Spectrum Computing

toot_toot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:01 pm He’s stated he’s fine with people using Horace and other IPs he owns, except if they’re sold commercially that the company makes a donation to charity instead of the license fee.

Frankly this sounds quite reasonable to me...

Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:16 am

toot_toot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:01 pm He’s stated he’s fine with people using Horace and other IPs he owns, except if they’re sold commercially that the company makes a donation to charity instead of the license fee.

Frankly this sounds quite reasonable to me...

And me too. Very reasonable.

However, we can't ignore the fact that the aggressive policing of the Horace IP regarding Octavius is well out of order and concerns about sexualising Horace are just plain weird. It's one local example, but it's generally concerning. He's seen the response - a bewilderment of horny horaces all over twitter and ill-will towards his own commercial projects. I hope he's capable of realising he's massively dropped a bollock and learns accordingly.

toot_toot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:01 pm I think asking WoS to remove Automata games might be retaliation for Lee’s alleged involvement during the Vega+ campaign.

There's nothing "alleged" about it. Mel Croucher spoke to The Register anonymously about not being paid over Automata games on the Vega, then Fogarty went and named him on twitter. Mark Cale of System 3 also had his games taken down because Fogarty was going around saying Cale was lying about not being paid.

R-Tape wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:17 am
And me too. Very reasonable.

However, we can't ignore the fact that the aggressive policing of the Horace IP regarding Octavius is well out of order and concerns about sexualising Horace are just plain weird. It's one local example, but it's generally concerning. He's seen the response - a bewilderment of horny horaces all over twitter and ill-will towards his own commercial projects. I hope he's capable of realising he's massively dropped a bollock and learns accordingly.

Yip. He also has the right to protect his trademarks, but it was the manner he did it in that grates.
Incidently, you can see his other trademarks at https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmown ... 8&domain=1
Look at the state of that Manic Miner logo and sprite. FFS!
Here’s what I think about all this. I thi [REDACTED]

I think the overreaction to this is the thing that annoys me. He got in touch with YouTube because he was unhappy how his IP was being used. It wasn't because he owns the IP and doesn't want anyone to use it or he wanted them taken down for commercial reasons. He was unhappy how it was being used in a sexual manner. That's his prerogative. YouTube then issued copyright strikes against Octavius Kitten, how YouTube administers its copyright management might be very hard lined, but it's a company that deals with 300+ videos being uploaded a minute. It likely doesn't care or have time for a YouTuber that has under 10k views per video.

However, the mob like thinking to then attack him, including threats of physical violence, when he hadn't even given his side of the story, unfortunately is a sad reflection of British retro gaming. It's also sad that one of the "good guys" when it comes to IP is now being attacked. He was behind the original Vega and The 64, he's clearly stated he's happy for any of his IP to be used as long as there is a charitable donation if the game is sold commercially and yet there's a mob mentality to hound him out.

toot_toot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 am I think the overreaction to this is the thing that annoys me. He got in touch with YouTube because he was unhappy how his IP was being used. It wasn't because he owns the IP and doesn't want anyone to use it or he wanted them taken down for commercial reasons. He was unhappy how it was being used in a sexual manner.

Don't you think that's absurd? Anyway, I don't even recall there being anything that saucy.

That's his prerogative.

And with hindsight (surprised it's needed to be honest!), has he judged the mood of a significant portion of his potential customer base well?

toot_toot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 am It's also sad that one of the "good guys" when it come to IP

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here. *shrug*

redballoon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:07 am

toot_toot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 am It's also sad that one of the "good guys" when it come to IP

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here. *shrug*

I guess we will have to agree to disagree!

He has stated he is more than happy with any IP he owns can be used, as long as his company is credited and if it's a commercial release, that his company's license fees are donated to charity. If he does continue with that approach, then at least he's acquired some IP that are now free from being exploited from the likes of the company that bought the Head over Heels licence, amongst others, or the likes of Tim Langdell who claimed to own the rights to the use of the name "Edge" in anything to do with games. Hopefully Andrews continues with that viewpoint and this incident hasn't made him change his mind.

I'd much rather see IP rights being bought up by someone who is part of the retro community and is happy with the games being freely distributed, but any commercial usage needs to be donated to charity. Or else we end up with someone like Atari suing everyone under the sun, like for using Breakout in a Kit Kat advert!

This thing about charities donations is just an excuse. GRRRR

Why can't people move on and create new stuff ? Specially if the old stuff is troublesome or negative.
Move on and create an original character, with no problems attached, and make your videos, games, etc. in peace.

Why can't people move on and create new stuff ? Specially if the old stuff is troublesome or negative.

Because people still care about Sabreman, Horace, Miner Willy and Monty Mole.

But they won't care about Cutlassboy, Virgilio, Fred the Milkman and Bobby Badger

4thRock wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:51 am Why can't people move on and create new stuff ? Specially if the old stuff is troublesome or negative.
Move on and create an original character, with no problems attached, and make your videos, games, etc. in peace.

Because it's mostly about nostalgia.

I would add characters like Horace are true 80s icons.

People need to take a closer look at the Miner Willy sprite image he's trademarked. A really close look.

Another land grab. The thing about IP is that it stands for intellectual property. There is nothing intellectual about recent events.

toot_toot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 amHe got in touch with YouTube because he was unhappy how his IP was being used.

