For some reason, it really bothers you that the Chip Guide asks people to do one simple thing, acknowledge that they got an image from the Chip Guide when they did get the image from the Chip Guide. On the flip side, the Chip Guide could be open to attacks from people who take the images, copyright them and then force the Chip Guide to shut down. Likely? No. But, possible. There have been cases where that has happened and the later copyrighter has been granted power over copyrighted items. Is that possible here, given the nature of the images and the Chip Guide's basis to claim some sort of ownership right? I don't know and you have yet to convince me that you do. You may, but you haven't given us your basis for your understanding of copyright laws. It may be quite extensive or very superficial. I know that if the Chip Guide does have some sort of ownership/copyright claim, then they are doing the right thing to try and protect that right from being taken by others and the Guide losing the right to display the images that are on there.

The only end game I see is shutting down the guide because a few people are so concerned about chip scans or other collectibles scans that they submitted. And why? Because you can conceive of a scenario where the Chip Guide, which only exists to create and maintain the virtual museum that is the Chip Guide, decides to cash in on the images in some other way. They have never done so, and as far as I know, they don't intend to ever do so, but one can imagine that it's possible. That very unlikely scenario is causing you to make a fuss over and over that you hope will end in what? If every submitter can exert control over the submitted image, the Chip Guide can hardly function. Even if the original submitter never says a thing, what about the estates? Unlikely? Yes, just like the scenario that the Chip Guide is going to cash in on the images on the site and keep someone else from profiting from them.

Keep in mind that the Chip Guide is not asserting that the original photographer/scanner does not have full rights and ownership of their original image. It even lists contributors unless they asked to be kept anonymous.

I have to admit that I am...flabbergasted that this topic is important to anyone. In general, most objections just seem to born out of laziness. I recognize that is not the case in your instance but it seems like fussing over something of so little monetary value that I don't understand why anyone would care. Let me know what you want to happen and maybe I can understand your point of view a little better.

Michael Siskin