ConJose pictures: Art Show Dragon
Hank Graham
My wife spent ConJose sculpting a dragon in the Art Show. If
anyone has any pictures of it they'd be willing to share, I'd
appreciate it if you'd email me copies.
I can be reached by removing "nospam" from the above address.
Danny Low
Considering the no photography policy, the only way someone could have
gotten a photo is if your wife explicitly agreed to it and notified
the people running the art show to let the person take the photo. I
think you are asking for something that does not exist if your wife
does not know who has a photo already. Otherwise you may be getting a
photo from someone who took pictures without permission. That is a bad
precedent. Alicia Austin lost the copyright for all practical purposes
on one of her artwork once when someone took a picture of it and
published it in a newspaper. That is why the policy exists.
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything?
Beth Friedman
<1ughougjkdtu8ljhd...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:30:49 -0700, Hank Graham
><hank...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>Howdy:
>>
>> My wife spent ConJose sculpting a dragon in the Art Show. If
>>anyone has any pictures of it they'd be willing to share, I'd
>>appreciate it if you'd email me copies.
>>
>> I can be reached by removing "nospam" from the above address.
>
>Considering the no photography policy, the only way someone could have
>gotten a photo is if your wife explicitly agreed to it and notified
>the people running the art show to let the person take the photo. I
>think you are asking for something that does not exist if your wife
>does not know who has a photo already.
Were you at ConJose? This wasn't part of the art show proper, though
it was in art show space. It was an armature of a dragon that
gradually was covered with some claylike material and sculpted into
shape. I'm pretty sure photos were not only permitted but encouraged.
My understanding is that it's eventually intended to perch on a large
post overlooking the artist's driveway. (This was a _big_ dragon; I
don't remember the exact dimensions, but it was taller than I was.)
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Mark Hertel
It is pretty cool looking, I found a couple of photos of it at this
page:
http://www.future-classics.org/conjose/monpics.html
--
Mark Hertel
Ian Maughan
"Danny Low" <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1ughougjkdtu8ljhd...@4ax.com...
She was quite happily giving permission for photographs to anybody who
asked, including myself and a couple of other people just in the time I was
there. It may have been against policy but is was certainly happening.
--
Square Bear
Thomas Yan
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:21:48 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:30:49 -0700, Hank Graham
> >><hank...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>> My wife spent ConJose sculpting a dragon in the Art Show. If
> >>>anyone has any pictures of it they'd be willing to share, I'd
> >>>appreciate it if you'd email me copies.
-snip-
> > [...] This wasn't part of the art show proper, though
> > it was in art show space. It was an armature of a dragon that
> > gradually was covered with some claylike material and sculpted into
> > shape. I'm pretty sure photos were not only permitted but encouraged.
-snip-
> It is pretty cool looking, I found a couple of photos of it at this
> page:
>
> http://www.future-classics.org/conjose/monpics.html
Wow!
Hank Graham
<hank...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> My wife spent ConJose sculpting a dragon in the Art Show. If
>>anyone has any pictures of it they'd be willing to share, I'd
>>appreciate it if you'd email me copies.
>> I can be reached by removing "nospam" from the above address.
And Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> answered:
>Considering the no photography policy, the only way someone could have
>gotten a photo is if your wife explicitly agreed to it and notified
>the people running the art show to let the person take the photo. I
>think you are asking for something that does not exist if your wife
>does not know who has a photo already.
Uhh---photography *was* actively encouraged, the art show
people knew this (and many thanks to Jerome and Elizabeth for letting
Kim play in their art show), and there were several signs that stated
this. We had hoped people would be able to send them to us, via Kim's
new website, and email.. But the website didn't get up until
yesterday, and so we're trying now to find some of the many folks who
took pictures.
If you have some photos, we'd love to get copies. If you
don't, please stop trying to help.
Danny Low
<Squar...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>She was quite happily giving permission for photographs to anybody who
>asked, including myself and a couple of other people just in the time I was
>there. It may have been against policy but is was certainly happening.
If she gave permission that was okay then and was not against the
standard policy that I have seen used.
Danny Low
wrote:
>Were you at ConJose?
Yes. Did you read my posting? I wrote that if she gave permission, it
would be okay. Art shows that allow indiscriminate photography in
their room are putting the copyright of the artists at risk. I do not
know how this show handled its security and will defer to the artists'
judgement on it.
Danny Low
With a statement like this, I am not only willing to stop trying but I
will never start again in the future. Obviously I fell flat on my face
in my clumsy attempt to help but I do not appreciate being kick while
I am down.
Kevin Standlee
> Considering the no photography policy, the only way
> someone could have gotten a photo is if your wife
> explicitly agreed to it and notified the people
> running the art show to let the person take the photo.
In this case, they were pretty easygoing about it. I've
seen some photos of the dragon in various states of
creation, but I don't have references handy right now.
Again, in this specific case, I wish we'd deliberately taken
photos over time, because the sculpture was deliberately
broken up at the end of the convention, so photos are all
we'll ever have of it.
My thanks to the artist for her find contribution for her
wonderful contribution to ConJose. I only wish I'd had an
opportunity to see the final result. I'm definitely
grateful that my fellow co-Chair, Tom Whitmore, dragged me
into the Art Show to see it.
--
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Standlee <stan...@lunacity.com>
Fast / Accurate / Cheap (Pick Any Two)
--------------------------------------------------
Keith Stokes
<hank...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> Uhh---photography *was* actively encouraged, the art show
>people knew this (and many thanks to Jerome and Elizabeth for letting
>Kim play in their art show), and there were several signs that stated
>this.
I didn't see any signs and I looked for some.
Keith
Hank Graham
><hank...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> Uhh---photography *was* actively encouraged, the art show
>>people knew this (and many thanks to Jerome and Elizabeth for letting
>>Kim play in their art show), and there were several signs that stated
>>this.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:49:27 GMT, sfre...@NOSPAM.net (Keith Stokes)
wrote:
>I didn't see any signs and I looked for some.
*sigh* You ain't the only one. There were several signs, and
people either missed them, or they weren't put where peope would see
them, or they got clay all over them and were no longer visible (the
one nearest the Dragon).
One of the docents actually came over to complain because
photography was going on--which complaint he made to Kim standing
directly beside the sign saying photography was okay of the dragon. He
was rather sheepish when she pointed it out to him.
