Love what Jim is doing here, but I had to ask myself the question if it was legal. So, I researched it, and found out some very interesting things.
For more information, check out: IMDb Message Board Archives: Are They Legal or Not?.
What Jim is doing here with the IMDb boards is perfectly legal. Before IMDb closed their message boards, they had a disclaimer on their website that stated that anyone could archive as much material on their boards as possible (for personal reasons, etc.).
Plus, as I have previously mentioned to a few others here that had similar concerns, please rest assured that Jim has approximately four years experience as a lawyer, so I'm confident in his ability to "get around the red tape" (if you will) when handling these types of issues.
Thanks, jmcd2007. There is a distinction between archiving content for personal use, and publishing an archive on a publicly-accessible website. I'm glad you brought that up, though, because I clarified that point in my article.
Anytime...hope that I helped clear some things up for you. :)
shareBefore IMDb closed their message boards, they had a disclaimer on their website that stated that anyone could archive as much material on their boards as possible (for personal reasons, etc.).
Yes, true, but this isn't for "personal use". I hope it is ok.
Personal use is a point of view, Anakin.
shareNot trying to start an argument, but how is it not for personal use? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of archiving them in the first place?
shareIt's a good question. In the eyes of the law, there's a huge difference (I worked in publishing for 16 years).
I often save web pages as html documents, or snap a screenshot, and save it on my hard drive. I can reference it whenever I want, and the copyright holder will probably never know. That's fine in the eyes of the law, and that's what IMDb gave us permission to do.
Making it public, or publishing it, on a website, or in a book, newspaper, magazine, etc. is an entirely different matter. You could benefit from someone else's work, and they could suffer because of it. That is what the copyright law addresses, and what this website could be in violation of. IMDb's terms specify that no data-scraping is allowed, and that's what this website did to get their archive.
I do appreciate you bringing it up, because it's an important point, and I went and clarified it in my article. So, thanks again!
isn't jim the worlds greatest lawyer? if he says it's legal, then it probably is. and didn't his legal defense team of 32 lawyers also say it was ok?
anyway, it's not like this is the only place that is trying to do the same thing. imdbarchive.com just went up, and they have even more data archived than this site. they claim to have every movie and tv show fully searchable. looks like they have the full threads too. i think jim is safe.
Oh, great, now I have to edit my website AGAIN to add this one. Thanks for mentioning it, though.
share-
shareI checked out imdbarchive.com yet this site doesn't appear to have any boards for actors or directors--only boards for films. And some of the films I entered in the search box did not have boards either.
shareThe way I see it, it's not like these boards were duplicated on this site while IMDb still has them on their. What copyright? We have copies, but originals were dumped into a garbage bin by a previous owner who didn't want them anymore. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. IMDb would look really petty if they say "hey, we don't want them, but we don't want anyone else to have them either".
shareYou bring up a very good point. I know the article's long, because it has to cover a lot of ground, but you really should read it. The thing about copyright cases is that they are intensely factual-driven, and are usually decided on a case-by-case basis. Different criteria has to be considered, and weighed together as a whole.
shareI did read most of that article. I'm not a lawyer so I can use only my common sense when contemplating about things like this one. I'm sure that even if IMDb has no case, they can still sue the owner of this site to wear him out, if they wanted to. That's what big companies do to little people, right? I just said that it would look petty.
shareIsn't that the truth, though? I love this line from the article: Facebook trademarks the word 'face':
"Technology companies see trademark power grabs and suing each other as recreational sport."
I hate to sound rude, but what's the point of your coming here and trying to scare people? Are you IMDb's guardian angel or what? If you have any problems, go directly to IMDb and ask them, and then you'll know for sure.
shareI'm not IMDb's guardian angel, but I don't think it's right to violate the copyright law to get material. It hurts us all in the long run. So, I thought I'd try to find out for myself if it was legal or not. You know IMDb is just going to give some canned, official answer.
As it turns out, the answer is far from being black and white, so I wrote the article which covers the various aspects. My point was hardly to scare people, just inform them.
Maybe you should ask some lawyer their professional opinion, instead of asking random people on message boards. Hey, you're in luck. It happens that the owner of this site is a lawyer, and he already said this is legal, so case closed.
shareI didn't ask random people on message boards, I referenced case law. I'm not sure what axe you're grinding.
shareIf the owner, who happens to be a lawyer, says that this is legal, (you've already been answered this 2 hours ago) I see no point of debating this matter further.
You obviously don't believe what the owner said to be true. My advice is to ask some other lawyer for second opinion. We, random people on this message board, can't help you here as we are not lawyers. Sorry.
First of all, the owner is a software engineer. He used to be a lawyer.
And you think because a lawyer says something is legal that it's incontestable? What do you think the courts are for?
I think you've misunderstood the point of my post, but thanks for the replies. It helps keep it at the top of the board.
