Atari Computer Camp

[+Allan]

Atari Computer Camp. Please email these people so they will release the videos.

 

http://www.offworld.com/2009/05/do-you-make-chiptunes-help-us.html#more

 

Allan

[Curt Vendel]

I have the video on tape (with full sound) - its called "In the Magic Room" and its a whole video segment on Atari Computer Camps, I need to convert it over to my PC and post it.

 

 

 

Curt

 

Atari Computer Camp. Please email these people so they will release the videos.

 

http://www.offworld.com/2009/05/do-you-make-chiptunes-help-us.html#more

 

Allan

[darthkur]

I have the video on tape (with full sound) - its called "In the Magic Room" and its a whole video segment on Atari Computer Camps, I need to convert it over to my PC and post it.

 

 

 

Curt

 

Atari Computer Camp. Please email these people so they will release the videos.

 

http://www.offworld....lp-us.html#more

 

Allan

 

 

 

That would be great. I'm really looking forward to seeing that.

[atarian63]

I have the video on tape (with full sound) - its called "In the Magic Room" and its a whole video segment on Atari Computer Camps, I need to convert it over to my PC and post it.

 

 

 

Curt

 

Atari Computer Camp. Please email these people so they will release the videos.

 

http://www.offworld.com/2009/05/do-you-make-chiptunes-help-us.html#more

 

Allan

 

Would really love to see this if you have the time to convert it.

[VectorGamer]

Me three!

[Retro Rogue]

I've got the full Atari Camp brochure as well.

[atarian63]

I've got the full Atari Camp brochure as well.

Any chance of a scan of it?

[Retro Rogue]

I've got the full Atari Camp brochure as well.

Any chance of a scan of it?

 

 

Maybe if I watermark it heavily. Certain other people on here have a tendency to grab stuff and throw it up on their site, and I paid good bucks for this.

[darthkur]

I've got the full Atari Camp brochure as well.

Any chance of a scan of it?

 

 

Maybe if I watermark it heavily. Certain other people on here have a tendency to grab stuff and throw it up on their site, and I paid good bucks for this.

 

 

I just will never understand that. So what if people use the images on their sites? It still doesn't diminish the fact that you own the original pamphlet. I've seen images that were "heavily watermarked" to the point where any detail of the actual image was indiscernible. That's the same attitude with these horders of proto's and other rare games. "I spent a fortune for this so I'm the only one worthy of truly enjoying it". I truly loathe capitalism.

[Retro Rogue]

I've got the full Atari Camp brochure as well.

Any chance of a scan of it?

 

 

Maybe if I watermark it heavily. Certain other people on here have a tendency to grab stuff and throw it up on their site, and I paid good bucks for this.

 

 

I just will never understand that. So what if people use the images on their sites? It still doesn't diminish the fact that you own the original pamphlet. I've seen images that were "heavily watermarked" to the point where any detail of the actual image was indiscernible. That's the same attitude with these horders of proto's and other rare games. "I spent a fortune for this so I'm the only one worthy of truly enjoying it". I truly loathe capitalism.

 

Has nothing to do with capitalism. Those of us who are serious collectors and spend serious time and money on acquiring and archiving materials, actually don't mind sharing it with others. I regularly share my materials and items with others, including putting them on display at the MGC and licensing images at Wikipedia. Curt has and continues to share a ton of his archives as well. It's when the material is shared and then taken, with no credit or acknowledgment of said effort or expense and as if the taker owns it and could care less, that it pisses people like us off. And yes, it does diminish that. Our viewpoint - it's no different than an art gallery will prominently state "On loan from", or a museum will state "acquired by", or even a newspaper/magazine will state "from the collection of" under a photo. And I just will never understand how people as your self don't understand that.

Edited December 1, 2009 by wgungfu

[darthkur]

I've got the full Atari Camp brochure as well.

Any chance of a scan of it?

 

 

Maybe if I watermark it heavily. Certain other people on here have a tendency to grab stuff and throw it up on their site, and I paid good bucks for this.

 

 

I just will never understand that. So what if people use the images on their sites? It still doesn't diminish the fact that you own the original pamphlet. I've seen images that were "heavily watermarked" to the point where any detail of the actual image was indiscernible. That's the same attitude with these horders of proto's and other rare games. "I spent a fortune for this so I'm the only one worthy of truly enjoying it". I truly loathe capitalism.

 

Has nothing to do with capitalism. Those of us who are serious collectors and spend serious time and money on acquiring and archiving materials, actually don't mind sharing it with others. I regularly share my materials and items with others, including putting them on display at the MGC and licensing images at Wikipedia. Curt has and continues to share a ton of his archives as well. It's when the material is shared and then taken, with no credit or acknowledgment of said effort or expense and as if the taker owns it and could care less, that it pisses people like us off. And yes, it does diminish that. Our viewpoint - it's no different than an art gallery will prominently state "On loan from", or a museum will state "acquired by", or even a newspaper/magazine will state "from the collection of" under a photo. And I just will never understand how people as your self don't understand that.