Next time we do this, we make some really BIG signs. In red.
Possibly with blinking neon. And noisemakers.
Hank Graham
>> Considering the no photography policy, the only way
>> someone could have gotten a photo is if your wife
>> explicitly agreed to it and notified the people
>> running the art show to let the person take the photo.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:28:19 GMT, Kevin Standlee
<stan...@lunacity.com> wrote:
>In this case, they were pretty easygoing about it. I've
>seen some photos of the dragon in various states of
>creation, but I don't have references handy right now.
>
>Again, in this specific case, I wish we'd deliberately taken
>photos over time, because the sculpture was deliberately
>broken up at the end of the convention, so photos are all
>we'll ever have of it.
>
>My thanks to the artist for her find contribution for her
>wonderful contribution to ConJose. I only wish I'd had an
>opportunity to see the final result. I'm definitely
>grateful that my fellow co-Chair, Tom Whitmore, dragged me
>into the Art Show to see it.
I'm glad Tom got you to it. There _were_ photos taken over
time, however, and they're going to get posted on her new website,
which is *finally* up, though it may take a few days to get them
there.
And the sculpture is intended to live again. Kim brought the
steel armature back from the convention, and intends to re-sculpt the
dragon in concrete, so it can be put outside. We plan to have this as
one of our two gateposts on our land, south of Seattle.
Tom Galloway
Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>would be okay. Art shows that allow indiscriminate photography in
>their room are putting the copyright of the artists at risk. I do not
Um, are you sure the copyright problem still exists? At least for written
work, the work is autocopyrighted when created. While there are still
advantages to registering a copyright with regards to possible penalties
for violation, the days of something being out of copyright due to not
putting a "copyright 2002" or "c in a circle symbol 2002" are long gone.
Now, there are certainly reasons why an artist might not want someone
making a visual copy of their work via a photo or video (in fact, that
does potentially violate the artist's copyright), but I don't think
losing the copyright on the work applies.
tyg t...@panix.com
Hank Graham
><hank...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> If you have some photos, we'd love to get copies. If you
>>don't, please stop trying to help.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:27:19 GMT, Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>With a statement like this, I am not only willing to stop trying but I
>will never start again in the future. Obviously I fell flat on my face
>in my clumsy attempt to help but I do not appreciate being kick while
>I am down.
My apologies for offending you. I'm just upset because we
tried very hard to get the message out that photography of the dragon
was okay, and had very little success at it.
Also, from your comments, I thought you hadn't actually been
to the art show, but were just speaking in generalities about
something you didn't know about. Please consider that someone else
also asked if you'd been there.
You were correct in your statements that photography would
only be allowable if both Kim agreed and the Art Show folks approved,
but that was the case.
David Dyer-Bennet
Not potentially. *Inescapably*. The photo, or the video, is in fact
a copy of the work. But you're right that a violation doesn't cause
risk of the artist *losing* the copyright.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Alan Braggins
> > Now, there are certainly reasons why an artist might not want someone
> > making a visual copy of their work via a photo or video (in fact, that
> > does potentially violate the artist's copyright)
>
> a copy of the work.
Nitpicking, a photo isn't really a copy of a sculpture. But since
copyright covers making derivative works as well as copies, doing it
without permission is still a copyright violation.
Bernard Peek
<dann...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:21:48 -0500, Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Were you at ConJose?
>
>Yes. Did you read my posting? I wrote that if she gave permission, it
>would be okay. Art shows that allow indiscriminate photography in
>their room are putting the copyright of the artists at risk. I do not
>know how this show handled its security and will defer to the artists'
>judgement on it.
Correcting to be polite...
The copyright law has changed. There isn't any risk of losing copyright.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
www.diversebooks.com: SF & Computing book reviews and more.....
In search of cognoscenti
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tom Galloway
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) writes:
>> Now, there are certainly reasons why an artist might not want someone
>> making a visual copy of their work via a photo or video (in fact, that
>> does potentially violate the artist's copyright), but I don't think
>> losing the copyright on the work applies.
>Not potentially. *Inescapably*. The photo, or the video, is in fact
>a copy of the work. But you're right that a violation doesn't cause
>risk of the artist *losing* the copyright.
I'll still go with potentially. Let's say you take a photograph from the
door of the art show of as much of the room as you can fit in the image.
Will some copyrighted works show up? Yep. Will the resolution be high
enough for it to be considered a useful copy of any of those works?
Probably not.
tyg t...@panix.com
David Dyer-Bennet
If you use it in a news report, you come under a specific exemption.
If you attempt to use it most other ways, you'll come up against
trouble. However, the specific kinds of trouble that I can catalog
and define are none of them explicitly *copyright* trouble. Hmmm.
Danny Low
>Um, are you sure the copyright problem still exists? At least for written
>work, the work is autocopyrighted when created. While there are still
>advantages to registering a copyright with regards to possible penalties
>for violation, the days of something being out of copyright due to not
>putting a "copyright 2002" or "c in a circle symbol 2002" are long gone.
The story that I was told is the following:
Someone took a picture of one of Alicia Austin's pictures at a con.
The image was published in a newspaper. That copy is public domain and
can be duplicated by anyone. This means that while Alicia retains her
copyright of the original, that public domain image is out of her
control. The whole point of the copyright is to control the right to
copy so the artist can (hopefully) make money selling the right to
make copies of the original. In this case an alternative copy exists
which is in the public domain. Obviously many of the people who want a
copy of Alicia's work will want a really good copy but there are
others for whom the public domain copy will suit their purpose.
This is where someone innoculously damaged the financial value of
Alicia's work. However there is an obvious way where someone can
deliberately steal the financial value of an artist's work using this
technique. Consider this. In many places in the US you can buy video
tapes of movies that are still playing in the theaters. These are
often made by taking a camcorder into the theater. The quality is
awful but the prices of the tapes are less than that of a movie ticket
so many people buy them. For many people quality matters less than
simply having it at a cheap enough price.
Danny Low
<ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Nitpicking, a photo isn't really a copy of a sculpture. But since
>copyright covers making derivative works as well as copies, doing it
>without permission is still a copyright violation.
However you can sell a copy of the photo for money and deprive the
sculpturer of the income that would have come from selling a copy of
the image of the sculpture. When Arlin Robins sold her sculptures to
the Mirage hotel, she also sold them the right to use 2D images of the
sculptures for promoting the hotel but only for promoting the hotel.
