Author Topic: New Wacky product  (Read 26047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DrDeal

  • Posts: 3420
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2014, 04:21:39 AM »
That would be cool, if they hadn't ripped off my archive of scans to create it.  Of course, I get why people respond so well to it, images of those wrappers are pretty unique and unusual... and many of them are mine.  The others he mined from CandyWrapperMuseum.com without permission, and Dan Goodsell's collection of images - also without asking permission.  

That damned puzzle ticks me off everytime I see it.  
[Edit:  That's their second candy wrapper puzzle - they stopped using my scans after their initial candy wrapper puzzle - the one that was their biggest seller ever... argh!]

http://www.whitemountainpuzzles.com/Candy-Lane-500p-Family-Puzzle-/productinfo/989PZ/


They should have at least flipped you some puzzles when you informed them of their actions.

I still think this Wacky Packages puzzle looks bootleg and will not be around long. I am glad I got one and am on Vacation this week at the Jersey shore. Maybe it will be assembled today?

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1152
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2014, 04:45:36 AM »
In that mix on the Jaymar puzzle, I actually don't notice the size difference with the album stickers, and thought it was cool that they included some.

Now Flashback 1, that aggravates the heck out of me!

The flashbacks are a little smaller than the originals, aren't they?  I never compared them side by side, but I always got the sense that they were a little shrunken down but never compared them to the originals side by side.

Offline RawGoo

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7111
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2014, 04:54:18 AM »
The flashbacks are a little smaller than the originals, aren't they?  I never compared them side by side, but I always got the sense that they were a little shrunken down but never compared them to the originals side by side.

Flashback 1 stickers are smaller, and, sadly, they did a lot of the best of the titles in that series.

Offline Hustler08

  • Posts: 1805
  • I Hustle for Wacky Packs!!!
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2014, 05:18:27 AM »


There's only 1 puzzle right? I think Brad mentioned 2 in the other post?? I only see one on Amazon and one on White moutain...


Offline DrDeal

  • Posts: 3420
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #39 on: August 05, 2014, 06:54:41 AM »
There's only 1 puzzle right? I think Brad mentioned 2 in the other post?? I only see one on Amazon and one on White moutain...



There are two puzzles: Jaymar and White Mountain.

Offline Hustler08

  • Posts: 1805
  • I Hustle for Wacky Packs!!!
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #40 on: August 05, 2014, 10:01:56 AM »
There are two puzzles: Jaymar and White Mountain.

thx - Jaymar the original and WM the new one...I thought there was 2 by WM

thx

Offline MoldRush

  • Posts: 1152
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #41 on: August 05, 2014, 10:49:10 AM »
The flashbacks are a little smaller than the originals, aren't they?  I never compared them side by side, but I always got the sense that they were a little shrunken down but never compared them to the originals side by side.
Reading this back I realize that one should not try to carry on an office conversation while typing posts to the forum at the same time!
 :-\ :P :o :^) :-[

Offline sco(o)t

  • Posts: 4500
  • Looking:Postcard Ser4 BUGWEISER Smokin' Joe sketch
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #42 on: August 05, 2014, 11:30:09 AM »
There's only 1 puzzle right? I think Brad mentioned 2 in the other post?? I only see one on Amazon and one on White moutain...




Brad mentioned he ordered two... The wacky and the candy puzzles
aka Scot Leibacher (no trademark)

Offline Hustler08

  • Posts: 1805
  • I Hustle for Wacky Packs!!!
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #43 on: August 05, 2014, 12:04:02 PM »
Brad mentioned he ordered two... The wacky and the candy puzzles

gotcha thx!! dazed & confused :^) :^)

Offline bigtomi

  • Posts: 2167
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #44 on: August 05, 2014, 04:11:29 PM »
That would be cool, if they hadn't ripped off my archive of scans to create it.

That damned puzzle ticks me off everytime I see it.  
Jeez, sorry to hear all of this...and to bring it up to you specifically. Had no idea.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2014, 04:35:00 PM »
As this is discussed, I'm recalling the whole "World of Wackies" fiasco and the lifting of Greg's scans. I understand that was not for a directly for profit enterprise, but websites are certainly potential revenue generators through advertising.

