Forums > MobyGames > Watermarks......
Magus_X (111) on 9/20/2009 1:37 PM · Permalink · Report
I have to say, this site is achieving things that no other site on the web is even close to in terms of creating a comprehensive game database. It's great there is such a deluge of info for any given game collected all in one place, because otherwise, at least for a good majority of games, this content would not be available at all, and would eventually be lost to obscurity entirely. The only thing that bothers me is the watermarking of box/cover shots and disc/cartridge scans. Why is this necessary? I realize that this is your site and everything, but most of the content is contributed by the public, so technically it doesn't "belong" to anyone. Some even cover up writing or publishers logos so that you cannot even tell what it is. Isn't this kind of going against the whole "accurate database" thing? I know you guys are very picky about the scans you accept, which is great because high quality or nothing is definitely the way to go, but you are defeating the purpose by taking a HQ scan and then purposely adding a huge blemish to it. What if many years down the road, there really are no more physical copies of a particular game in existence, and the only archived images of the box and media is MobyGames, and now it has a big watermark on it. It would be a tragedy. This is a pretty probable hypothetical situation, I foresee MobyGames outlasting any other similar sites. If you must add the logo, at least give some kind of incentive to users who have contributed a certain amount of content, to have the watermarks disabled, whereas non-contributors and users who still have only contributed a small amount (like me at the moment, but I'll get there) will only be able to view these images with the watermark. Other than this issue the site is GREAT! Please keep up the good work and thanks for listening to my rant.
Xoleras (66137) on 9/20/2009 1:52 PM · Permalink · Report
Actually, there are multiple instances of an image in the database.
From the preview thumbnail you see on the cover section, over the big (640*whatever) cover you see, and finally to the original image submitted (stored at the back-end). The two first types have the watermark, but the originals are stored as they are (without a watermark), so nothing is lost.
That's that, but on the other hand: assuming we are here (for 10 years) and a new sites just approaches without any content and hearing them think "why growing our own site from scratch if we could copy an existing site 1:1?". As this actually already happened (well, might not be 1:1, but it was a huge copy action), I'm glad we have the watermarks.
And to be honest, as a user I don't mind the watermarks. I probably just got used to it. =)
DJP Mom (11333) on 9/20/2009 2:27 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xoleras wrote--]
And to be honest, as a user I don't mind the watermarks. I probably just got used to it. =) [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--] The watermarks don't bother me, either - in general they're hardly noticeable (except on electronic covers). The only way I can see them being annoying is to someone who wants to copy something to submit it somewhere else!
Magus_X (111) on 9/21/2009 11:15 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xoleras wrote--] That's that, but on the other hand: assuming we are here (for 10 years) and a new sites just approaches without any content and hearing them think "why growing our own site from scratch if we could copy an existing site 1:1?". As this actually already happened (well, might not be 1:1, but it was a huge copy action), I'm glad we have the watermarks. [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--]
You do make a good point, I was thinking more about the general public. Like me for instance, I use a lot of these for my GameEx frontend. I wish people weren't so unscrupulous! Who was it that pulled stuff from MobyGames btw?
Indra was here (20752) on 9/24/2009 2:00 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Magus_X wrote--]The only thing that bothers me is the watermarking of box/cover shots and disc/cartridge scans. Why is this necessary? I realize that this is your site and everything, but most of the content is contributed by the public, so technically it doesn't "belong" to anyone. [/Q --end Magus_X wrote--] Imagine someone photographing a game with a camera. An electronic image is something like that. We're the photographers that give our photos to MG. We retain the copyrights of the photos originally own, but MG owns the photos they publish in the website.
Problem with intellectual property is that the very nature of the internet is to totally disregard it. :p
Ozzie Mandrill (307) on 9/26/2009 10:04 PM · Permalink · Report
Hm. So, as I understand it, the watermarks were added so that people won't copy the images for their own websites? I always suspected that watermarks on box covers were added so that eBay sellers can't just use the images without being clear that they were taken from a website. On the other hand, there are many sites out there that provide cover shots without watermarks, maybe not for the very rare titles, but for many. So it wouldn't be a great idea anyway.
I didn't realize that people were so protective about the cover shots and screenshots here. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone took them for their own site. I upload stuff here to make the games more visible, to show what they are about or that they even exist! So that they can be found. The more the information is spread around, the better in my eyes. I don't want to protect it and keep it closed to this single site.
I mean, really, that's my motivation. I also don't find the thought productive that every single site would have to scan their own cover art, create their own screenshots...why should they do the same work again if it had already be done? It would be wasted time and effort for no productive outcome whatsoever. Also, is it really in our right, morally or otherwise, to protect these images? It's not like we created them, we just captured them. The copyright for the cover art and the game contents that are displayed in the screenshots belongs to the companies that published/developed them.
DJP Mom (11333) on 9/26/2009 10:46 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ozzie Mandrill wrote--] I didn't realize that people were so protective about the cover shots and screenshots here. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone took them for their own site. [/Q --end Ozzie Mandrill wrote--] You are also not emotionally invested in this site the way the founders and admins are. You haven't built it up from scratch to 47 thousand games for the sheer love of videogames...you've made your contributions, all of us have, but not the way Trixter, Brian, David Berk and Rob (and now Sciere and Xoleras & others?) have.
