Collectible Card Game Headquarters

skibulk wrote:From a product sales perspective, having an image boosts sales. So our distribution of card images probably indirectly helps Wizards, by helping online stores. Artwork is a different story entirely.

I agree with skibulk. If something supports or increases the sales popularity of the game, they seem to be happy to turn a blind eye. If they feel it threatens their sales of Magic or one of their other products then they take legal action.

Nevin wrote:

Huggybaby wrote:This subject comes up once a year I think, no idea where the previous iterations are.

O.K. So what's the answer, consensus ?

There is no answer, that's why speculation doesn't amount to anything. The consensus is that we go about business as usual. We will not operate looking over our shoulder at imaginary demons.

If I may ask, what exactly are you trying to discover and why?

There are non-harmfull uses for artwork even. I can't remember where I saw it, but I think it was StarCityGames.com that once upon a time used the artwork in their search bar drop-down.

Only downloading the pictures is not really harmfull. It's how they're used that determines their harmfull-ness to WotC. Certainly applications that could substitute MTGO fall into that category. Wizards can't go around shutting down every fan site on the internet. Only the ones that threaten them.

Huggybaby wrote:We will not operate looking over our shoulder at imaginary demons.

Just because something doesn't concern you, doesn't make in imaginary\nonexistent.

Huggybaby wrote:If I may ask, what exactly are you trying to discover...

Nevin wrote:I'm just asking why WotC didn't come down like a bag of hammers, on scanned cards, like they did with their other IP.

You partially answered it here:
viewtopic.php?p=157963#p157963
That's why I "thanked" you.
Guess that's why other places with images are "afloat" too. So if you want, you can assume I got my answer.

Huggybaby wrote:...and why?

Curiosity, and a "dissonant sensation", about WotC approach to IP.

skibulk wrote:Only the ones that threaten them.

I agree. But it looks like the definition of "threat", is "murky", determined by a dice roll, whatever.

Huggybaby wrote:<edit> GH received permission to post images a long time ago. We don't make any money from them. Our server is not in the US. I'm not a lawyer and don't like trying to think like one. If "something" ever happens not much will change.

Nice... I didnt know this.

Nevin wrote:

Huggybaby wrote:We will not operate looking over our shoulder at imaginary demons.

Just because something doesn't concern you, doesn't make in imaginary\nonexistent.

It absolutely concerns me. But that concern has caused some sites to simply shut down, preemptively. We will not. That is the attitude I've taken since MWSData days, and since Bersogedon was still around. If you knew that site you'd know what I'm talking about.

This topic has gone on long enough I think. The only answers to your question lie with the WOTC legal department or someone else, but no one here can help you further. So I will say for the last time: your concerns are not unique; they are shared by everyone in the community. But speculation on this topic is worthless.