Again, I'm not comparing the two situations because I haven't given careful thought to the similarities and differences, but I'd be interested in Jason's take since he didn't seem overly upset about the use of Greg's scans at the time...
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 05:04:11 PM by Paul_Maul »

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #46 on: August 05, 2014, 04:47:34 PM »
Brad mentioned he ordered two... The wacky and the candy puzzles

That is correct. I ordered the candy one as well but I was a little bummed when I found it only had 300 pieces. I thought it was going to be 1000 like the Wacky puzzle. I guess I should have read the description? :]

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #47 on: August 05, 2014, 04:57:12 PM »
As this is discussed, I'm recalling the whole "World of Wackies" fiasco and the lifting of Greg's scans. I understand that was not for a directly for profit enterprise, but websites are certainly potential revenue generators through advertising.

Again, I'm not comparing the two situations because I haven't given careful thought to the similarities and differences, but I'd be interested in Jason's take since he seemed pretty un-bothered at the time.

Revisiting that thread, I do see that Jason said Jay should not have used Greg's scans. It still makes for interesting reading comparing the two situations, with so many parallels (the use of copyrighted images, artistic manipulation of those images (placing candy on top) and how that comes into play)....

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #48 on: August 05, 2014, 04:57:46 PM »
By the way, whose scans is the wacky puzzle built from?

Offline Fanatical_and_Sickly

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5719
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #49 on: August 05, 2014, 08:31:26 PM »
By the way, whose scans is the wacky puzzle built from?
not sure about any except the Slopicana poster image - which looks like a dead ringer from Greg's site.
they can't all be from Greg's though, as he doesn't have Hi Sea

Offline Jean Nutty

  • Posts: 3377
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #50 on: August 05, 2014, 08:34:29 PM »
By the way, whose scans is the wacky puzzle built from?

Since they give credit to someone else for Jason's images ("Collage image created by artist Charlie Girard.") and he "made" the Wacky puzzle also, it's a safe bet that they were "borrowed". Dollars to donuts they're Greg's. Since they are so cropped up we can't verify the shadow outline that we usually see when people use his scans.

Charlie says on his blog he uses a camera to get his images

My equipment of choice has always been the Pentax line. I have pretty much every Pentax camera from the K1000 up to the medium format 645 and all the bells and whistles to go with them. However, I soon found out that the Pentax line was not going to take me where I needed to go. My beer image needed to be delivered in a ratio of 4x5 so it could be enlarged up to a puzzle size of 24x30. The image had to be at least 300dpi. My Pentax istD was not capable of meeting either of those criteria. Everything had to be re-shot. And now I’m panicking. What is dpi? How many megapixels do I need? I had told White Mountain that I would deliver the image within three business days; now I realize I don’t even have a camera that can deliver the goods. After my wife picked me up off the floor, the search was on. In the end, my search let me to the Nikon D5100. At just over 16 MP it would do just fine. The standard 18-55mm lens was just right for what I intended to do with it.

I literally worked through the weekend to mount, set up and re-shoot that beer image. I submitted the image to White Mountain on Monday morning. It wasn’t good enough. I didn’t have time to read the manual for my new Nikon, I was using it in total manual mode, just trying to apply all the distance, lighting and composition principles I had always used. I had to re-shoot again several times before I got it perfect and the image was ready for puzzle manufacturing process. (Advice here is to read the manual before you use the camera). At the same time this was going on, I re-created my Candy Wrappers image and submitted that as well. It turned out that the Candy Wrappers image was even more marketable than the beer image. (Who doesn't like candy and beer?) Challenging and fun. White Mountain licensed that one too.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #51 on: August 05, 2014, 08:36:58 PM »
Revisiting that thread, I do see that Jason said Jay should not have used Greg's scans. It still makes for interesting reading comparing the two situations, with so many parallels (the use of copyrighted images, artistic manipulation of those images (placing candy on top) and how that comes into play)....

Yeah, I can't imagine I was okay with that aspect of things - and I'm glad to hear that I wasn't.  :-)

It's all a rather iffy area in one regard, because it's difficult to claim ownership of images that are of trademarked product packaging (when they're trademarked - and oftentimes the trademarks have lapsed or were never granted).   