Personally, I would object to someone taking my work and trying to pass it off as his own (nobody wants the kiddie games, tho :)), particularly if I spent a great deal of time on it.
Ozzie Mandrill (307) on 9/26/2009 11:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Hm, that's more an emotional argument than a rational one.
Well, I surely contributed "for the sheer love of videogames" like you said, and for nothing else. As a collector, I also think it's my duty to inform other people of the rare titles that are out there. I don't question the work that went into this site. But I doubt my opinion would change if I would be more invested in it.
Of course, I would also object if someone took the credit for something he didn't do. As I understand there may be people that wouldn't give credit if the watermarks were removed. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Of course, it's common sense to credit the people that invested the time and effort, on the other hand, as a database, and kinda a public service people are doing here, or I feel I'm doing at least, I'm just not sure why you would be so eager to keep the images bound on this site.
Oh well...at least I seem to be able to follow the reasoning now.
Indra was here (20752) on 9/27/2009 7:29 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ozzie Mandrill wrote--][1] Hm. So, as I understand it, the watermarks were added so that people won't copy the images for their own websites?
[2] I didn't realize that people were so protective about the cover shots and screenshots here. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone took them for their own site. I upload stuff here to make the games more visible, to show what they are about or that they even exist! So that they can be found. The more the information is spread around, the better in my eyes. I don't want to protect it and keep it closed to this single site.
[3] I mean, really, that's my motivation. I also don't find the thought productive that every single site would have to scan their own cover art, create their own screenshots...why should they do the same work again if it had already be done? It would be wasted time and effort for no productive outcome whatsoever.
[4] Also, is it really in our right, morally or otherwise, to protect these images? It's not like we created them, we just captured them. The copyright for the cover art and the game contents that are displayed in the screenshots belongs to the companies that published/developed them. [/Q --end Ozzie Mandrill wrote--] [1] Yes. And add the line "used for commercia or public consumption without the consent of the copyright holder (MG). MG actually is very linient as long as people ask. Most however, do not..
[2] Not really a matter of being protective, but more a matter of the requirement set by MG via contractual consent of the users [e.g. click here if you accept the terms and conditions of this site]. Whether or not the person(s) are aware or not of this contractual obligation isn't our problem.
Each site has their own rules. It depends on each person to actually bother to figure out what those rules are.
[3] Ask that question again when you've maintained a website with 100,000 cover-art (among others) for over 5 years and one day find that a website copied all your stuff in 3 hours. Many users devoted their hearts and souls for this website in their free time. Many of which don't want some random newbie website to disrespect all their hard work.
[4] The law however states otherwise. Laws also have this nice abiity to overrule personal discretion.
Magus_X (111) on 9/27/2009 11:18 AM · Permalink · Report
Wow I seem to have stirred the pot a bit here. But you all have made valid points as to why the watermarks are there. However on the other hand I see where Ozzie was coming from, that was my thinking that the contributers here are doing a public service to make the info as accessible as possible, and therefor it is not productive to keep them bound to the site. But then again I can definitely see how those that have contributed so much would not be happy to see it ripped off in a matter of days. In any case, I am just glad that a site like MobyGames is around in the first place, and am happy to contribute what I can.
Zeppin (8407) on 9/27/2009 1:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Magus_X wrote--]However on the other hand I see where Ozzie was coming from, that was my thinking that the contributers here are doing a public service to make the info as accessible as possible, and therefor it is not productive to keep them bound to the site. But then again I can definitely see how those that have contributed so much would not be happy to see it ripped off in a matter of days. In any case, I am just glad that a site like MobyGames is around in the first place, and am happy to contribute what I can. [/Q --end Magus_X wrote--] If the user is borrowing bits and pieces from MobyGames then they end up with an incomplete set of information, if they're borrowing the entire database then why not simply contribute to the already existent database? Obviously this doesn't apply to fan sites and similar, but there is/was a website which used an automated progress to mine the entire database without crediting it or the contributors responsible.
Indra was here (20752) on 10/1/2009 10:41 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Magus_X wrote--]Wow I seem to have stirred the pot a bit here. But you all have made valid points as to why the watermarks are there. However on the other hand I see where Ozzie was coming from, that was my thinking that the contributers here are doing a public service to make the info as accessible as possible, and therefor it is not productive to keep them bound to the site. [/Q --end Magus_X wrote--] No worries. These types of questions are valid and we (most of us) try to the best of our ability to answer these questions (mood depending :p) to avoid incorrect assumptions. Noted that this as far as utopists are concerned, is not a popular perspective. But we aren't paying the bills so...
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 10/7/2009 4:44 PM · Permalink · Report
In the twisty world of copyright and IP, often something that is not aggressively defended can be claimed by someone else and, uh, aggressively defended. Sometimes if you don't claim "ownership" other parties can and then deny you free use to your own material. Watermarking helps circumvent this to some extent.