Some FREE iShow Frames

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White-Light

Well its different with films because the Apple Final Cut programme isn't a display programme but a creation programme. If you were to use the stock footage to create content in another programme then Apple would certainly object.

---

I think we are talking about two different things here, you are referring to the distribution of pangolin frames for ishow, I was talking about the license pangolin gives which would prohibit the distribution/sale of any show that includes any of the included "stock" frames...

if I create a show in pangolin using the included stock frames and give it to whoever I want, that is not ok
if I create a video in final cut pro using the included stock frames and give it to whoever I want, that IS ok

thats all I am trying to say

I understand where you're coming from as I'm all for distribution where allowed.

I'm about to release 22 Beam Cues for Quick Show some of which are very nice. I could easily have packaged these up and sold them on ebay. Instead they will be available to download for free to the entire community and all Quick Show Users ( I would have included LD users but can't get QS to output to LDS properly).

However, re-read my post above about Pangolin vs Final Cut. The difference is in the purposes in that example. Pangolin is primarily about displaying, Final Cut is about creation. I would imagine if Final Cuts primary purpose was playback, you'd find exactly the same restrictions on content usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White-Light

Pangolin is primarily about displaying, Final Cut is about creation. I would imagine if Final Cuts primary purpose was playback, you'd find exactly the same restrictions on content usage.

---

maybe livepro could be considered a display only app.... but showtime and the frame editor are creation tools... timeline based just like final cut... instead of video its laser frames... and you can print to ADAT from pangolin the same way you would print to tape from final cut...

I don't run any of my shows from the pangolin during a prerecorded show, they all playback from ADAT... more reliable

Hey there Fränk-o -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flecom

ya but I cant give an ADAT to a planetarium to playback either... unless they own a pangolin system...

---

Mmm, AFAIK, this, specifically, would not be a breach of the Lic. Agreement, if you're delivering a system designed for playback-only, and certainly, most planetariums won't be astute-enough to be 'R-E'ing' the ADAT-tracks back-into ILDA-format / re-selling as frames for their own-gain...

Now, if they took, say, 4-5 show tapes, and 'mixed' up their own dubs, started making copies, and 'resold' those, well, perhaps that would be an issue. But, it would not be an 'issue' just-because they, themselves, did not own a QM2K sys.... It would be because they were profiting-from selling others' artwork, that is still bound by your 'extension' of the Pango Lic. agreement, which, to that point, had been adhered-to, as far as you making shows for them would-allow (which is where the 'extension' would 'end'...)

Of course, if you, yourself, created 100% of the show-content / all-frames, etc and TOLD them it was 'OK to re-sell', as profit for them, well that's your own deale-o. Such an agreement would *not* require them to own Pango to be free to re-sell your frames.

As an artist, I don't feel Pango's Lic. agreement is restrictive or 'totalitarian', because, remember, the agreement that Pango shares with us, is based-upon what 'rights' the original-artists give to them. So, saying 'you can't re-sell / distribute these frames out on the open-market', for use with Mamba, Full Auto, Phoenix, whatever, is not so-much Pangolin, as it-is the artist, themselves, 'restricting' you.

Illuminating the artists' feelings, one step further, is when some shows / frames are 'secured', not allowing you to export as ILDA or, in some cases, even 'cut-n-paste' to make-up other shows, etc - they can restrict to only-allow playback, and that's it - again, that's not Pango, but the artist. :)

Gary / John :D -
re: the 'logo' discussion - a question to ponder: Why did 'Campbells' not go-after Andy Warhol? Especially when his extremely-literal use (not at all 'interpretive', ie, like a 'Picasso', etc...) of their designs and trademark - was later-sold for millions? And yes, Campbells and the Warhol Foundation now do-have a 'licensing-agreement' between-them, but this was, and is, really more-about 'protecting' Andy's werk, not so-much Campbells...

...As one guy on a forum put it, "After a brief period of WTF, Campbell's decided it loved Andy Warhol. It meant that Campbell's was an icon of American life. Whatever else Warhol was, he had his finger on the pulse of America." Amen. :)

Point I'm making, isn't use of a VW logo (and / or Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Coke, Pepsi, etc, etc etc) in a laser-show - pretty-much the 'same thing' that Andy did? All the logo-files, that come-with Pango-lib were created by, well, some artist. Granted, not for the same 'reasons' as Andy did Campbells, but you see the thinking?

It would be different if Pango-CD came with a folder of *original* Corporate artwork in Illustrator format or eps's etc. But all those logos are not - they're artworks - albeit very 'literal'...just like Warhol's 'Campbells Soup Cans'. :cool: Especially, if its' use in a laser-show is at the request of a 'sponsor / dealer', etc (or, sometimes, the manufacturer, themselves - ie: laser-show for IBM or subsidiary or Coke or VW, etc) whom clearly would already have the-rights to display the logo in a variety of 'public-display' settings / media, etc...