She retained all other rights to any 2D images made of the sculptures
for commercial use. So, for example, she could sell the images to a
magazine doing a story on sculptures in Las Vegas hotels and make more
money from the statues.
The purpose of the copyright is to make money off the original beyond
simply selling it to someone. If someone else has a copy of the image
that they can sell, the artist loses income even if the artist retains
the original and the copyright on the original.
Danny Low
<hank...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> My apologies for offending you.
Apology accepted. Unfortunately I was able to go to the art show only
twice and in both cases, it was a run through to see what I could
before going back to working on the con.
Avram Grumer
Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Someone took a picture of one of Alicia Austin's pictures at a con.
> The image was published in a newspaper. That copy is public domain
> and can be duplicated by anyone. [...]
That sounds pretty dubious to me. Even if the newspaper's use of the
image was considered fair use (and I'm not convinced it would be)
subsequent copies of that newspaper image wouldn't be.
--
Avram Grumer / "There will never be
av...@grumer.org / a technology that beats
www.PigsAndFishes.org / having lunch..."
www.livejournal.com/users/agrumer/ -- Jakob Nielsen
Tom Galloway
Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Someone took a picture of one of Alicia Austin's pictures at a con.
>The image was published in a newspaper. That copy is public domain and
>can be duplicated by anyone. This means that while Alicia retains her
Um, no. On several grounds. First off, under current copyright law, Austin
would still have the copyright on the image. She doesn't lose it because
someone made an unauthorized copy. Second, assuming the newspaper had any
degree of professionalism/commercialism, it copyrighted its contents. So
even the unauthorized copy wasn't in the public domain. Finally, under
current copyright laws, the creator has to explicitly proclaim something
as public domain for it to be made such. There's no way of accidently
losing copyright as there used to be. Either this incident took place at
least a decade or more ago, or else you and/or Ms. Austin were very misinformed
as to the consequences of the photo and publication.
>technique. Consider this. In many places in the US you can buy video
>tapes of movies that are still playing in the theaters. These are
>often made by taking a camcorder into the theater. The quality is
>awful but the prices of the tapes are less than that of a movie ticket
>so many people buy them. For many people quality matters less than
>simply having it at a cheap enough price.
Yes, this is unquestionably a copyright violation. It having happened doesn't
put the film into the public domain, or otherwise remove the copyright
owner's copyright though.
tyg t...@panix.com
David G. Bell
<lv8louo9q7tn9quql...@4ax.com>
dann...@earthlink.net "Danny Low" wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2002 02:07:16 -0400, t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
>
> >Um, are you sure the copyright problem still exists? At least for written
> >work, the work is autocopyrighted when created. While there are still
> >advantages to registering a copyright with regards to possible penalties
> >for violation, the days of something being out of copyright due to not
> >putting a "copyright 2002" or "c in a circle symbol 2002" are long gone.
>
> The story that I was told is the following:
>
> Someone took a picture of one of Alicia Austin's pictures at a con.
> The image was published in a newspaper. That copy is public domain and
> can be duplicated by anyone. This means that while Alicia retains her
> copyright of the original, that public domain image is out of her
> control. The whole point of the copyright is to control the right to
> copy so the artist can (hopefully) make money selling the right to
> make copies of the original. In this case an alternative copy exists
> which is in the public domain. Obviously many of the people who want a
> copy of Alicia's work will want a really good copy but there are
> others for whom the public domain copy will suit their purpose.
I thought that Public Domain had a specific technical meaning in US
Copyright Law, and just _publishing_ something didn't lead to that
state. It would need a specific declaration by the copyright holder(s).
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
Alan Braggins
> The purpose of the copyright is to make money off the original beyond
> simply selling it to someone.
The purpose of the copyright is to give the creator control over how
their work was used. If they want to say "this is a transient work and
no copies will ever be sold (or even exist)" or "may be used for free,
but only by the charities I have given permission", they have that right.
"The creator wasn't going to sell copies anyway so hasn't lost any
money" doesn't stop something being a copyright violation, though it
may affect any damages awarded as a result.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> On 19 Sep 2002 02:07:16 -0400, t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
> >Um, are you sure the copyright problem still exists? At least for written
> >work, the work is autocopyrighted when created. While there are still
> >advantages to registering a copyright with regards to possible penalties
> >for violation, the days of something being out of copyright due to not
> >putting a "copyright 2002" or "c in a circle symbol 2002" are long gone.
>
> The story that I was told is the following:
>
> Someone took a picture of one of Alicia Austin's pictures at a con.
> The image was published in a newspaper. That copy is public domain and
> can be duplicated by anyone.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, EVER SO WRONG, DAMNIT!
If the incident took place after the changes in U.S.
copyright law (1976?), then she still holds copyright
without having to register it.
In any case, the newspaper and/or photographer have
copyright in that photograph, subject to Alicia's rights in
derivative works based on her original work!
Material published in newspapers is not public domain
thereby!
You were misinformed.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
grievance officer, National Writers Union
(which includes the Cartoonists Association, btw)
David Dyer-Bennet
> Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > The purpose of the copyright is to make money off the original beyond
> > simply selling it to someone.
>
> The purpose of the copyright is to give the creator control over how
> their work was used. If they want to say "this is a transient work and
> no copies will ever be sold (or even exist)" or "may be used for free,
> but only by the charities I have given permission", they have that right.
No, Danny is right on this one. The purpose of copyright is to
support useful arts and sciences, by the mechanism of making it
possible to make money by practicing them.
The other control given the creator is a side-effect of that. It's
equally legally valid, but it's not the primary intent.
David Dyer-Bennet
> I thought that Public Domain had a specific technical meaning in US
> Copyright Law, and just _publishing_ something didn't lead to that
> state. It would need a specific declaration by the copyright holder(s).
Correct. Especially now, after we've passed the laws bringing us into
line with the Berne convention countries.
Furthermore, a newspaper would not normally *be* public domain
anyway.
Danny Low
<oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, EVER SO WRONG, DAMNIT!
>
>If the incident took place after the changes in U.S.
>copyright law (1976?), then she still holds copyright
>without having to register it.
It took place BEFORE the changes.
>In any case, the newspaper and/or photographer have
>copyright in that photograph, subject to Alicia's rights in
>derivative works based on her original work!
>
>Material published in newspapers is not public domain
>thereby!
>
>You were misinformed.