Hmm? Doesn't it contradict the idea that "he's fine with people using Horace and other IPs he owns, except if they’re sold commercially that the company makes a donation to charity instead of the license fee"?

toot_toot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 amYouTube then issued copyright strikes against Octavius Kitten, how YouTube administers its copyright management might be very hard lined, but it's a company that deals with 300+ videos being uploaded a minute. It likely doesn't care or have time for a YouTuber that has under 10k views per video.

Hmm? If he registered an IP complain at YouTube, did he expect Youtube do do anything different?

ZXDunny wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:50 pm People need to take a closer look at the Miner Willy sprite image he's trademarked. A really close look.

This is hilarious. Whoever took this and laid claim to it is obviously not a real spectrum fan. This stuff should just be in the public domain now anyway.

Maybe the changes were done on purpose, to avoid copyright issues with the existing art. Why else go to the trouble of modifying the logo and the loading screen colours?

That way he can sell merchandise or whatever using the modified art without getting into trouble, and people who don't look too closely will accept it as the original.

It's because the original is just too damn sexy.

Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:43 pm

toot_toot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:01 amHe got in touch with YouTube because he was unhappy how his IP was being used.

Hmm? Doesn't it contradict the idea that "he's fine with people using Horace and other IPs he owns, except if they’re sold commercially that the company makes a donation to charity instead of the license fee"?

Apparently this person and her assistant were also involved in making and selling soft toy Horaces for £35 each, had previously agreed to make a donation to the MS Society and then gone back on that agreement claiming Andrews didn't own the ip. It's nowhere near as clear-cut and out of the blue that the Youtuber originally inferred it was.

StooB wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:20 am Apparently this person and her assistant were also involved in making and selling soft toy Horaces for £35 each, had previously agreed to make a donation to the MS Society and then gone back on that agreement claiming Andrews didn't own the ip. It's nowhere near as clear-cut and out of the blue that the Youtuber originally inferred it was.

I think it needs to be made clear that 2 people here aren't connected other than just being friends and that these are 2 separate "incidents". The person making the plushies isn't an assistant. There are elements where it's now coming down to who you believe - facts being distorted and/or ignored.

You're right, it's never clear cut, and not just from the YouTuber point of view either.

StooB wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:20 am

Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:43 pm Hmm? Doesn't it contradict the idea that "he's fine with people using Horace and other IPs he owns, except if they’re sold commercially that the company makes a donation to charity instead of the license fee"?

Apparently this person and her assistant were also involved in making and selling soft toy Horaces for £35 each, had previously agreed to make a donation to the MS Society and then gone back on that agreement claiming Andrews didn't own the ip. It's nowhere near as clear-cut and out of the blue that the Youtuber originally inferred it was.

They're two completely separate cases, dude. Octy made videos and didn't sell anything. The soft toys happened a while back and was nothing to do with Octavius.

ZXDunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:19 pm

StooB wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:20 am Apparently this person and her assistant were also involved in making and selling soft toy Horaces for £35 each, had previously agreed to make a donation to the MS Society and then gone back on that agreement claiming Andrews didn't own the ip. It's nowhere near as clear-cut and out of the blue that the Youtuber originally inferred it was.

They're two completely separate cases, dude. Octy made videos and didn't sell anything. The soft toys happened a while back and was nothing to do with Octavius.

I don’t think that’s quite true, although it’s difficult to get the entire story behind this. Paul Andrews said in his statement that Retro Princess was acting as a main point of contact for Octavius Kitten. Paul Andrews contacted Retro Princess about having a charitable donation if they continued making the Horace plushy. He also told Retro Princess he wasn’t happy how Horace was being used in Octavius Kittens video. He may have presumed, rightly or wrongly, that the information was going back to Octavius Kitten. But when he was blocked from contacting Retro Princess after being told she disputed he owned the IP, he then issued the takedowns.

But there is definitely more to this than on the surface, from all parties involved.

toot_toot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:45 pm

ZXDunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:19 pm They're two completely separate cases, dude. Octy made videos and didn't sell anything. The soft toys happened a while back and was nothing to do with Octavius.

I don’t think that’s quite true, although it’s difficult to get the entire story behind this. Paul Andrews said in his statement that Retro Princess was acting as a main point of contact for Octavius Kitten. Paul Andrews contacted Retro Princess about having a charitable donation if they continued making the Horace plushy. He also told Retro Princess he wasn’t happy how Horace was being used in Octavius Kittens video. He may have presumed, rightly or wrongly, that the information was going back to Octavius Kitten. But when he was blocked from contacting Retro Princess after being told she disputed he owned the IP, he then issued the takedowns.

But there is definitely more to this than on the surface, from all parties involved.

There's your problem right there. You said "if they continued" unless you're being uncharacteristically charitable and assigning a non-binary pronoun but something tells me that's not the case here.

Octavius was not involved in the soft toys thing. You're literally conflating the two issues. I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.

ZXDunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:43 pm There's your problem right there. You said "if they continued" unless you're being uncharacteristically charitable and assigning a non-binary pronoun but something tells me that's not the case here.

The "they" comes from Andrews' statement:

Andrews wrote:This person also acts as a point of contact for her friend a youtuber. They went on to make public statements they wished to find replacement retro characters to produce toys with but did not wish to make charity donations to others which might also request them.

Clearly Andrews believes she was involved.