Sure, no problem. I'm always happy to promote other sites, like MovieTVForums. We should all be on the same side against IMDb.
share[deleted]
This is what IMDb's terms said before February 20th:
Submissions: IMDb shall own exclusive rights, including all intellectual property rights, and shall be entitled to the unrestricted use of these materials for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you.
Boards Terms and Conditions
They've taken that page down now, but it can be found on Internet Archive. Exclusive rights means they pretty much have complete control over it, and you have none.
IMDb could make the argument that the negativity in the boards reflects badly on them. I'm not saying they will; I'm saying they could. This is all covered in my article IMDb Message Board Archives: Are They Legal or Not?
-
shareIt's not just "interesting to discuss" for me, and it shouldn't be for anyone else, either. If copyrights aren't protected, then creators lose their incentive to create, and there will be less music, movies, TV shows, and things to read for everyone. For my own good conscience, I wanted to be sure that this website was on firm legal footing before I could enjoy it.
If you had read the article, you would know that I determined this archive could indeed be legal, so I don't know why there would be a lack of enthusiasm for it on this website. But I wish more people would question the legality of the media they're enjoying, and consider the long-term consequences if it was acquired through copyright infringement.
The question of "legality" is relevant when the owner of a property (intellectual or otherwise) objects to its misuse. So for example, if I own a car and then give it away to a friend for good, I may still be the "legal" owner of it because the papers are still in my own name. But does that mean that what my friend is doing is illegal? NO. I am aware of his using my personal property for his use. I am OK with it. There is no question of misuse.
Jim has clearly stated multiple times that he has contacted multiple IMDb executives who did not object to the use of IMDb's messages. Quite clearly, IMDb is done with message boards. They do not see a site like Moviechat (which archives old messages) as any substantial competition for their revenue. So they don't care what's done with the old messages. So are these archives illegal? For now. ABSOLUTELY NOT. If IMDb changes its mind tomorrow and wants to restore its old message boards AND objects to Jim using its old messages (because it is keeping people away from their own boards), then it can take Jim to court, and this is when the legality of the archives truly comes into question.
So are the executives who spoke to Jim qualified to give an oral license? I don't know, but the fact is, they are representatives of the company and have assented to it! This is NOT grounds to call the use of this archive illegal. What you are doing is akin to: I go to my friends home and forget an object. I later realize that I forgot that object in my friend's house, but don't care for it. My friend starts using that object, and you call it ILLEGAL because I did not officially transfer the rights of that object to my friend. In the same manner, this board has informal consent of IMDb (it is most definitely arguable to state that "IMDb" knows of the archives), so it is not fair to question its legality.
Now what if Jim is lying, or only contacted some lower-level IMDb executives who cannot in any way be taken to represent the views of the company? This is his issue, and you cannot target users for this. From my standpoint, all of us have in good faith believed Jim's words and hence believe that using these archives is not illegal. If you want more details about Jim's correspondence with IMDb you ought to contact him and not post on this board. For my part, I have feel I have reason to believe that these archives are not illegal. Even if Jim is lying, users of this board have actively spammed the Facebook page of IMDb with this message board link (some have even explicitly stated that the archives of the old message boards are here) and IMDb seems to have not yet sent a shutdown notice (to my knowledge). We have no reason to believe (as yet) that IMDb objects to the use of its old messages, and our ethicality cannot be questioned because reasonable judgment and common sense (including IMDb NOT informing us that they do not want us to use these archives despite several indications that they know of it) have indicated to us that IMDb is ok with us using these archives.
You said, "But I wish more people would question the legality of the media they're enjoying, and consider the long-term consequences if it was acquired through copyright infringement."
It is quite presumptuous of you to even CONSIDER without thorough research that a) the use of these archives is illegal (i.e. something that IMDb DOES NOT WANT US TO DO) and b) we are potentially guilty of illicitly enjoying this information in a manner that the copyright owner does not want us to.
Now if you are 100% certain of this, I would be more than happy that you educated us that we are doing something wrong, but unless you are reasonably certain that these archives are illegal, you have no reason to attempt to educate us. Please do your research first, and them come to us!
To be honoust i just came to imdb to read the comments and i wont be visiting imdb any time soon.
I think they removing the boards was the bigest mistake they could have made and will loose a lot of traffic.
And here is the opening post of this board in which Jim talks about his communication with Amazon and IMDb people
Link
And please spare us the BS about how these archives could still be *potentially* illegal.
IT. IS. NOT. ILLEGAL. IF. IMDB. IS. OK. WITH. US. USING. IT
I have in good faith believed that Jim has talked to enough people in the organization so as to get an informal license for temporary usage. I cannot verify such an informal license otherwise. The precautions (including IMDb's non-response to this board when there have been hundreds of messages about this site on their facebook page) I have taken seem reasonable to me, and I do not deserve to be lectured on responsible use of copyrighted material. Are you telling me that I should use these archives only if I see a scanned copy of a written or printed license? Sorry but no. If Jim had no need for a written license I will not pressure him to get one before I can use this site. If you doubt Jim's claims, you should be contacting him, not posting here!