So, I have to respectfully-disagree with both of the arguments based-on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flecom

also some of the frames pangolin comes with are copyrighted logos that I kind of doubt they have the owners permission to distribute to begin with

---

...cause Pangolin did get the artists' permission to include those 'interpretations' with the library. "...yeah, but maybe the artist didn't get permission!", you say?...neither did Andy.. :cool:

Yes, while they do 'add value' to the Pango-product (like Karl pointed-out - saves us a *lot* of time, sometimes...) have *any* of those Co's 'suffered any-sort of loss' because of the artwork that is included? Like Adam said, they sure ain't 'makin a buck off of selling laser-logos' - most people are after the SHOWS.. not too many laser-shows *based* on the 'VW logo', as a design-element... :)

Now, if 'VW' (or, whatever Co.) specifically, got on Pango's case about distributing some artists' tracing of their logo...well, then I guess they'd have something to talk about / decide-on for the next release... :) But I'd wager that most MegaCorps, like VW, would most-likely say - as-did Campbells - 'no harm, no foul'... 'Bootleg T-shirts and keychains' are one-thing, but as a Bug-owner, myself, I'd imagine VW, specifically, would only-smile at the 'coolness' of seeing the logo - if done-well - in a laser show... :cool:

OK, I'll shut-up, now.. :)

peas
j

You're just making up assumptions about the logos. All you have to do is read the license information I provided. Those companies definitely have the right to come down on anyone using their logos without permission if they don't fit into their terms. The companies own the logos and they each have their own set of terms. Whether or not the company decides to enforce protection of their trademark is case by case decision that only the company will decide. You can't say that it is OK to distribute frames because most companies will be flattered by it because not every company will. And you can't say they are being distributed as art because they aren't, they are simply being distributed as traced laser logos.

It boils down to either having permission to use the trademarked logos or not. The companies specifically state, in both the VW and IBM examples I provided, that if you want to use their logo you have to at least ask for permission. Maybe they will grant it, but if you don't ask, you don't have permission, and you are setting yourself up for a lawyer visit IF THE COMPANY SO DECIDES. That's the facts.

Hey Sir G -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnYayas

You're just making up assumptions about the logos. All you have to do is read the license information I provided. Those companies definitely have the right to come down on anyone using their logos without permission if they don't fit into their terms.

---

OK, maybe using 'VW' and / or IBM was not the best 'example' - I just picked on those, cause you had brought them up... No-question, they retain full-sovereignty over their own ID / brand.. And, to your point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnYayas

The companies own the logos and they each have their own set of terms. Whether or not the company decides to enforce protection of their trademark is case by case decision that only the company will decide.

---

Totally agreed. Campbells could very-well have sued the living-daylights out of Warhol.. (or, at least spent a boat-load of $$ trying...) :) But they didn't; Why? Cause it was seen-as "art", despite being highly-literal, practically a reproduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnYayas

You can't say that it is OK to distribute frames...

---

Umm, small digression to 'clarify' - I'm *not* defending 'wanton' distribution of anyones logos, and/or laser-frames - just so that's clear - I was 'defending' Pango's position to do-so, and only-because:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnYayas

And you can't say they are being distributed as art because they aren't, they are simply being distributed as traced laser logos.

---

Let's agree to disagree, here. :cool: Assuming you've studied the Pango art-library / chronicled-it in your head, then you know that many, many of the 'corporate logos', are, in-fact 'stylized' / 'interpretive' - ie: Pannon Lasers' art, IIRC, is usually very 'painterly', with lots of color-modding - not 100% 'literal' at all.. and, PDI, also contributed a bunch of corp logos they 'created' in raster format... And a laser-show is, really, the only 'practical-place' these logo-frames *can* be used - can't use them for print, video (well not anything useful, really) signage, TV, billboards, embroidery, keychains, etc etc...

In both cases - that's their artwork - NOT saying it's their *logo* / brand, and neither are they. Just saying, they 'created' that laser-frame as 'artwork' - traced, or not - they still went-in, optimised, colorized / shaded, converted to raster / optimised some more, etc... Exact-same 'process' Warhol used for the Soup cans, and much-else - traced off-of photos, then 'stylized' to his style.

OK, fine - that's *one* example - in that-case, Campbells thought better of trying to 'sue', which, most-likely would have ended up thrown-out / never going to trial, etc... And WHY that probably would have-been true, is the 'point' of my 'point'. There was clearly no competition, no 'diminished market-share', no 'damages' of any-kind, from Warhols work, and the trademark-law, standing as it would-have, would most-likely not have 'thrown the book' at Andy.