The use of someone else's scans is in my opinion ethically wrong, whatever the case, and sort of lazy in the case of the Wacky Packages instance, as those pieces can at least be gotten from sources OTHER than Greg's scans.  The version of Marathon bar wrapper used in the puzzle, for instance, I have the ONLY KNOWN example of.  And that's the case with a vast majority of the wrappers used in that first puzzle.  There simply are NO OTHER SOURCES of those original pieces - even Mars doesn't own examples of them at this point.  So, I consider the source of the scans to be incredibly proprietary, even if I can't exactly lay full legal claim to it.  And I fully acknowledge the fuzziness of ownership, where that is concerned. 

But legality or not, it's damned frustrating to see someone take something that ONLY I have, and throw it together as a collage and sell it. 

It is the singular nature of the scans I've created from my original possibly-unique pieces, that lend to their visual appeal.  Meaning, most folks have never seen those images anywhere else (other than my Flickr, or CollectingCandy.com).  I take pride in putting those out into the world, because before I did, they were lost to history.  But when someone else uses them and sells them, in part due to their unusual and unique appeal, that sucks.
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #52 on: August 05, 2014, 08:44:16 PM »
Since they give credit to someone else for Jason's images ("Collage image created by artist Charlie Girard.") and he "made" the Wacky puzzle also, it's a safe bet that they were "borrowed". Dollars to donuts they're Greg's. Since they are so cropped up we can't verify the shadow outline that we usually see when people use his scans.


Based on my limited experience, I have to assume Charlie pulled his scans for the Wacky puzzle from the internet.   At this point, I suppose he could have gotten some of them from the Abrams books but Greg's scans seems the easiest bet, since they are likely the most referenced and linked to on the net.  

In some respects it could be said that I've been ripped off many times, or my personal, unique archive of scans has been.   Perhaps most notably, my scans were used without permission in the creation of store props and room deco for J.J. Abrams' flick, Super 8.  Wes Anderson's prop person lied to me about using a Milk Duds box scan I sent her for use in a video promoting Moonrise Kingdom.  That was a pretty scumbag move on her part, and she never copped to it.  But there was no denying.  

The good thing (I guess) is, after a few of these negative experiences piled up (multiple motion pictures, White Mountain Puzzles, and more) I finally blocked full-resolution access to my huge inventory of scans.   Which was against my philosophy to why I was doing what I was doing, but seeing others profit without a thank-you or please was too much.  

Since doing so, I've been contacted many times and been able to consult for the production of Mad Men on a few occasions, and the WWII flick Monuments Men last year.  And been paid for it.  

But I can only imagine how often my stuff was used in for-profit endeavors during the years I just put it all out there for free.  
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 08:47:19 PM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #53 on: August 05, 2014, 08:44:41 PM »
Revisiting that thread, I do see that Jason said Jay should not have used Greg's scans. It still makes for interesting reading comparing the two situations, with so many parallels (the use of copyrighted images, artistic manipulation of those images (placing candy on top) and how that comes into play)....

The reality is we have fan sites and companies love it. Regardless if anyone steals images from a site or not they are still copyright material. Yes, some feelings can get hurt but it would never hold up in court unless you are the owner of the intellectual property. It must be low on their priority list to stop companies of reproduction but I feel a candy company may love the promotion. Its a hell of a lot cheaper than some ads.

Bottom line- if you don't want someone stealing your online images you should watermark them.

Don't get me wrong, I love what Greg and Jason have done to give recognition to these products, all they did is scan images of a product they didn't create. I could have my kids scanning while I put them up on my site so why should I get pissed if someone steals the images? I don't own them. That is why I still don't get why everyone defended Greg. Even though this is ancient history, Greg can get pissed but he doesn't own the product he took scans of. People can get upset but all Greg and Jason did was scan an image. They didn't spend $1000's for the original art or photo session.

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #54 on: August 05, 2014, 08:47:14 PM »
Based on my limited experience, I have to assume Charlie pulled his scans for the Wacky puzzle from the internet.   At this point, I suppose he could have gotten some of them from the Abrams books but Greg's scans seems the easiest bet, since they are likely the most referenced and linked to on the net.  