The source of the information was a former president of ASFA. I
presumed Ctein knows something about the copyright laws. And as I
pointed out, it was the potential for loss of revenue from selling the
copyrights that was the issue not the actual loss of copyright.
However given the primary purpose of the copyright concept, the loss
of the revenue was for all practical purposes also a loss of the
copyright.
Jo Walton
> Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> The purpose of the copyright is to make money off the original beyond
>> simply selling it to someone.
>
> The purpose of the copyright is to give the creator control over how
> their work was used. If they want to say "this is a transient work and
> no copies will ever be sold (or even exist)" or "may be used for free,
> but only by the charities I have given permission", they have that right.
Can you say "remains my copyright while I am alive and then passes into
the public domain"?
--
Jo I kissed a kif at Kefk blu...@vif.com
THE KING'S PEACE paperback available now from Tor Books!
THE KING'S NAME hardback still available
THE PRIZE IN THE GAME coming in November http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Bernard Peek
<dann...@earthlink.net> writes
>On 19 Sep 2002 02:07:16 -0400, t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
>
>>Um, are you sure the copyright problem still exists? At least for written
>>work, the work is autocopyrighted when created. While there are still
>>advantages to registering a copyright with regards to possible penalties
>>for violation, the days of something being out of copyright due to not
>>putting a "copyright 2002" or "c in a circle symbol 2002" are long gone.
>
>The story that I was told is the following:
>
>Someone took a picture of one of Alicia Austin's pictures at a con.
>The image was published in a newspaper. That copy is public domain and
>can be duplicated by anyone.
Nope. Under the current law it's still copyright to both the artist and
the newspaper. The newspaper could assign all of its rights to the
public domain but that still wouldn't prevent Alicia from asserting her
own rights which are completely independent of any rights that the
newspaper has.
Mike Scott
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:51:04 -0500, "Michael J. Lowrey"
> <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, EVER SO WRONG, DAMNIT!
>>
>>If the incident took place after the changes in U.S.
>>copyright law (1976?), then she still holds copyright
>>without having to register it.
>
> It took place BEFORE the changes.
In that case the incident is of no value in discussion of the current
situation.
--
Mike Scott
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2002 02:07:16 -0400, t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) wrote:
>
>>Um, are you sure the copyright problem still exists? At least for written
>>work, the work is autocopyrighted when created. While there are still
>>advantages to registering a copyright with regards to possible penalties
>>for violation, the days of something being out of copyright due to not
>>putting a "copyright 2002" or "c in a circle symbol 2002" are long gone.
>
>The story that I was told is the following:
>
>Someone took a picture of one of Alicia Austin's pictures at a con.
>The image was published in a newspaper. That copy is public domain and
>can be duplicated by anyone.
That copy is *not* public domain. It belongs either to the
photographer or the organization s/he works for (depends on their
arrangement). Although it would appear that the photographer violated
copyright. My point is that photos in newspapers are not public
domain.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Danny Low
wrote:
>Nope. Under the current law it's still copyright to both the artist and
>the newspaper. The newspaper could assign all of its rights to the
>public domain but that still wouldn't prevent Alicia from asserting her
>own rights which are completely independent of any rights that the
>newspaper has.
However the newspaper copy would be readily accessible for copying to
anyone who makes the request. The value of the copyright to the artist
would be lessened. Newspapers do not generally restrict access to
their morgue. So the legal retention of the copyright is a moot point.
What does it matters to an artist to have a valid copyright that may
be worthless as a result? It might as well be a public domain piece.
Keith Stokes
>Can you say "remains my copyright while I am alive and then passes into
>the public domain"?
The holder of rights can make them public at any time.
And once they enter the public domain, they stay there.
Keith
Danny Low
wrote:
>In that case the incident is of no value in discussion of the current
>situation.
Legally, maybe not. Financially it is still very relevant . If no one
needs to pay the artist to use that other copy, a valid copyright
could be worthless and might as well be in the public domain. Artists
need income to pay the bills. Copyrights can be a major source of
money and if there is another copy available that others can use and
not have to pay money to artists, then the validity of the copyright
could be a moot point.
There are dealers at cons that sell prints of various SF artists'
works. It is implicit that those prints are made legally from a
copyright agreement. But if there are other copies floating around in
a newspaper morgue that can be used to make those prints, you never
know. Crooks exist in fandom as well as in the mundane world.
It's about the money. Starving artists do not produce as much artwork
as someone who makes decent money from their art.
Danny Low
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>That copy is *not* public domain. It belongs either to the
>photographer or the organization s/he works for (depends on their
>arrangement). Although it would appear that the photographer violated
>copyright. My point is that photos in newspapers are not public
>domain.
And my point is those copies are NOT controlled by the artist. Hence
the income the artist can derive from her copyright can be
compromised. A starving artist produces less artwork than one who is
making a decent income from the artwork. Selling the copyrights can be
a major source of income and having a copy that is controlled by
someone else can compromise the ability to make money from the
original copyright.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:24:31 -0400, Marilee J. Layman
So what? If the photographer took the picture without permission,
then she has the right to sue for it, and get her money *that* way.
Mike Scott
> And my point is those copies are NOT controlled by the artist. Hence
> the income the artist can derive from her copyright can be
> compromised. A starving artist produces less artwork than one who is
> making a decent income from the artwork. Selling the copyrights can be
> a major source of income and having a copy that is controlled by
> someone else can compromise the ability to make money from the
> original copyright.
Artists don't normally sell their copyrights, and if they were to do
so that *would* be a way in which they would lose control over the
reproduction of their work, as oposed to your paranoid fantasies.
An unauthorised photograph can be copied and redistributed, but to do
so is illegal. An authorised print can be copied and redistributed,
but to do so is illegal. What's the difference, that makes
unauthorised photographs something to be feared so much?
--
Mike Scott
Irina Rempt
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:25:33 GMT, Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you say "remains my copyright while I am alive and then passes
>>into the public domain"?
>
> The holder of rights can make them public at any time.
In their will, too? That's probably closest to what Jo wants.
(and what I want as well, incidentally)
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>And my point is those copies are NOT controlled by the artist. Hence
>the income the artist can derive from her copyright can be
>compromised. A starving artist produces less artwork than one who is
>making a decent income from the artwork. Selling the copyrights can be
>a major source of income and having a copy that is controlled by
>someone else can compromise the ability to make money from the
>original copyright.
