Indian Head Test Patter Original Artwork Found!
Scott Marshall
Seems the RCA vacuum tube plant in Harrison New Jersey was being demolished in
1974 and someone saved it and recently sold it to Chuck. The artwork was there,
no doubt, because it was used at that factory to make the monoscope tubes.
I believe Chuck will be bringing the artwork to the Early Television Convention
this April 24.
Here's a link to his Indian Head story:
<http://www.pharis-video.com/p4788.htm>
Here's a link about the Early Television convention:
<http://www.earlytelevision.org/2004_convention.html>
I'll be giving a talk there: "The Case Against Philo Farnsworth and the Claim
He Invented TV"
How about a role call of rec.antiques.radio+phono members who intend to be
there?
Scott
Steven Dinius
"Scott Marshall" <scottm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040323204356...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Jim Menning
> How about a role call of rec.antiques.radio+phono members who intend to
be
> there?
>
> Scott
>
I'll be there.
jim menning
Scott W. Harvey
associated test pattern is going to be nearly impossible for Chuck to
do at this point.
The indian test pattern first surfaced in 1939, and it was based on a
similar existing pattern featuring a head-shot picture of a civil war
era soldier.
At the time of the indian head's publication copyright law allowed a
copyright with a duration of 28 years, with the possibility of
extending the copyright another for another 28 years by filing for an
extension. Later, congress made a revision to the law that
automatically extended the duration of copyright to a total of 95
years for the two terms, but made a special situation for copyrights
in which the first 28 year term expired between 1964 and 1977. In
those cases the application for extension MUST have been explicitly
filed prior to the end of the first 28 years in order to be extended
for the 95 year duration allowed in the revised law. If there was no
such filing, the work became public domain.
RCA copyrighted the pattern in 1939 or 1940, which means that the
first copyright term ended in 1967 or 1968. If RCA's lawyers had the
forethought to file for extension (more than likely they did), then
the copyright is still good until 2034 or 2035.
RCA was acquired by GE in the mid-1980s. GE then broke it up, sold
parts of it to Thomson and Lockheed Martin, and kept the rest. That
means that the Indian Head pattern, if the extension was applied for,
is almost certainly owned by one of these three behemoths. Think any
of them are going to give up the rights for cheap? Not likely, given
the pattern's status as a recognizable nostalgic cultural icon of
sorts.
Now, suppose the extension was NOT applied for....what then?
I'm afraid Chuck loses again. The indian pattern is public domain
under that scenario, which means that no one owns the rights anymore,
and anyone can use it freely without seeking payment or permission of
any kind. Once a work falls into the public domain, there is NO legal
mechanism available for anyone to re-activate the copyright. This
notion that Chuck has that it is possible to re-file a "clear"
copyright does not seem to be correct.
I have seen a picture of Chuck's indian portrait, by itself without
the pattern just as shown on the web page, and it has a 1939 copyright
on it IIRC. It's in an old early TV book that RCA published for radio
repair guys to introduce them to the basics of television servicing.
The title of the book escapes me at the moment.
Now, Chuck might be able to get a copyright on the specific test
pattern artwork that he owns, which means that he could control who
makes copies of his copy of that artwork, but a blanket copyright on
the indian test pattern image is almost certainly beyond his reach.
I do hope that Chuck does pursue this, so we can all know who, if
anyone, owns the rights.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer. The information presented above was
derived from that contained on the US copyright office's own website.
-Scott
On 24 Mar 2004 01:43:56 GMT, scottm...@aol.com (Scott Marshall)
wrote:
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)
Need a schematic? check out the Schematic Bank at:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/schematics/
Archive of alt.binaries.pictures.radio binary postings:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/abpr/
Scott W. Harvey
-Scott
>Chuck Pharis bought it from someone in New Jersey who rescued it years ago.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Paul Pinyot
material. I thought once it is relieved to the public and then the copyright
has expired the work becomes "Public Domain". Is this not the case?
--
Paul.
Paul Pinyot
--
Paul Pinyot
"Paul Pinyot" <p.ppiny...@REMOVEworldnet.att.netREMOVE> wrote in
message news:zG88c.12576$tY6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Phil Nelson
copyright, even for copies of the original art that he now owns.
Copyright law protects the rights of an "author" (creator) of a work. Chuck
didn't create the original art or the copyrighted image. He just laid his
hands on a piece of art that a company used to create a copyrighted image.
Who knows, maybe the company copyrighted the original artwork as well as the
test pattern image, but I don't think that matters, because . . .
Under normal business practices, the original art would be a "work made for
hire," something created by an employee in the course of his employment. In
that case, the company, not the artist, owns the copyright lock, stock, and
barrel.
Mere ownership of the original art doesn't make Chuck its creator. If I buy
the original manuscript to the latest Tom Clancy novel, I can't run out and
file for copyright on his book. That's true even if I buy the manuscript
from somebody who found it in Clancy's garbage can.
Below are some pertinent paragraphs from the US Copyright Office website (
http://www.copyright.gov/ ).
Regards,
Phil Nelson
--------------------------------
WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed
form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the
property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those
deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is
considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a
"work made for hire" as:
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
-- a contribution to a collective work
-- a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
-- a translation
-- a supplementary work
-- a compilation
-- an instructional text
-- a test
-- answer material for a test
-- an atlas
if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that
the work shall be considered a work made for hire....
The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work,
unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Copyright in each separate contribution to a periodical or other collective
work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests
initially with the author of the contribution.