I'd been ripped off many times.  Perhaps most notably, my scans were used without permission in the creation of store props and room deco for J.J. Abrams' flick, Super 8.  Wes Anderson's prop person lied to me about using a Milk Duds box scan I sent her for use in a video promoting Moonrise Kingdom.

The good thing (I guess) is, after a few of these experiences piled up (multiple motion pictures, White Mountain Puzzles, and more) I finally blocked full-resolution access to my huge inventory of scans.   Since doing so, I've been contacted and been able to consult for the production of Mad Men on a few occasions, and the WWII flick Monuments Men last year.  And been paid for it.  

But I can only imagine how often my stuff was used in for-profit endeavors during the years I just put it all out there for free.  

If you're really concerned read my post and watermark your scans. That is the only way to protect yourself on the internet.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #55 on: August 05, 2014, 08:52:55 PM »
If you're really concerned read my post and watermark your scans. That is the only way to protect yourself on the internet.

I get it.  If your door is unlocked and someone comes in and messes with your stuff - you have some responsibility to bear.

But it's still a scumbag move.

If you don't think so, I hope you never have someone damage things you've done or things you own.  

And though yes, I "only scanned pieces of paper".  The pieces of paper are things I've spent years searching for, and put tremendous effort into uncovering.   While there are similarities to Wacky Packages, there are also differences.  What I'm scanning and creating an archive of, these are unique pieces.  No one else has a "full set" of them.  Not the companies, not another candy collector - no one.  

It was far from easy to acquire and curate them.  But yes, the very last step I did was something your child could do.  Sure.  

And after dealing with scumbags and seeing what they'd done many times, I did block access to the full-size images, as I already said.  And after that, I had the production of Mad Men calling me up, because they recognized that while it was just a scan and it was just some information, they weren't going to get it anywhere else but from me.  

[Edit:  I should add, however, that even Mad Men initially had a prop person contact me under the guise of wanting to "create a vintage-looking gift" for a birthday present.  I IMDB'd the person contacting me and wrote a pretty firm e-mail back, explaining that it was profoundly unprofessional to do so.  I got a response back from the head of the department, apologizing and explaining that their assistants are not normally allowed to say what show they work on.  Okay...]  These days, I get an inquiry about a scan "for a gift" several times a year, but I no longer provide them.  
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 09:20:04 PM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2014, 09:03:02 PM »
The reality is we have fan sites and companies love it. Regardless if anyone steals images from a site or not they are still copyright material. Yes, some feelings can get hurt but it would never hold up in court unless you are the owner of the intellectual property. It must be low on their priority list to stop companies of reproduction but I feel a candy company may love the promotion. Its a hell of a lot cheaper than some ads.


I don't know what your experience is with IP and legal departments. 

I worked for Marvel Comics.  The legal department were folks I got on with very well.  I can assure you that they do not look upon trademark infringement lightly.  Fan sites is one thing, but product sold for a profit with the images is far far different.  They aren't chalking that up to free promotion.  Not a chance in hell. 
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #57 on: August 06, 2014, 02:51:41 AM »

And though yes, I "only scanned pieces of paper".  The pieces of paper are things I've spent years searching for, and put tremendous effort into uncovering.   While there are similarities to Wacky Packages, there are also differences.  What I'm scanning and creating an archive of, these are unique pieces.  No one else has a "full set" of them.  Not the companies, not another candy collector - no one.  

It was far from easy to acquire and curate them.  But yes, the very last step I did was something your child could do.  Sure.  

And after dealing with scumbags and seeing what they'd done many times, I did block access to the full-size images, as I already said.  And after that, I had the production of Mad Men calling me up, because they recognized that while it was just a scan and it was just some information, they weren't going to get it anywhere else but from me.  

This is why I brought this up again. This is almost verbatim the exact argument I made in defending Greg's position in the WOW incident. Perhaps a given unopened pack or display box isn't as rare as one of your wrappers. But the totality of the scan library in question was unique, and if someone needed five or six scans of rare wacky items, they would have nowhere else to go either.