Mountains. Molehills.
The newspaper copy is still under copyright, and anyone making copies
from that is violating copyright.
For all your argument, there's nothing to stop an unscrupulous sort
from buying a legitimate print and striking off copies from that. The
sort of person who would try to make major money off of a newspaper
print--of obvious lesser quality--is even more likely to not be
stopped at violating copyright by copying an even better image that he
or she has purchased legitimately.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>An unauthorised photograph can be copied and redistributed, but to do
>so is illegal. An authorised print can be copied and redistributed,
>but to do so is illegal. What's the difference, that makes
>unauthorised photographs something to be feared so much?
Ignorance.
jrw
Danny Low
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>So what? If the photographer took the picture without permission,
>then she has the right to sue for it, and get her money *that* way.
Suing costs money. It requires finding the photographer. It requires
the photographer actually have enough money to pay for lawyer's fee as
well as the money lost. It chews up your time as you have to make
depositions, court appearances, strategy meetings with your lawyer,
etc.
This is the worst solution to the problem and often results in more
money being lost than could ever be regained.
Danny Low
Do you make your living from intellectual property? You are very
facile in dismissing simple precautions someone making a living from
their art might want to take. The risk may be low but so is the
effort. Some people are very quick to dismiss other people's problem
because it is not theirs. You seem to be one of them.
Danny Low
wrote:
>Artists don't normally sell their copyrights, and if they were to do
>so that *would* be a way in which they would lose control over the
>reproduction of their work, as oposed to your paranoid fantasies.
Are you an artist? You seem to be dismissing some simple precautions
that artists have requested over the years. This is a simple
precautions artists have requested. Unless you are an artist then I
would say your arguments have no validity as you have nothing to lose
if you are wrong. So you can freely offer bad solutions and criticise
good precautions.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>Do you make your living from intellectual property? You are very
>facile in dismissing simple precautions someone making a living from
>their art might want to take. The risk may be low but so is the
>effort. Some people are very quick to dismiss other people's problem
>because it is not theirs. You seem to be one of them.
And some people are very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions based
on their own presuppositions.
You fail to specify how your cited situation is any different with
regard to an unscrupulous person copying and selling prints from a
properly purchased piece of artwork. Whether it's copying from a
copyrighted photograph printed in a newspaper, or copying from the
print or original, it's still a violation of copyright on the part of
the person making the copies.
It is only the ignorant and paranoid who fear loss of copyright due to
pictures of their artwork that are published in a properly copyrighted
newspaper. For me it falls in the same catagory as being obsessive
about people taking pictures of jewelry or beadwork design for fear of
someone copying their work. A good jeweler or beadworker will be able
to copy without necessarily taking a picture.
jrw
Andrew Plotkin
> On Saturday 21 September 2002 04:07 Keith Stokes wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:25:33 GMT, Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can you say "remains my copyright while I am alive and then passes
>>>into the public domain"?
>>
>> The holder of rights can make them public at any time.
> In their will, too? That's probably closest to what Jo wants.
> (and what I want as well, incidentally)
I actually see a problem with the idea of copyright ending at the
creator's death.
Right now there are bunch of bookstores out there with copies of Jo's
books on their shelves. The bookstores bought them from the
distributor, the distributor bought them from the publisher, there are
existing or upcoming paperback sales, etc, etc -- details not known to
me and not relevant -- the point is, this is all predicated on the
fact that Jo has signed a contract giving Tor the sole right to first
publication of her copyrighted work.
And nobody in the chain wants to see the books enter the public domain
*without warning* -- it's not what they signed on for. No matter how
long you think copyright should last, it's hard to move money around
if a contract can be turned on its ear by an unexpected death.
I don't know how any given party would react if Jo were struck dead by
a falling rhinoceros, and the next day all her books were legally
copyable by anybody. Maybe it wouldn't affect Tor's publishing plans
at all. (Or the distributor, or the retailer...) But it seems like the
sort of thing a publisher would want to at least *talk* about, when
arranging the terms of a publication deal.
My objection does not entail copyright in perpetuity. Three or five
years after death is plenty of time to figure this sort of thing out.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Joel Rosenberg
> Here, Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 September 2002 04:07 Keith Stokes wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:25:33 GMT, Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Can you say "remains my copyright while I am alive and then passes
>>>>into the public domain"?
>>>
>>> The holder of rights can make them public at any time.
>
>> In their will, too? That's probably closest to what Jo wants.
>
>> (and what I want as well, incidentally)
>
> I actually see a problem with the idea of copyright ending at the
> creator's death.
Me, too.
"Hey, you got that print run of the new Harry Potter book
ready to ship?"
"Yeah, T. We're all ready to go. I dropped a coupla copy on Meadow
and Little T -- they wanted to read it."
"What kind of a fucking idiot are you? If the Feds get ahold of it..."
"Doesn't matter, T. Nicky's stopped JK's on his way back."
--
Palestinian unemployment is so bad, [UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen says,]
that he's willing to risk Israeli lives to ease it.... Here's a hint,
Terje, old boy: If you want to solve Palestinian unemployment, get
them to stop blowing up their employers.
-- Meryl Yourish (http://www.yourish.com)
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
David G. Bell
erky...@eblong.com "Andrew Plotkin" wrote:
> Here, Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 September 2002 04:07 Keith Stokes wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:25:33 GMT, Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Can you say "remains my copyright while I am alive and then passes
> >>>into the public domain"?
> >>
> >> The holder of rights can make them public at any time.
>
> > In their will, too? That's probably closest to what Jo wants.
>
> > (and what I want as well, incidentally)
>
> I actually see a problem with the idea of copyright ending at the
> creator's death.
>
> Right now there are bunch of bookstores out there with copies of Jo's
> books on their shelves. The bookstores bought them from the
> distributor, the distributor bought them from the publisher, there are
> existing or upcoming paperback sales, etc, etc -- details not known to
> me and not relevant -- the point is, this is all predicated on the
> fact that Jo has signed a contract giving Tor the sole right to first
> publication of her copyrighted work.
>
> And nobody in the chain wants to see the books enter the public domain
> *without warning* -- it's not what they signed on for. No matter how
> long you think copyright should last, it's hard to move money around
> if a contract can be turned on its ear by an unexpected death.
My signature is on a contract which would end that way -- an
agricultural tenancy -- but there are other clauses which cover the
transition and what compensation would be due either way. Assuming that
a contract with a publisher has some determinable duration, these
difficulties can be managed.
