without paying, thus the publication loses its profit.

Lozza Mate
25th May 2003, 07:50
Originally posted by Riovanes
states that copyrighted materials may not be reproduced or distributed in ANY form without EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION from the author or creator of said material.

that's pretty vague. if you held to that literaly it would mean that if you bought the magazine and then showed it to a friend(s) you are breaking the law. I'm under the impression that you can let ppl borrow it as long as you don't make a profit?

Umah Bloodomen
25th May 2003, 08:11
There is a fine line in regards to distribution. By showing one individual the magazine, or as you put it, allowing that individual to *borrow* the magazine, you are serving the same purpose as the teaser content is on the actual publication's site. You're appealing to another potential customer which may result in that individual subscribing or purchasing a copy. One individual also does not constitute the general public (as a mass).

Sharing in this sense, is not to be confused with mass distribution. (Notice that the keyword here is 'mass').

Chances are if you show one friend, that friend is not going to show ten thousand (rough estimate) other people what was in the magazine. Sure, they're going to tell other people they know of the content, and the publication's cycle of fishing for customers is continued. (As that many more people may be inclined to purchase the magazine and see for themselves).

By posting the images or articles online, without permission you are threatening the publication's ability to generate a profit and continue running the publication, as the entire world (a mass of people) will then have access to their content which is normally reserved for those who pay for it.

It takes five minutes (if that) to write a company or an individual who owns the copyright/intellectual property to obtain permission to publically distribute it to a mass of people. The worst they can say is 'No'.

EDIT: Slight grammatical adjustment.

blincoln
25th May 2003, 08:41
The difference between showing a friend the magazine and posting scans of it online is that in the second case, you are effectively reproducing the magazine, rather than lending it. It is the reproduction which is a violation of copyright law.

It's the same reason it's legal to sell CDs to used record stores, but *not* legal to copy them to CD-R and sell the copies.

Kain696
25th May 2003, 10:42
Originally posted by Umah Bloodomen
Who do you think handled the other threads where the copyright laws were being violated? (Including editing yours?). :rolleyes:

I wholeheartedly agree with how Rio expressed the matter, but to break it down into laymen's terms:

It is one thing if the images are posted on the internet. The purpose of doing so is to share it with everyone in their brother, and not on a paid-subscription basis in hopes to generate a potential following to purchase their magazine to obtain more info than what they offer on the web. No one is losing money, however it is courteous to still ask for permission before using net-based media on third-party sites.

The magazines are obtained through payment from their subscribers and normal consumers. The object of them is to get paid for supplying the general public with the information contained within their publication. If one person scans the magazine, that's ten times the amount of people (possibly even more) who views that information, without paying, thus the publication loses its profit.



well isn't it Eidos's game wich is being advertised, and it is Eidos that paid to get it advertised in the book to begin with so it would be Eidos's choice if its pic gets posted from the book cause Eidos is the one who copywrited the Legacy of Kain series and all the products

blincoln
25th May 2003, 11:04
No. The images belong to them, but the text of the article belongs to the magazine publisher.

fneh
25th May 2003, 11:24
lets not get into this again. last time it got nasty. Afterall. 2 pictures? who cares about 2 screenshots for all this grief?

Umah Bloodomen
25th May 2003, 12:14
Originally posted by blincoln
No. The images belong to them, but the text of the article belongs to the magazine publisher.

Thank you.

And also, the moderator of this forum has already removed a few instances of copyright/intellectual property infringement (images and articles) here in the forums. I do believe the choice has been made on whether to allow it here or not.

Kain's Ancient Blade
25th May 2003, 14:55
i sent an email to egm asking permission to post two of the pics from the article. i let u know what the results are.



LOK series. My anti-drug.

Riovanes
25th May 2003, 16:29
See? That's all that needed to be done!

And gehn - the BO and SR images are old enough that they fall under a law called the "Fair Usage Act." Without getting into too much detail, what that sucker basically says is that any image that's seven years or more out of its original copyright date can be utilized by the public so long as it is not being used in the same context as the original in which the image was first used. That's up to and including generation of profit. If you need a physical example of the Fair Usage Act, check out 8-bit Theater (www.nuklearpower.com), and it should become clear.

That being said, images belonging to games like BO2, SR2, and Defiance (obviously, since it hasn't been released yet) are still too new to even come close to falling under that act. Therefore, unless the image is already LEGALLY posted on the internet (and therefore already subject to mass distribution) and does not have a secondary form of copy protection on it (such as an individual page author's copyright), you can't use it. It's as simple as that.