Given that you feel this way (as I do) I'm just surprised you didn't provide a more spirited defense of Greg's position at the time. Perhaps your personal feelings toward Greg got the best of your intellectual consistency. That certainly can happen.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #58 on: August 06, 2014, 03:26:51 AM »
Is the difference in your mind that your scans are all of your own items, whereas Greg's were not? Because I don't see any philosophical difference there. Your role is just being played by a group of collectors instead of a single one.


Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2014, 06:23:43 AM »
I don't know what your experience is with IP and legal departments. 

I worked for Marvel Comics.  The legal department were folks I got on with very well.  I can assure you that they do not look upon trademark infringement lightly.  Fan sites is one thing, but product sold for a profit with the images is far far different.  They aren't chalking that up to free promotion.  Not a chance in hell. 

You are exactly right. I don't think this puzzle company has paid Topps or any of the candy companies royalties to use their images and brands. They could easily be stopped but I suspect they are so small time that companies haven't heard of them.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #60 on: August 06, 2014, 08:25:57 AM »
This is why I brought this up again. This is almost verbatim the exact argument I made in defending Greg's position in the WOW incident. Perhaps a given unopened pack or display box isn't as rare as one of your wrappers. But the totality of the scan library in question was unique, and if someone needed five or six scans of rare wacky items, they would have nowhere else to go either.

Given that you feel this way (as I do) I'm just surprised you didn't provide a more spirited defense of Greg's position at the time. Perhaps your personal feelings toward Greg got the best of your intellectual consistency. That certainly can happen.

David,

First, I thought you already fact-checked yourself and found that I WAS intellectually consistent.  So what the heck is this?

Regardless - If you believe that anyone is going to defend a guy that (from their perspective - which was mine at the time) was a mean-spirited bully who had repeatedly made vitriol-filled public personal attacks against them, the same way they would defend themselves and their thousands of hours of work and thousands of dollars invested - well, that would be surprising to anyone.  The fact that I defended Greg's position at the time AT ALL took a great deal of spirit and should prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, I was consistent on this issue then as I am now.  I didn't invent this point-of-view only when it affected me, although my actions and reactions based on that point-of-view are going to be stronger when they affect me personally.  That's just logical.  

At the time Greg seemed like a pretty lousy person to me, and in spite of that, according to your report, I DID have the intellectual consistency to point out the the use of his scans was wrong.  So I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here.   According to you, I was consistent, though you initially made an assumption that I was not.  

"Revisiting that thread, I do see that Jason said Jay should not have used Greg's scans."

I'm glad you fact-checked yourself and I'll take you at your word that I was consistent.  

Ahem.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 08:43:30 AM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #61 on: August 06, 2014, 08:27:02 AM »
You are exactly right. I don't think this puzzle company has paid Topps or any of the candy companies royalties to use their images and brands. They could easily be stopped but I suspect they are so small time that companies haven't heard of them.

I believe this is the case - they're just enough under the radar, and since the collages (until this Wacky Packages one, anyway) hadn't zeroed in on any single trademark owner, it didn't create a blip. 
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #62 on: August 06, 2014, 08:38:30 AM »
Is the difference in your mind that your scans are all of your own items, whereas Greg's were not? Because I don't see any philosophical difference there. Your role is just being played by a group of collectors instead of a single one.


I always assumed that all the stuff was Greg's.  But again, I didn't think I was seeing this as profoundly different.   Of course when it is directed at yourself, you have a personal reaction - as I do here.

Much in the same way that if Greg had directed his profanity-laced personal attacks at you, rather than me and others, you would likely have responded to them differently, rather than indifferently. 
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #63 on: August 06, 2014, 08:43:01 AM »
David,

First, I thought you already fact-checked yourself and found that I WAS intellectually consistent.  So what the heck is this?

Regardless - If you believe that anyone is going to defend a guy that (from their perspective - which was mine at the time) was a mean-spirited bully who had repeatedly made vitriol-filled public personal attacks against them, the same way they would defend themselves and their thousands of hours of work and thousands of dollars invested - well, that would be surprising to anyone.  The fact that I defended Greg's position at the time AT ALL took a great deal of spirit.  

At the time Greg seemed like a pretty lousy person to me, and in spite of that, I DID have the intellectual consistency to point out the the use of his scans was wrong.  So I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here.   According to you, I was consistent, though you initially made an assumption that I was not.  