Personally, I think Jo could trust her heirs, but not everyone can say
that.
Jo Walton
>
> My objection does not entail copyright in perpetuity. Three or five
> years after death is plenty of time to figure this sort of thing out.
Yeah, this makes sense. My problem is with 70 or 90 years, which is
just ridiculous.
Does anyone know enough about copyright law and what one can say in
wills to know if one can put one's work into the public domain five
years after one's death?
My solicitor (in Britain) had so little clue about copyright law that
she didn't know if it was possible to specifically will one's copyrights
to someone, or how to go about appointing a literary executor in one's
will.
Jo Walton
>
> Personally, I think Jo could trust her heirs, but not everyone can say
> that.
It's not that I don't trust my heirs, not at all, it's just that I think
the current length of copyright is positively harmful to what Tolkien
called the Soup of Story. I'm not Disney, I can't change the law for
everyone, but I can do what I can not to make things worse myself.
Matt Austern
> In article <aml0su$gvs$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >
> > My objection does not entail copyright in perpetuity. Three or five
> > years after death is plenty of time to figure this sort of thing out.
>
> Yeah, this makes sense. My problem is with 70 or 90 years, which is
> just ridiculous.
Yes, I was idly wondering when the first edition Hobbit (published
some time in the 20s, right?) would go into public domain; I'd like to
read it some day, and it'd be nice to be able to buy a Dover edition
or get it on Gutenberg or something like that.
Then I remembered: oops, it doesn't matter that it was published
almost a century ago. Life of the author plus 70 years... Well,
there's a good chance that I'll still be alive in 2043, but I think
I'll have to figure out some other way to read that text.
David Goldfarb
Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> wrote:
>Yes, I was idly wondering when the first edition Hobbit (published
>some time in the 20s, right?) would go into public domain; I'd like to
>read it some day, and it'd be nice to be able to buy a Dover edition
>or get it on Gutenberg or something like that.
1930's, if memory serves me right. (Google says 1937.)
>Then I remembered: oops, it doesn't matter that it was published
>almost a century ago. Life of the author plus 70 years... Well,
>there's a good chance that I'll still be alive in 2043, but I think
>I'll have to figure out some other way to read that text.
I seem to recall an annotated _Hobbit_ put out somewhere around
the 50th anniversary that had the original version of "Riddles in
the Dark" as an appendix. Bookfinder.com shows a number of copies
in the $15-20 range.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"O Captain! my Captain! The engines' race is run.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | Though our ship has weathered every rack, our
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | victors' prize is won;
| I canna change the laws of physics. You've burned
| them out, they're done."
Vicki Rosenzweig
+0000 (UTC):
Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
publication.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:28:46 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> >Nope. Under the current law it's still copyright to both the artist and
> >the newspaper. The newspaper could assign all of its rights to the
> >public domain but that still wouldn't prevent Alicia from asserting her
> >own rights which are completely independent of any rights that the
> >newspaper has.
>
> However the newspaper copy would be readily accessible for copying to
> anyone who makes the request. The value of the copyright to the artist
> would be lessened. Newspapers do not generally restrict access to
> their morgue.
You ever tried to access a newspaper morgue (most of them
are called "libraries" nowadays; pfui!) without an inside
contact?
--
Michael J. Lowrey
raised in a newsroom
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>>My objection does not entail copyright in perpetuity. Three or five
>>years after death is plenty of time to figure this sort of thing out.
>>
>Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
>publication.
I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
more than 50.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Irina Rempt
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:38:11 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
> wrote:
>>Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
>>publication.
>
> I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
> copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
> that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
> period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
> more than 50.
I'm 44. I've just written a novel. Suppose it's published; I'm likely to
be still under 50 on the date of publication. I shudder to think that
I'll live to see my copyright taken away when I'm 75.
And many people write books when they're much younger; do you want to
deprive them of their copyright even before they're old?
Joel Rosenberg
> On Monday 23 September 2002 18:09 Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:38:11 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
>>>publication.
>>
>> I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
>> copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
>> that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
>> period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
>> more than 50.
>
> I'm 44. I've just written a novel. Suppose it's published; I'm likely to
> be still under 50 on the date of publication. I shudder to think that
> I'll live to see my copyright taken away when I'm 75.
>
> And many people write books when they're much younger; do you want to
> deprive them of their copyright even before they're old?
>
> Irina
>
Should I assume that everybody interested has already read Mark
Twain's essay on the subject, or find a URL?
--
I can imagine a commando-type raid to capture Bin Laden,
then a trial, with evidence, before the world court. But
that would not address the vast global inequalities in which
terrorism is ultimately rooted. What is so heartbreaking to
me as a feminist is that the strongest response to corporate
globalization and U.S. military domination is based on such
a violent and misogynist ideology."
-- Barbara Ehrenreich
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Irina Rempt
> Should I assume that everybody interested has already read Mark
> Twain's essay on the subject, or find a URL?
Find a URL, please; not everyone lives in a country where Mark Twain is
a staple of education.
Andrew Plotkin
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:38:11 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
> wrote:
>>>My objection does not entail copyright in perpetuity. Three or five
>>>years after death is plenty of time to figure this sort of thing out.
>>>
>>Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
>>publication.
That certainly addresses that objection.
> I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
> copyright period than "life of author".
I dunno. I can see arguments either way -- it's even-handed and it
doesn't bias against older authors; on the other hand, it's
nervewracking to consider my work being yanked from my control while
I'm still there to benefit from it.
Either approach would work, I think, as long as there *is* a cutoff.
As opposed to a permanent floating will-o-wisp somewhere in the
future.
And really I'm *much* more concerned about the DCMA trend than about
Bono-ism.
Avram Grumer
Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
> On Monday 23 September 2002 18:09 Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:38:11 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
> >>publication.
> >
> > I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis
> > for copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to
> > believe that the period should be drastically shorter than the
> > current period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication,
> > probably no more than 50.
>
> I'm 44. I've just written a novel. Suppose it's published; I'm likely
> to be still under 50 on the date of publication. I shudder to think
> that I'll live to see my copyright taken away when I'm 75.
Why?
> And many people write books when they're much younger; do you want to
> deprive them of their copyright even before they're old?
Why not?