Two General Principles
-- Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or
phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that
transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work
does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.
-- Minors may claim copyright, but state laws may regulate the business
dealings involving copyrights owned by minors. For information on relevant
state laws, consult an attorney.
Steven Dinius
icon in countless commercials as one point. He concurred with my other point
that there were similar logos (Mutual of Omaha for one) and other copyright
applications did exist that were similar and that since he did not buy the
copyright from the RCA Corporation or the original artist, he couldn't claim
the rights to the image.
"Scott W. Harvey" <NOT_m...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6hs160p5kh2pjolai...@4ax.com...
mi-oldradios
Beitmans site.
"Scott W. Harvey" <NOT_m...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6hs160p5kh2pjolai...@4ax.com...
Scott Marshall
>associated test pattern is going to be nearly impossible for Chuck to
>do at this point.
Yes, my understanding is that only the creator of a work can be granted
copyright protection. If one creates a work as an employee, the employer is
considered the creator and gets the copyright. Then the creater sell or give
away copyright.
It WOULD be interesting to know who, today, owns the copyright or if it's in
pbulic domain.
Scott
Scott Marshall
Everyone seems to remember the Indian Head Test Pattern as a post-WWII icon,
but it was clearly created in 1938.
Has anyone seen it used publicly before or during the war? If so, where?
Scott
Robert Casey
>Just curious about one thing:
>
>Everyone seems to remember the Indian Head Test Pattern as a post-WWII icon,
>but it was clearly created in 1938.
>
>
>
That's because TV wasn't in common use by the public until after WW2.
Few people ever
saw it before.
>
>
Steven Dinius
can't find it elsewhere, not to mention a lot of OTHER screens/slides.
"mi-oldradios" <no_spam_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40601...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Scott Marshall
>can't find it elsewhere, not to mention a lot of OTHER screens/slides.
Can you double-check that URL? It's a dead link.
Steven Dinius
tried org too but I was sure it was com. I can try and find my last
bookmarks floppy as I've reloaded since then, but I'm afraid it might be
gone.
"Scott Marshall" <scottm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040325091751...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Bill Jeffrey
http://www.farewellanalog.net/index2.htm
Bill Jeffrey
=======================
Steven Dinius
"Bill Jeffrey" <wjef...@NOSPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:qSG8c.3455$GH3.1255@fed1read07...
J. B. Wood
garners so much attention. It is basically a standard EIA-type test
pattern that someone pasted a picture/drawing of an American Indian chief
into. I can understand the connection between American Indians and
tobacco but TV?? Did Vladimir Zworykin or David Sarnoff have native
Americans as ancestors? Or was RCA trying to promote TV as originally
American like our native Americans?
Aside from the Indian chief, I always found that type of pattern
particularly useful for tweaking TV receiver vertical/horizontal linearity
using the four circles in each corner of the pattern. Of course, I
generally had to do this after midnight ;-) Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Phil Nelson
Also seen in the Test Card Gallery (click the "around the world" link).
http://www.meldrum.co.uk/mhp/testcard/
Phil
Joe Bento
"Hey man, whatcha doin?"
"Ahhh... I'm watching this movie about indians, man"
"That ain't no movie, you idiot - that's a test pattern!"
--
Joe, N6DGY
joseph at kirtland dot com
Steven Dinius
"Joe Bento" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:kOSdnbLC75W...@giganews.com...
Randy and/or Sherry
Joe Bento wrote:
> Anyone remember the old Cheech and Chong skit?
>
> "Hey man, whatcha doin?"
>
> "Ahhh... I'm watching this movie about indians, man"
>
> "That ain't no movie, you idiot - that's a test pattern!"
hmmm - wasn't that in the same movie where Tommy smokes a roach?
"Dave ain't here!"
--
randy guttery
A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com
Steven Dinius
"Randy and/or Sherry" <comc...@mississippi.net> wrote in message
news:4064A959...@mississippi.net...
Bob Weiss
> hmmm - wasn't that in the same movie where Tommy smokes a roach?
>
> "Dave ain't here!"
Kinda grabs ya by the booboo, don't it?
It's mostly maui wowie, but it's got some Labrador mixed in....
:)
Bob Weiss N2IXK
Stephen Worth
Harvey <NOT_m...@email.com> wrote:
> Fascinating, but obtaining the copyright on the Indian head or the
> associated test pattern is going to be nearly impossible for Chuck to
> do at this point.
That isn't necessarily true. If there is no copyright mark on the
duplicates sent out to stations it could be argued that it was never
copyrighted, and was given out freely to use in tests of the equipment.
I seriously doubt that there was a formal broadcast license for the
hundreds of stations that broadcast it in the wee hours of the night. I
don't think there is any legal problem with it at all.
See ya
Steve
--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
exray
> In article <6hs160p5kh2pjolai...@4ax.com>, Scott W.
> Harvey <NOT_m...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fascinating, but obtaining the copyright on the Indian head or the
>>associated test pattern is going to be nearly impossible for Chuck to
>>do at this point.
>
>
> That isn't necessarily true. If there is no copyright mark on the
> duplicates sent out to stations it could be argued that it was never
> copyrighted, and was given out freely to use in tests of the equipment.
> I seriously doubt that there was a formal broadcast license for the
> hundreds of stations that broadcast it in the wee hours of the night. I
> don't think there is any legal problem with it at all.
>
> See ya
> Steve
>
I'd say start selling copies of them on ebay and see who squeals
loudest. Cheaper than hiring a lawyer to figure it out.
-BM