 

 

 

I have no problem with giving credit to originators but I highly doubt that's the sole purpose of plastering watermarks all over things. I'm also quite aware of Curt's continuing kindness and hard work. It's obvious that we'll never see eye to eye on this subject and I certainly don't wish to create a huge "flame war" or whatever so I'll leave it at that.

[S1500]

I guess I'm just not understanding the need for person A to put their watermark on someone else's work.

[Retro Rogue]

I guess I'm just not understanding the need for person A to put their watermark on someone else's work.

 

It's not being put on the other person's work. It's being put on the image of the item in our collection that's being shared. Very simple again - it's no different than an art gallery will prominently state "On loan from", or a museum will state "acquired by", or even a newspaper/magazine will state "from the collection of" under a photo. Since we can't control people's honesty to source it like the above, we watermark it. Again, we spend lots of time, energy, effort, and money tracking these things down and caring for them. No different than a collector of fine art or an archiver at a museum. Now, I don't agree with people that watermark items to the point of making the item hard to see as darthkur pointed out, and in fact the watermarks Curt and I use don't diminish viewability. If you don't want the watermark, track one of these down your self or come to the MGC and I'll be happy to show it to you. (But you'll be required to put on latex gloves - oils from fingers can damage these over time, and yes I take my archiving seriously).

Edited December 1, 2009 by wgungfu

[Curt Vendel]

If others would track down and purchase the images themselves, buy a scanner, scan the images themselves - instead of roaming the net, stealing images, videos and other people's work off of their sites to put their own - then watermarks wouldn't be necessary.

 

Most sites have simple disclaimers about using images and content without requesting permission - this too is ignored by content & image thieves who just help themselves to anything on the net without asking "oh gosh - its on the internet, so it must be free"

 

That same mentality spills over into pirated software, stolen mp3's and just about anything else because people feel entitled, that if they want it, they should just be able to take it without looking at who and what they are hurting. This whole "free-lunch" mentality is the reason for watermarks - sure the image can still be used, but at least now the thief shows where they stole their content from.

 

I try to balance protecting my property vs. allowing people to enjoy it - I embed hidden markers or do very light watermarks so that the overall image can be viewed with little obstruction.

 

Curt

 

I guess I'm just not understanding the need for person A to put their watermark on someone else's work.

[Hatta]

Do you own the copyright to these pamphlets? If not, it's pretty disingenuous to scold others for "stealing images".

[Hatta]

It's worth pointing out the following from Wikipedia

 

Another class of uncreative works which are unable to claim copyright protection in the U.S. are those resulting from mechanical reproduction. Following Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph. Many other countries (but not all!) recognize a similar ineligibility for copyright for reproductive photographs of two-dimensional public domain works

-snip-

Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph. If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images.

 

If the pamphlets are in the public domain, so are your scans. If the pamphlet's copyright is held by Atari(or whoever) and you claim fair use, then Atari owns the copyright on your scans and anyone else can claim fair use. If you own the copyright, my apologies, watermark away and license them however you wish.

[Retro Rogue]

LOL, it's not even remotely related to a copyright law issue or violation, but thanks for your attempt at input. Museums, archives, galleries, etc., routinely protect distribution of images of items in their collections all the time. And they don't take to kindly to people stealing their images either and do require credit to what archive, etc. the photo or scan of the item came from as well. A copyright violation would be if a) There still was a copyright on said item (which there is not), b) said terms of active copyright included permission of reproduction (such as what the NFL does with it's broadcasts). In this case, it's specifically of an item of promotional nature for archival purposes - which the US copyright office does make exemptions for, both in print and recording. We regularly work with the current Atari providing them access to much of this material they no longer have access to themselves, including working with legal on help determining what they do and do not own property wise when they request. We take these matters and our relationship with them very seriously, and so do they. If they had an issue with anything we were archiving or presenting said archive to the public, they'd make no bones about telling us. They know what we do, and that's specifically why they come to us.

Edited December 1, 2009 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

If the pamphlets are in the public domain, so are your scans.

 

etc. etc.

 

LOL, Wikipedia. LOL, selective interpretation by a newbie. Not how it works. Besides the previous post regarding status and our permission, walk in to a private archive or museum and start snapping photographs of their collections or scans for reproduction without permission of the archive and see how well that works. In a public museum, such as the Library of Congress, that may be the case - but then that's why they designate themselves as public and put the onus on the requester to determine copyright. In a private collection or archive, you have every legal right to control access to said item, including how it (and any item in the private collection or the collection whole) is displayed, promoted, or reproduced. That includes watermarking images of the archive for public display to acknowledge the source of the item and image, or disallowing any reproduction of the display or item. The watermark is not to circumvent any copyright claims, rather to display ownership of said archival item and the source of the item on display. That's again exactly why items on loan from an archive or collection will also publicly state "from the collection of" or "on loan from". Plain fact, and I'll take my lawyer's words and the lawyers of archivists and museums across the globe over someone regurgitating and attempting to interpret Wikipedia any day.