As for CD owning the rights to the images, as Kain696 pointed out, that's true to a point, but blinc is right. Just to expand on what he said - when a magazine prints screenshots from a company's game, they are able to do so because the company has sold them the publication rights to those specific pictures - the magazine has PAID for the right to publish them. So while the image itself is still the intellectual property of CD, the copyright in regard to physical reproduction of the image belongs to the magazine(s) that published it. Even those rights are limited by contract, but that doesn't bear getting into. The bottom line is that they paid for the mass distribution rights, and you did not - so to take those rights without payment is akin to thievery - more commonly known in this case as copyright infringement.

Don't like it? Tough nuggins. As one who hopes to someday be a published author (beyond magazines anyway - been there, done that, got the paycheck), I wholeheartedly support copyright laws. Not because I necessarily demand credit for everything I do - but because they protect the way of life that I want to be a part of. If you have a problem with that, then look at your own career path, and assume for a moment I could steal and reproduce whatever it is you make for my own profit - suddenly your way of life is threatend, isn't it? Even though this individual act might've been a drop in the bucket for EGM, if everyone started doing it, think of the damage...

Beyond just being law abiding, avoiding this kind of situation is called common-frickin'-courtesy. Learn it, use it, avoid having small puppies spit on you when they pass you on the street.

And KAB, thank you for sending that e-mail off. Hopefully they'll agree to let you share - but if not, I do hope you'll understand where they're coming from.

BAH!!!

Kain's Ancient Blade
25th May 2003, 17:10
i never had any intention on posting the pics, bit since some members of the board dont have access to egm i'll try to post the pix for them.

And KAB, thank you for sending that e-mail off. Hopefully they'll agree to let you share - but if not, I do hope you'll understand where they're coming from.

and i'll understand where they're coming from



LOK series. My anti-drug.

ZelenGangrel
25th May 2003, 17:52
Oh btw, in case you were wondering, you can post the pictures without the article as long as all text or subtitles associated with the pictures are removed.

As CD and Eidos are the only ones with permission to release Legacy of Kain media, and they have so chosen to release these images to the public, as long as none of the images are credited as captured by the magazine, and no work, layout or form of the magazine's staff or their work is shown, you may use the pictures as you please.

As long as it is for non profit purposes and no money is exchanged at any point during the usage of said pictures.

And in case you're wondering how I know this, I'm a Print major, I know copyright law like the back of my hand.

blincoln
25th May 2003, 20:34
Rio, that thing about 7 years is actually incorrect. Copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html).

You're right about sites being able to use images through fair use, but it doesn't have anything to do with the context that it's in. Fair use means that you can use the original work in a parody (no matter how old it is), which 8-bit theatre probably falls under. Even if it doesn't, I guess Nintendo doesn't care enough about fifteen-year-old graphics to hassle the authors =).

gehntheberserker: Eidos seems to not mind people using images from the series in the forums (as long as they don't make a profit). But Eidos *doesn't* publish EGM, so they don't have control over the text of the article.

Kain's Ancient Blade: I can basically guarantee you that EGM will turn you down. Their whole profit model is based around people buying the magazine in order to read it. Even websites that post screenshots (like Gamespot) won't let others reproduce them.

Riovanes
26th May 2003, 05:03
*has been shamed*

BAH!!!

Umah Bloodomen
26th May 2003, 05:12
Originally posted by blincoln
Rio, that thing about 7 years is actually incorrect. Copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html).

You're right about sites being able to use images through fair use, but it doesn't have anything to do with the context that it's in. Fair use means that you can use the original work in a parody (no matter how old it is), which 8-bit theatre probably falls under. Even if it doesn't, I guess Nintendo doesn't care enough about fifteen-year-old graphics to hassle the authors =).

It also extends to the purpose of education and any sort of non-commercial derivative work/compilation that an individual may create.

blincoln
26th May 2003, 05:34
Unfortunately it doesn't extend to all non-commercial work, at least for the last few decades =(.

IMO copyright should be based on whether or not you are doing economic harm to the owner of the work (which would make non-commercial use of any kind pretty much exempt). That's not the way it works right now, even for things you'd think would be protected, like art.

As an example, when I was studying music at university, one of my teachers had an album called Plunderphonics. It was a really cool set of music where the author had taken entire albums by bands like Metallica and Michael Jackson, and made sort of uber versions of them all using samplers and other electronics.

The musician who made it printed up a limited number of copies (I want to say 1000, but it's been several years), and gave them all away. No charge of any kind. But still, when the record labels found out about it, they took him to court and forced him to recall them all. Obviously some people refused to return them, but it's next to impossible to obtain an original now.

This is also the reason that Kinko's make a fuss now if you ask them to print out (for example) a fake game cover for an April Fool's joke. They can be held liable if they help you break the law and the company who owns the material comes after them.

That was kind of long-winded, but basically the only exemptions now are for educational and research purposes. A few decades ago you could get away with a lot more (look at all the uncleared samples in 80s music versus now).

