Another copyright question?
Julie in Hondo
it through PC Stitch. When I went to my LNS to get fabric to stitch it the
owner said she would like a copy or two to sell since it was a local
interest piece. Do I have to ask permission from the church for this?
Julie in Hondo
MinnieNeedles
copyright laws he said, as long as you took the photo and made it from
that and didn't copy it from a book or something them your the owner
of the image (photo) and can do what you want to with it, since that
would be in a public place, and usually artwork like that don't have a
copyright on it.
So it should be OK to do that..
Jennifer Aikman-Smith
Julie in Hondo wrote:
Hi there Julie,
This type of image falls into a very tricky area actually, despite being a
public place. First of all, the company who produced the stained glass window
may very well indeed consider the image to be their property, since their
artists created it. Secondly, if a family or group in the church paid to have
the window commissioned, they MIGHT be considered partial copyright holders
depending on what type of contract/agreement they had with the company or
artist that created the window itself. Lastly, the church itself might not be
considered as "public" a place as you think if it is on consecrated land.
I would suggest that since you are the one who took the photo and done the
work to convert it to a pattern, that you take the time to research how the
parties involved would feel. Many times they would be willing to cooperate
for a mention in the pattern such as "adapted from stained glass artwork
created by________________" or "based on the window erected in loving memory
of ____________ at __________ church" The parties involved may not be seeking
monetary compensation so much as a chance for further recognition. Should the
pattern sell beyond your wildest dreams, you might even want to make a
donation to the church itself...
There are MANY possibilities and I think that you have found an niche in
your community that needs to be filled. Time to put on your business hat and
become a designer! Be sure to think about what you would like to see in a
chart as a stitcher and then do your best to put out a quality product. How
exciting!
Jennifer Aikman-Smith, Dragon Dreams Inc.
Good solid copyright information can be seen at
http://DragonDreams.accra.ca/Copyright Poster.jpg
Jennifer Aikman-Smith
Julie in Hondo wrote:
Hi there Julie,
Jennifer Aikman-Smith
Julie in Hondo wrote:
Hi there Julie,
Laren
Actually, this is not true. Buildings can be "copyrighted" to a certain
extent. For eg, you can't use the image of the Syndey Opera House or the
Syndey Harbour Bridge for commerical purposes without the permission of
the relevant authorities.
I would think that similar issues apply here.
If in doubt, always best to ask.
Cheers,
Laren
Matthew Dunne
photo has copyright on 'that image'. that is to say, you own and took the
photo yourself. Therefore, you own only the image. Mine was not of a
building, but a landscape.
It may be different with a building, albeit a public one, it is still owned
by someone - ie the Church. It may be that the Church would like a share of
any profits made from their building being used in this way.
Perhaps you could come to an agreement (get it in writing) with the
incumbent of the church. Perhaps a one off payment towards their roof fund
or whatever would be in order. Make an appointment to have a chat with
him/her. I'm sure they will respond in a way to suit all concerned with a
little compromise here and there.
Good luck.
Tracy
"Julie in Hondo" <huntingm...@ev1.net remove remove in reply> wrote in
message news:v523ubi...@corp.supernews.com...
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
A stained glass window (especially of unique design) is considered
artwork and is often copyrighted by the designer as are some buildings
and monuments. One cannot go and take a photograph of a sculpure and
then make something from the photograph without infringing the artists
copyright. Just because something is on public display does not mean
it becomes public domain.
However, the likelyhood of a stained glass window in a church bearing
its own copyright is very slim, especially if several windows in the
church or of the same design. But it never hurts to jot a letter to
the church telling them what you want to do and asking their
permission to do so. When you get their response, you will then have
it in writing on their letterhead and hopefully signed that you have
permission to use an image of the window in your work.
Government (the people) owned items have their own set of rules that
surround them. You cannot use the American Flag on any sports
equipment or uniforms. National monuments must be complete and not
segmented, etc.
TTUL
Gary
"Julie in Hondo" <huntingm...@ev1.net remove remove in reply>
verbositized:
Julie in Hondo
windows are over 150 years old, hence my interest in them. Once the piece is
stitched I will probably, eventually, donate the piece to the church anyway.
That was the idea behind the work I was doing. I will take pictures of the
stitched piece for any patterns that I might be able to sell (with the
church's permission). Thanks to all! As usual this was the right place to
ask!