"Revisiting that thread, I do see that Jason said Jay should not have used Greg's scans."

I'm glad you fact-checked yourself and I'll take you at your word that I was consistent.  

Ahem.

I would say the most accurate characterization of your posts at the time is a grudging concession that Jay was wrong to lift the scans, followed by a general downplaying of the importance of that offense, a portrayal of Jay as well-meaning and a condescending dismissal of the value of the content in question. I can post a few quotes if you want, but that's how I viewed it at the time, and there are several posts that support that interpretation. I was OK with that as your position, it just seems now that when you are the victim of an extremely similar offense, you view it as much more serious and you're much more passionate/emotional about it.

And I do see it as natural that your history with Greg would color all of that, which is why I suggested that possibility.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #64 on: August 06, 2014, 08:45:33 AM »

Much in the same way that if Greg had directed his profanity-laced personal attacks at you, rather than me and others, you would likely have responded to them differently, rather than indifferently. 

Absolutely. I'm just trying to compare the situations dispassionately, with the personal/emotional factors removed, and see if you view the two situations as comparable or not.

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #65 on: August 06, 2014, 08:56:49 AM »
I don't know Jason, re-reading it again, perhaps I misunderstood a few things you said. For the most part, I will acknowledge you consistently characterized the lifting of the images as wrong. Most of the rest of it drifted into other issues and is too complicated to revisit.

 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:55:11 AM by Paul_Maul »

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #66 on: August 06, 2014, 08:57:33 AM »
Absolutely. I'm just trying to compare the situations dispassionately, with the personal/emotional factors removed, and see if you view the two situations as comparable or not.

David,

They are comparable - they're not the completely the same.  But, ya know, philosophically and ethically they share many core similarities.  Product sold for profit IS looked upon differently than fan sites.  That's a fact. One will get lawyer action, the other will not.  Even so, it is not something that the legal system differentiates (to my knowledge, anyway) but "fan sites" as they are called have gotten a pass in the modern era.  

Removing all personal/emotional factors - and your personal analysis and take of my begrudging defenses - I think it's clear that my point of view has not changed.  

Of course, your OWN personal take on this started with an assumption.  Me bringing this up recalled the World of Wackies situation and the image piracy there.  You recalled that I was a part of that discussion and that because of my dislike of Greg and all that he had said about me, that I would have not said it was wrong.  You discovered that was not the case.  

I appreciate that you did that.  Because I'm sure you thought it would have been an interesting thing, me flip-flopping on this intellectual issue (that is personal to me now, and I guess was sort of personal to me then).

But I'm delighted that, counter to your assumptions, you found I was consistent, if begrudgingly so in the face having to defend a guy who had made so many profanity-laced public personal attacks against me.  

Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2014, 08:58:02 AM »
In particular, I see you did not dismiss the value of his work, that was a mis-reading on my part.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1794
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2014, 09:00:08 AM »
Most of the rest of it drifted into other issues and is too complicated to revisit.


Preach!

 :great:
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2014, 09:00:20 AM »
David,

They are comparable - they're not the completely the same.  But, ya know, philosophically and ethically they share many core similarities.  Product sold for profit IS looked upon differently than fan sites.  That's a fact. One will get lawyer action, the other will not.  Even so, it is not something that the legal system differentiates (to my knowledge, anyway) but "fan sites" as they are called have gotten a pass in the modern era.  

Removing all personal/emotional factors - and your personal analysis and take of my begrudging defenses - I think it's clear that my point of view has not changed.  

Of course, your OWN personal take on this started with an assumption.  Me bringing this up recalled the World of Wackies situation and the image piracy there.  You recalled that I was a part of that discussion and that because of my dislike of Greg and all that he had said about me, that I would have not said it was wrong.  You discovered that was not the case.  

I appreciate that you did that.  Because I'm sure you thought it would have been an interesting thing, me flip-flopping on this intellectual issue (that is personal to me now, and I guess was sort of personal to me then).

But I'm delighted that, counter to your assumptions, you found I was consistent, if begrudgingly so in the face having to defend a guy who had made so many profanity-laced public personal attacks against me.  



Yep, you certainly were consistent, and if you displayed little empathy for his situation, I do realize that is colored by the personal history.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

anything