Vampmaster
26th May 2003, 14:38
Originally posted by Riovanes
*has been shamed*

BAH!!!

Ha! Well done, Blinc. I knew someone could do it! (j/k :p)

EDIT: If the screenshots were posted without any of the artical, are they still copyrighted to the magazine or does it revert to Eidos/CD? Just curious.

brotherturel
26th May 2003, 15:40
Man I have GAMEPRO and they don't say anything about Defiance not even a little picture from E3 not even a name with a release date. When PSM and EGM and all the other gaming magazines post full page or 2 page previews gamepro gives you a hundred word article. I swear those guys are so lazy. Biggest gaming platform magazine yeah right.

blincoln
26th May 2003, 20:28
Vampmaster: I'm pretty sure that Zelen is right and it's okay if you post them without the article or background art.

brotherturel: PSM had an exclusive on the story for this month. I expect that the July issue of Gamepro will have coverage, just like the July issue of EGM.

Umah Bloodomen
27th May 2003, 01:23
Originally posted by brotherturel
Man I have GAMEPRO and they don't say anything about Defiance not even a little picture from E3 not even a name with a release date. When PSM and EGM and all the other gaming magazines post full page or 2 page previews gamepro gives you a hundred word article. I swear those guys are so lazy. Biggest gaming platform magazine yeah right.

Actually there is a brief mention of the series on page 43 of the recent issue. (in The Spanx: The Chain Gang article). And what they're saying is that it has been "wrapped up" as far as the "latest tiles" in the "saga" and their focus is on Spanx.

Take that as you will. I'll believe it when I see it. **shrugs**

c0ld0ne
27th May 2003, 02:11
I think what magazines do by getting pictures for themselves and not letting people scan them (legally) is really gay!?!

I mean, perhaps they should be happy that they get the images in their magazine before anyone else sees them, but then to not let others see them? So lame.

Besides, most magazine explcusive pictures end up getting released to gaming sites in their original quality a while after the magazines get it anyways so I think people make a bigger deal out of the illagality of it than it really is (intelligence agencies online, u still havent found Osama so dont bother us about miniscule online illegal activities, kthxbye)

Another thing, who in the name of christ will buy all these different magazines to see each exclusive screenshot put out to probably 10 different magazines? Half-Life 2 was a great example of this, about 5 different magazines got very special screens only for them, and since I wasnt gonna go out and buy 5 different magz for the screens, I found a site with all the scans and enjoyed ;)

1 week later all of the exclusive shots in original hi-res quality came out to gaming sites and you can look at them for free now so technically that "exclusive copyright" content of the magazines that had them is bull**** now since they are freely available.

Anyways, enough ranting... I just hate laws and limits in this supposedly FREE country of America! :D

Cold

Umah Bloodomen
27th May 2003, 02:20
Originally posted by c0ld0ne
Anyways, enough ranting... I just hate laws and limits in this supposedly FREE country of America! :D

Cold

Yeah, and like anarchy gets anyone far in the world? In the words of willow: Riiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Riovanes
27th May 2003, 02:50
Cold, a word, if you please...

Freedom is NOT free. It was bought with the blood of men and women that cared enough about their country, "lame" laws and all, to fight and die in its name. America may not be perfect, and no land will ever be idyllic to every single person's standards, but do me a favor and do NOT slander the freedom we enjoy - move to a communist country, or one controlled by the Ba'aathist party - not only will you not get your precious images, but every piece of information you ever receive will be rigorously controlled by the government. Try whining about it over there - they'll shoot you.

Complaining about screenshots is one thing - an immature, ignorant, uninformed and selfish thing, certainly - but to slander our freedom and the intelligence agencies that are working hard and have members risking their lives daily to DEFEND that freedom is not something you should be doing on this forum. Politics, as we've found, tends to be an extremely inflammatory topic - especially when immature children try to propound arguments that have no basis other than the fact that it's "cool" to be angry with the government at your age. So keep it to the games, or at least something less offensive, or shut up.

Umah: Anarchy actually is a form of government. I'm pretty sure you're aware of this, but literally translated, anarchy means rule by the people, for the people, of the people. In other words, it's a communal rule, without being communism - the entire population is the ruling body. No government would be known simply as "chaos."

Oh, and Cold, one more thing - I've gone over and over the reasons that publishers need to hold on to copyrighted material. It's their LIVELIHOOD. To steal images, print, or other matter from a copyrighted publication is the SAME DAMN THING as stealing from a store - it's theft, plain and simple. Is part of your anger at our "freedom" the inability to shoplift whatever you want? No? Then shut up. Printed material is just as much a product as is a gaming station, a bicycle, or an electric razor - it serves the same purpose - it generates profit, and therefore a LIVING, for the people that produce it. You want to complain about that? Go talk to the publishers, see what they have to say to you - although I'm sure you don't care - you won't be happy until you get what you want - much like most people in recent years.