--
Avram Grumer / "There will never be
av...@grumer.org / a technology that beats
www.PigsAndFishes.org / having lunch..."
www.livejournal.com/users/agrumer/ -- Jakob Nielsen
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:38:11 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
> wrote:
> >>My objection does not entail copyright in perpetuity. Three or five
> >>years after death is plenty of time to figure this sort of thing out.
> >>
> >Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
> >publication.
>
> I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
> copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
> that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
> period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
> more than 50.
If it's from first publication rather than from "fixed in tangible
form", then the work is not protected from when it is written until it
is published. That's *very* bad.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Irina Rempt
> In article <1637957.T...@calcifer.valdyas.org>,
> Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>> I'm 44. I've just written a novel. Suppose it's published; I'm likely
>> to be still under 50 on the date of publication. I shudder to think
>> that I'll live to see my copyright taken away when I'm 75.
>
> Why?
I want my work in the public domain eventually. I don't want to be
around to see what people do with it. I've seen some work of mine that
*is* in the public domain, because I put it there, put to uses I'd
never have condoned if I'd known. Especially, I don't want to see it in
my old age when I probably won't have the energy to fight (heck, I
don't have the energy to fight in my middle age).
>> And many people write books when they're much younger; do you want to
>> deprive them of their copyright even before they're old?
>
> Why not?
For the same reasons, only lasting longer.
David G. Bell
jo...@ellegon.com "Joel Rosenberg" wrote:
> Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> writes:
>
> > On Monday 23 September 2002 18:09 Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:38:11 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>>Or the old law, which made it a fixed number of years from first
> >>>publication.
> >>
> >> I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
> >> copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
> >> that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
> >> period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
> >> more than 50.
> >
> > I'm 44. I've just written a novel. Suppose it's published; I'm likely to
> > be still under 50 on the date of publication. I shudder to think that
> > I'll live to see my copyright taken away when I'm 75.
> >
> > And many people write books when they're much younger; do you want to
> > deprive them of their copyright even before they're old?
>
> Should I assume that everybody interested has already read Mark
> Twain's essay on the subject, or find a URL?
I don't have a precise URL, but Lord Macaulay's speeches on Copyright
are somewhere on the www.baen.com website, associated with the Free
Library section. There are also some hard figures on what effect giving
away electronic copies can have.
Avram Grumer
Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
> On Monday 23 September 2002 20:14 Avram Grumer wrote:
>
> > In article <1637957.T...@calcifer.valdyas.org>,
> > Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>
> >> I'm 44. I've just written a novel. Suppose it's published; I'm
> >> likely to be still under 50 on the date of publication. I shudder
> >> to think that I'll live to see my copyright taken away when I'm
> >> 75.
> >
> > Why?
>
> I want my work in the public domain eventually. I don't want to be
> around to see what people do with it. I've seen some work of mine
> that *is* in the public domain, because I put it there, put to uses
> I'd never have condoned if I'd known. Especially, I don't want to see
> it in my old age when I probably won't have the energy to fight
> (heck, I don't have the energy to fight in my middle age).
Ah. That's pretty much exactly why I want copyright shortened.
Jo Walton
>
> I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
> copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
> that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
> period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
> more than 50.
Wasn't the old US system 25 years, optionally renewable by a living
author for a further 25 years? That would make a lot of sense -- yes,
something you wrote at 20 would fall into the public domain when you
were 70. That seems OK.
Do you think there would be any support for returning to that?
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <s1fuouk5ar58dv8f4...@4ax.com>, Kevin J Maroney wrote:
> >
> > I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
> > copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
> > that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
> > period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
> > more than 50.
>
> Wasn't the old US system 25 years, optionally renewable by a living
> author for a further 25 years? That would make a lot of sense -- yes,
> something you wrote at 20 would fall into the public domain when you
> were 70. That seems OK.
>
> Do you think there would be any support for returning to that?
Not from Disney. And not from Europe.
And I think there needs to be some form of protection between when the
work is written and when it's first published. Preferably that
doesn't count against the total term -- if it takes a while for the
market to catch up with you, that shouldn't be *your* problem.
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>If it's from first publication rather than from "fixed in tangible
>form", then the work is not protected from when it is written until it
>is published. That's *very* bad.
Of course that's exactly the scenario I evisioned, because I want
publishers to steal unpublished works. Or, perhaps, not.
Legally, "publication" means "presented by one human being to another
human being", and that is, believe it or not, the sense I meant. But
I'm not sure that's right, either.
The problem with the "fixed in tangible form" standard is that it can
take a long time to get a work into print, and I'm envisioning the
possibility of a copyright period short enough that it would be
significantly adversely affected by that delay--as I said, perhaps as
little as 25 years from inception. That problem, of course, argues for
a somewhat longer period--50 years or so.
(Note that under current US copyright law, works that are discovered
after an author's death have special copyright status.)
Kevin J. Maroney
>Wasn't the old US system 25 years, optionally renewable by a living
>author for a further 25 years? That would make a lot of sense -- yes,
>something you wrote at 20 would fall into the public domain when you
>were 70. That seems OK.
>
>Do you think there would be any support for returning to that?
28 years renewable for another 28 (which was later extended to 50, for
a total of 78). The problem with that system was that it meant a lot
of guesswork and legal uncertainty about whether a work had been
properly renewed; I know that there are several major works of fantasy
and science fiction which were not properly renewed at the 28-year
mark which as a result are now in the public domain. The fact that
almost no one knows this in effect means that they're still under
copyright; the works of which I am thinking were written by people
whose heirs are very litigious.
Geri Sullivan
>
> >Danny Low wrote:
> >> Considering the no photography policy, the only way
> >> someone could have gotten a photo is if your wife
> >> explicitly agreed to it and notified the people
> >> running the art show to let the person take the photo.
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:28:19 GMT, Kevin Standlee
> <stan...@lunacity.com> wrote:
> >
> >My thanks to the artist for her find contribution for her
> >wonderful contribution to ConJose. I only wish I'd had an
> >opportunity to see the final result. I'm definitely
> >grateful that my fellow co-Chair, Tom Whitmore, dragged me
> >into the Art Show to see it.
>
> I'm glad Tom got you to it. There _were_ photos taken over
> time, however, and they're going to get posted on her new website,
> which is *finally* up, though it may take a few days to get them
> there.
I'm delighted to hear this.
