> PD, if you're so willing to let go of the playfield image that you got from KidC
> and cleaned up for use in his version of Dr. Who, why don't you? From what i
Would you prefer I release the table with no Playfield? It's not like I have another one sitting right here to use at the moment.
One thing you seem to be forgetting here is that I already HAVE and can USE this version of Dr. Who. The ONLY question here is whether you, Krellan or anyone else will ever see it. I'm not going to buy a flyer off of E-Bay so that YOU will feel better about using a playfield photo I know I have just as much right to use as KC has (i.e. NONE from a copyright perspective). Furthermore the REASONS *KC* gave that justify his "owning" them for the purposes of VPForums is that he:
1> Acquired the image
2> He modified the image
3> He cleaned up the image
Because he did these three things, he feels he "owns" that flyer image.
Well, guess what? I acquired, modified and cleaned up that image as well. I guess I'm the new owner by his WARPED logic. Williams had better start paying me to make those flyers from now on.... Can you see how ridiculous that logic is? So he got the image from a supposed "friend." The only difference here is that KC isn't my friend then? If we both got the same image from someone's web site, it'd be OK, but because I didn't call up KC's friend first, it's now NOT OK? Right. It's OK to rip images from anonymous web sites, but it's not OK to rip them from KC's table. Yeah, I got that logic squared away. It's OK to steal images from strangers or large corporations but not from fellow VPM authors. Yup, makes sense.
What you basically seem to want is for me to buy a flyer and scan it myself, clean it up all over again and then give you the table afterwards just the same. You don't want to do any work to help make this table a reality, but you want me to do EXTRA work and maybe even lay out some cash so that YOU can feel better about using my table that you get free of charge. Well that's some pretty far out logic.
> point was that, he got someone to scan the flyer in for him. and it's his
> "scan" to do with as he wishes. and if that means not allowing someone to use it
> for other purposes, then he's free to do that..
Well then he better damn well not use the cleaned up photo I sent him because I sure as heck didn't clean it up so he could act like a total shit about its usage.
My use of that image is more than "fair" by the fact I did more work on it than him by far (using his own logic of how and why he "owns" it). There's a difference between behaving fairly and behaving like a total shit you know.
>What's so hard to understand
> about that? The fact that you keep blabbering on and
There's nothing hard about it. It's still flawed because it implies it's OK for him to rip the image from Williams while at the same time it's wrong for me to rip the image from his table, even though I modified it far more than he modified it from the original flyer. That's what you call the personal self exception rule. "YOU are not allowed to do 'this', but *I* am because I say so." That's your logic (and KC's) there in a nutshell.