Edited December 1, 2009 by wgungfu

[Hatta]

Well yes, a private museum can kick you out for taking pictures of their collection. What they can't do is pursue copyright claims against you for redistributing a photograph of a 2 dimensional work that they distributed. If a private museum published photographs of public domain artwork in their collection on their website, they would have no recourse against anyone who took that image and used it as they pleased.

 

Similarly, you are well within your rights to simply not display images of pamphlets in the public domain. You are also well within your rights to watermark any images you do display. But since that watermarked image is still in the public domain, I would be well within my rights to take that image and do whatever I want with it, with or without crediting the source. That's not "stealing images", it's completely legal.

 

I guess my point is this: Post or don't post, watermark or don't watermark. That's cool. Posting a public domain image and complaining when people use it, that's not cool. Calling people out for exercising their legal rights makes you look bad, not them.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Hatta

[Curt Vendel]

They are stealing someone's time and effort to acquire, pay for, scan, upload and present the images. Therefor they are stealing a persons time & work. It is not to say a person owns a copyright to the actual item, but they put a lot of their own time, money and effort, therefor in kind - some respect should be given not to just take the digital image that a person created without asking permission, in any case the point is completely moot --- watermarks shall stand and that is the end of the discussion.

 

 

Curt

 

Do you own the copyright to these pamphlets? If not, it's pretty disingenuous to scold others for "stealing images".

[Retro Rogue]

They are stealing someone's time and effort to acquire, pay for, scan, upload and present the images. Therefor they are stealing a persons time & work. It is not to say a person owns a copyright to the actual item, but they put a lot of their own time, money and effort, therefor in kind - some respect should be given not to just take the digital image that a person created without asking permission, in any case the point is completely moot --- watermarks shall stand and that is the end of the discussion.

 

 

Curt

 

 

Yes - "acquire, pay for, scan, upload and present the images" - and the continual upkeep, and storage. And in this case and many others Curt and I are involved in, these are one of a kind or very hard to find items where we are the sole available source. Just as with some of the other well known archivers and/or collectors who are maintaining one of a kind or very hard to find materials and items.

 

Regarding your claim, Hatta, on "Calling people out for exercising their legal rights makes you look bad, not them." It's actually the reverse. The people doing the appropriating are being unethical, unmoral and "pretty disingenuous". A violation of the archiver's "continuing kindness and hard work" (as the original person who questioned the watermarking practice acknowledged and worded it). Always love double standards by people like you. Such as with the recent person who tried to take some PDF's of internal documents that were kindly shared, remove the watermark, and present it as their own in their own gathered collection. This is the kind of activity and attitude that makes "people hoarders of proto's and other rare games" and unique archival material such as this.

Edited December 2, 2009 by wgungfu

[Reaperman]

Atari camp?

I get the feeling that's how child molesters got at kids in those few years just before the internet.

basically send all the awkward kids to 'computer camp' where they can hang out with poorly adjusted adults. Glad I took my chances with the cub scouts instead. Though I doubt these continued late enough for me to attend anyway.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Reaperman

[S1500]

I remember reading an issue of Family Computing that had an article about computer camps. It looked, uh, strange. With the high cost my mom was quoted for computer camp, needless to say I wasn't going that year, or any year. Why do I have a feeling this worked out to be a blessing in disguise?

 

For the Family Computing article, I don't remember if it was specifically an "Atari" camp.

[+Allan]

If you do an internet search for Atari Camp you come up with people talking about going to Atari Camp when they were kids and having a positive experience. So it couldn't have been that bad.

 

Some how this thread didn't go in the direction I thought it would go.

 

Allan

[atarian63]

I guess I'm just not understanding the need for person A to put their watermark on someone else's work.

 

It's not being put on the other person's work. It's being put on the image of the item in our collection that's being shared. Very simple again - it's no different than an art gallery will prominently state "On loan from", or a museum will state "acquired by", or even a newspaper/magazine will state "from the collection of" under a photo. Since we can't control people's honesty to source it like the above, we watermark it. Again, we spend lots of time, energy, effort, and money tracking these things down and caring for them. No different than a collector of fine art or an archiver at a museum. Now, I don't agree with people that watermark items to the point of making the item hard to see as darthkur pointed out, and in fact the watermarks Curt and I use don't diminish viewability. If you don't want the watermark, track one of these down your self or come to the MGC and I'll be happy to show it to you. (But you'll be required to put on latex gloves - oils from fingers can damage these over time, and yes I take my archiving seriously).

Perfectly understandable, that makes good senseconsidering all the time and effort behind aquiring such items. just would be fun to read or see,that's all.

Edited December 2, 2009 by atarian63