I heard enough about the sculpture -- from Tom before the convention and
from *lots* of people at it -- that I pled for special dispensation to
go into the art show one afternoon when it was closed (during an
auction, IIRC) and saw the dragon. Seeing it was magical, and
magnificent. And if I hadn't seen it right then, pictures would have be
all I would have ever seen.
> And the sculpture is intended to live again. Kim brought the
> steel armature back from the convention, and intends to re-sculpt the
> dragon in concrete, so it can be put outside. We plan to have this as
> one of our two gateposts on our land, south of Seattle.
Excellent!!! Excellent!!! I'm so very pleased to hear this.
Geri
David G. Bell
<slrnaov8gp...@localhost.localdomain> blu...@vif.com
"Jo Walton" wrote:
> In article <s1fuouk5ar58dv8f4...@4ax.com>, Kevin J Maroney wrote:
> >
> > I'm coming to believe that this was, in fact, a much better basis for
> > copyright period than "life of author". I'm also coming to believe
> > that the period should be drastically shorter than the current
> > period--perhaps as little as 25 years from publication, probably no
> > more than 50.
>
> Wasn't the old US system 25 years, optionally renewable by a living
> author for a further 25 years? That would make a lot of sense -- yes,
> something you wrote at 20 would fall into the public domain when you
> were 70. That seems OK.
>
> Do you think there would be any support for returning to that?
The politics of copyright is dominated by the big media companies, which
don't die.
The big problem is that "copyright" and "income" are different, and a
lot of still-copyright work is pretty well worthless now.
But knowing in advance which is which can be tricky. At least you can
still arrange things as you wish, if you can afford the lawyers. I'd
watch for attempts to change "public domain" rules.
David G. Bell
<t8rvoucdcgpa3oigh...@4ax.com> k...@panix.com
"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
Can I assume that this applies to certain works about Mars and Africa
which are on a well-known free-distribution site, named for a famous
early printer?
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 23 Sep 2002 13:28:51 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
> >If it's from first publication rather than from "fixed in tangible
> >form", then the work is not protected from when it is written until it
> >is published. That's *very* bad.
>
> Of course that's exactly the scenario I evisioned, because I want
> publishers to steal unpublished works. Or, perhaps, not.
>
> Legally, "publication" means "presented by one human being to another
> human being", and that is, believe it or not, the sense I meant. But
> I'm not sure that's right, either.
Under our older copyright law, a work was *not* considered published
if an author showed the manuscript to one other person.
> The problem with the "fixed in tangible form" standard is that it can
> take a long time to get a work into print, and I'm envisioning the
> possibility of a copyright period short enough that it would be
> significantly adversely affected by that delay--as I said, perhaps as
> little as 25 years from inception. That problem, of course, argues for
> a somewhat longer period--50 years or so.
You could do something as simple as have "unpublished copyright" of
life+5, which only applies to works that the author hasn't made more
than 25 copies of or something, and then "published copyright" of 25
years from first publication.
I think that's too short, myself, but it's a workable scheme, just not
my first choice scheme.
> (Note that under current US copyright law, works that are discovered
> after an author's death have special copyright status.)
It is an interesting case.
Kevin J. Maroney
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>Can I assume that this applies to certain works about Mars and Africa
>which are on a well-known free-distribution site, named for a famous
>early printer?
No, I'm not talking about Edgar Rice Burroughs. The copyrights on
*those* works are complex, but as far as I know none of them lapsed
through non-renewal.
Elisabeth Riba
> ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>Can I assume that this applies to certain works about Mars and Africa
>>which are on a well-known free-distribution site, named for a famous
>>early printer?
> No, I'm not talking about Edgar Rice Burroughs. The copyrights on
> *those* works are complex, but as far as I know none of them lapsed
> through non-renewal.
AIUI, the early books have fallen into the public domain AFA copyright is
concerned. The PROBLEM is TRADEMARKS, which are a different matter.
--
--------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <--------------
Looking for work in the Boston area. Dynamic professional with over
10 years experience with software interface design, library science,
documentation and end-user support. See http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis
Kip Williams
> On Tuesday, in article
> <t8rvoucdcgpa3oigh...@4ax.com> k...@panix.com
> "Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:47:46 GMT, Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Wasn't the old US system 25 years, optionally renewable by a living
>>>author for a further 25 years? That would make a lot of sense -- yes,
>>>something you wrote at 20 would fall into the public domain when you
>>>were 70. That seems OK.
>>>
>>>Do you think there would be any support for returning to that?
>>
>>28 years renewable for another 28 (which was later extended to 50, for
>>a total of 78). The problem with that system was that it meant a lot
>>of guesswork and legal uncertainty about whether a work had been
>>properly renewed; I know that there are several major works of fantasy
>>and science fiction which were not properly renewed at the 28-year
>>mark which as a result are now in the public domain. The fact that
>>almost no one knows this in effect means that they're still under
>>copyright; the works of which I am thinking were written by people
>>whose heirs are very litigious.
>
>
> Can I assume that this applies to certain works about Mars and Africa
> which are on a well-known free-distribution site, named for a famous
> early printer?
Naked Lunch?
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"I can think of at least two things wrong with that title." --Nelson
Muntz
Hal O'Brien
> Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> writes:
> >
> > Wasn't the old US system 25 years, optionally renewable by a living
> > author for a further 25 years? That would make a lot of sense -- yes,
> > something you wrote at 20 would fall into the public domain when you
> > were 70. That seems OK.
> >
> > Do you think there would be any support for returning to that?
>
> Not from Disney.
Piece of cake. Any corporation that insists on being considered a
legal "person" gets to be taxed at personal rates. Watch how long
it'll take before Disney thinks twice about "personhood".
But, yes... It does appear that copyright has now become, de facto,
"Whatever needs to be done to keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted."
Personally, I like the petition (and approach) of Rafael Quezada,
which may be found at: http://prosua.blogspot.com/
-- Hal
Daniel R. Reitman
>Naked Lunch?
Has Dejeuner Sur l'Herbe passed into PD yet?
Dan, ad nauseam
Kip Williams
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:52:02 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Naked Lunch?
>
> Has Dejeuner Sur l'Herbe passed into PD yet?
The good news, yes: it has. The bad news: Bill Gates now owns Public
Domain.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
Beaver: "Oh, he didn't cheat a whole lot, just enough to win."
Gilbert: "That's all you got to cheat, just enough to win." ("Leave
it to Beaver")