Likewise, I am merely opinning, that Pango does not 'sin' against those Corp's for distributing what tantamounts to 'Andy's Soup Cans' (metaphorically-speaking, here) not cause Campbells (the Big Corp) 'gave them (Pango) permission' - but cause 'Andy', the creator of the artwork, albeit highly-literal - gave them permission to use his art...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnYayas

It boils down to either having permission to use the trademarked logos or not. ...but if you don't ask, you don't have permission, and you are setting yourself up for a lawyer visit IF THE COMPANY SO DECIDES. That's the facts.

---

No dispute whatsoever - again, Campbells very-well *could-have* shut Andy-down. But, they didn't. Seems-like, if the Corp-world was gonna have a 'big problem' with Pango over all the artwork, therein, we would have heard-about / seen it blow-up, by-now...

Anyhoo, what Pango does with a few pieces of laser-art of Corp-logos, IMO, is still a GULF-away from what was going-on at the beginning of this thread / why-for all the ruckus.... IMO... :cool:

Been up all nite transfering files n' I gotta go sleep...
peace...

j

I don't think we are far off from agreeing. Actually, I have not seen Pangolin's set of frame so I don't know what they are offering. But, my point has nothing to do with Pangolin or any specific laser company. I only mentioned them as an example if in fact they do have copies of logos offered in their frame sets. I do know of another laser software package that includes straight copies of several logos and I am pretty sure they are breaking the law.

Keep in mind that Warhol wasn't making copies of Cambell's soup labels and selling them to people so that they could make commercials, movies, etc. Not much controversy there.

On the other hand, imagine if he made artisitic copies of the Cambell's labels and started selling them specifically as representions of the Cambell's logo so that people could use them on billboards, bumper stickers, or wherever. I am pretty sure Campbell would have something to say about that and rightfully so. This seems to be the same category that ILDA frames of trademarked logos falls into. At least thats the way I see it.

I guess as a test I could include my own rendition of the "P" Pangolin logo in Spaghetti and see what kind of response I get from Bill. :) Kidding, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsli_jon

Mmm, AFAIK, this, specifically, would not be a breach of the Lic. Agreement, if you're delivering a system designed for playback-only, and certainly, most planetariums won't be astute-enough to be 'R-E'ing' the ADAT-tracks back-into ILDA-format / re-selling as frames for their own-gain...

---

not so sure about that, the license agreement does not mention anything about playback only...

you could argue that once they are printed to ADAT they are not really "frames" but not sure how that would go over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnYayas

IBM is another example and I'll link to their page that describe use of their content and fair use. An IBM ilda frame most definitely does not fit into their definition of fair use

---

Yes it does. An ILDA frame is art. Now, if you use an ILDA frame of the IBM logo to promote your business (as in, "we sell computers too, even though we're not the real IBM"), then IBM has a case and will go after you. But just having the logo in place as a display example of what a laser projector is capable of? No way.

Case in point: Google "IBM Logo Art". You'll get dozens of web pages that prominently display the IBM logo despite the fact that they have *NOTHING* to do with IBM. Now, if that is infringing upon IBM's trademark, why haven't they done anything about it? Because they know that they can't... It's covered under fair use.

Here's a quote from the publaw site that explains trademark fair use as it applies to authors:

Quote:

---

Fair use or nominative use may be recognized in those instances where a reader of a given work is clearly able to understand that the use of the trademark does not suggest sponsorship or association with the trademark owner's product or services and therefore is not being used in a manner to confuse the reader.

Generally, the use by an author of a trademark in a fictional work to describe or identify particular goods or services, such as "driving in my Ford", "eating a Hershey bar", "playing with my Beanie Baby" will not be considered an infringement as long as the use does not confuse the reader with respect to who actually owns the trademark. Trademark law also permits an author of a non-fiction work to include content that is favorable and/or critical of a trademark owner's products or services. In this type of work the author should only use the trademark to describe or identify the trademark owner's product or service and should be careful not to confuse the reader as to the actual provider of the trademark owner's products or services.

An author's use of a trademark for the above-referenced situations should be considered a non-confusing "nominative use" when it meets the following requirements:

(1) the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark;

(2) the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services; and

(3) the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.

---

Number 3 is the key. So long as you do not imply sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner with your use of the trademark, you are in the clear.

Adam

Yo... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flecom

not so sure about that, the license agreement does not mention anything about playback only...

---

I'm not implying you would *sell* them just a show tape with Library-content, only...if the ADAT / Show tapes were 'sold' as part of a Projector / install-package - (assuming there was, indeed a .net / QM2K, or at least an FB3, etc, as part of that) you should be golden...

However, wisely, you could make the Client sign-something, that says 'they're not authorized to copy / re-sell those show tapes', but for 'playback-only', AFAIK, in this above-scenario, making them new show tapes, w/ Lib-content, would not be an issue....

...Or, were you saying 'I don't like that I can't sell an ADAT / show-tapes with Lib-content to someone that only has a laser / pair of galvos' ie? If so, well... 'tis what 'tis.. :cool:

peas..
j