BAH!!!

Umah Bloodomen
27th May 2003, 02:59
Originally posted by Riovanes
Umah: Anarchy actually is a form of government. I'm pretty sure you're aware of this, but literally translated, anarchy means rule by the people, for the people, of the people. In other words, it's a communal rule, without being communism - the entire population is the ruling body. No government would be known simply as "chaos."


Rio, dear, please brush up on your definitions when you have time.




Compliments of my good friend, Merriam Webster
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

Now, I don't deny that people view this as a form of *free government* as you so eloquently stated. Absence of such an institution would make that view very false, IMO.

With that out of the way, let's keep the argument of government out of the video-game forum. The issue here is copyright infringement. :rolleyes:

Riovanes
27th May 2003, 03:08
Blah.

First, your dictionary is stupid. Either that, or my Governmental Theory professor is. I'm betting on the professor, but it might be a matter of context. In either case, I was only parroting what I'd been taught - so yes, my fault for not researching the information, but it stems from being too trusting.

Second - we all know what the issue at hand is. Some people just don't seem to be able to get it through their heads that this should be an open and shut case - copyright is copyright, and just because some people want to stick their heads in the sand and deny it, this thread has gone on much longer than it should have...

Umah, why do sheep butt their heads against walls so often? I mean, really...

BAH!!!

NightChyld
27th May 2003, 04:36
If we hit our heads hard enough, then the copyright laws will fly away. *smash - smash - smash* Oh NO! still here. Keep trying. *Smash-smash-smash*

Riovanes
27th May 2003, 15:44
*waddles, sheep-style, over to the "wall of not having a girlfriend"*

Maybe if I bash MY head against this wall enough, an attractive, intelligent, and kind girl will just fall into MY lap!

*bash-bash-bash* Hmmm... Nothing yet...

*bash-bash-bash* Owwww...

*bash-bash-bash* I'm not sure I want to know what that warm red crap is running down my face right now...

*bash-bash-bash* Errr... I'm starting to see stars... Maybe those count as hot girls...

*bash-bash-bash* Ohhhhh... pwetty cowors...

*bash-bash-bash* ... ... ... *whump*

BAH!!!

darien_specter
28th May 2003, 00:04
A standing ovation for Rio from this camp. Bravo... :)

I might add that there is another place to see magazines. It's called a LIBRARY. Let's all repeat it: li-bra-ry. Very good.

Kain696
28th May 2003, 00:51
well gamespot.com has atleast 33 pics of Defiance

blincoln
28th May 2003, 01:10
Too bad it's the same 11 screenshots repeated 3 times =). I see them do that a lot.

blincoln
29th May 2003, 02:24
I just picked up this issue. One of the pictures is of a mural for the Water Forge! The others we've already seen, although some of them are at different angles.

warpsavant
29th May 2003, 06:12
Whats the mural of?

Umah Bloodomen
29th May 2003, 06:15
Forget that, what magazine? ;)

warpsavant
29th May 2003, 06:19
Its in EGM I think. :p

Umah Bloodomen
29th May 2003, 06:31
We've mentioned so many magazines in this thread, I was confused. :p

blincoln
29th May 2003, 07:16
Oh yeah, sorry, it's EGM, the July issue.

It's a stained-glass window with the Water Reaver icon in the middle, and some watery abstract shapes around it. You can only see the bottom part. It's got a big gold frame, and Raziel is running in front of it in the screenshot.

warpsavant
30th May 2003, 00:51
Ahah thats funny. I was wondering why you'd think it was the water forge, was it something you would only pick up or was it something obvious like the glyph icon? Im gonna have to get that mag too now.

eclipse_reaver
2nd Jun 2003, 05:41
I no longer suscribe to any magazines (don't want to deal with mail thefts over and over again), but I really don't want to miss out on the info.
So if any of you see any news/pics/blurps etc in a magazine, can you let me know what magazine and what edition?
Now I have to get that EGM edition.

darien_specter
3rd Jun 2003, 06:53
Woohoo! That's some exciting news, blinc!

Must find library with EGM...

warpsavant
3rd Jun 2003, 07:00
I think Ben only has it because he subscribes. ?? I looked over the weekend and I could only find June EGM's. I found a July PSM though.

blincoln
3rd Jun 2003, 07:33
I actually bought it at the supermarket and then got my first subscription issue in the mail the next day. I'd think most places should have it by now, but maybe not?

Vampmaster
3rd Jun 2003, 17:57
It's not fair, I've not seen one UK magazine even mention Defiance. :( I really hope they put the forges in and that the four from SR2 are still already forged.