Julie in Hondo
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr. <ClassicHa...@bbs.galilei.com.nospam> wrote
in message news:3e526be0....@news.galilei.com...
Judy Gieselman
Judy
Susan
One thing to remember is that just because something is viewable in a
public place does not mean it is copyright-free. We as individuals
can go out in public but someone cannot take a picture of us there and
sell it or convert it to a pattern without permission.
Another example is a cross stitch design I did a few years ago of a
veterans' memorial statue. It is in a public park, but was
commissioned by and is maintained by a local veterans' group. So I
contacted the president of that group to get permission to chart the
image, and he was very nice about it. I promised to donate a portion
of my profits towards his group.
Always best to ask!
Susan Stadler
Crossing Montana
www.crossingmontana.com
Jennifer Aikman-Smith <drag...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:<3E508807...@nbnet.nb.ca>...
Brenda Lewis
The church my parents were married in was removed in 1972 when a new
building was opened on a different site. I have thought of making a
chart of the old church for my Mom.
Matthew Dunne wrote:
> It may be different with a building, albeit a public one, it is still owned
> by someone - ie the Church. It may be that the Church would like a share of
> any profits made from their building being used in this way.
>
> Perhaps you could come to an agreement (get it in writing) with the
> incumbent of the church. Perhaps a one off payment towards their roof fund
> or whatever would be in order. Make an appointment to have a chat with
> him/her. I'm sure they will respond in a way to suit all concerned with a
> little compromise here and there.
> "Julie in Hondo" <huntingm...@ev1.net remove remove in reply> wrote in
> message news:v523ubi...@corp.supernews.com...
>>Hi all... I have taken a photo of a church stained glass window and
> charted
>>it through PC Stitch. When I went to my LNS to get fabric to stitch it the
>>owner said she would like a copy or two to sell since it was a local
>>interest piece. Do I have to ask permission from the church for this?
--
Brenda Lewis Rhianno...@netscape.net
WIP: Dimensions "Blessed Nativity Sampler" ccs
Mill Hill "Cameo Heart" ccs/bead/FROGGING
J & P Coats "Dancing Snoopy" latchhook
UFOs: Too numerous to list...
Pat P.
in message news:3e526be0....@news.galilei.com...
I suggest that any such letter requesting permission to use any artwork
should contain a stamped addressed envelope.
If the church has a website, you might be able to contact the, via that, of
course. I`m just in the process of asking several haunted houses/castles
etc. for permission to use their web photos to design charts of them (those
that are too far away to visit). It always pays just to ask.
Pat P
Pat P
Darla
<Rhianno...@netscape.net> wrote:
>What are the rules if the photo is of a building that no longer exists?
> The church my parents were married in was removed in 1972 when a new
>building was opened on a different site. I have thought of making a
>chart of the old church for my Mom.
Since it's by you, for you (okay, for your mom), do it. It's being
done privately, and will be kept private (I'm guessing, from your
post). No harm, no foul.
Darla
I want to ally myself with those who, aware of the dangers, and without foolish illusions about what can be accomplished, still want to move on.
-Samuel C. Florman
Lara H
> What are the rules if the photo is of a building that no longer exists?
The photo itself still has a copyright on it! If you took the photo then
you can make a chart from it, but you can't make a chart from someone
else's photo!!!!!
> The church my parents were married in was removed in 1972 when a new
> building was opened on a different site. I have thought of making a
> chart of the old church for my Mom.
--
Photographer - editor - writer
Lara H
make charts from photos that they did not take without the permission of
the copyright holder, usually the photographer.
>>>>>>>The photo itself still has a copyright on it! If you took the photo
then you can make a chart from it, but you can't make a chart from someone
else's photo!!!!!<<<<<<<
In article <b5265vostc9drcp51...@4ax.com>,
dar...@mindspring.com wrote:
--
Brenda Lewis
died in 1986. I inherited the picture. My question was not about
ownership of the picture but about the image use rights of a building no
longer in existence.
Lara H wrote:
> The photo itself still has a copyright on it! If you took the photo then
> you can make a chart from it, but you can't make a chart from someone
> else's photo!!!!!
--
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
>150 years old -- hasn't this passed the age limit for copyright??
>
>Judy
Not necessarily!
It depends whether the copyright belongs to an individual or to an
entity and whether or not it was renewed.
In general, since January 1, 1978 all copyrights were automatically 50
years beyond the death of the author. But in 1998, 20 more years were
added to that, so now the copyright automatically extends for 70 years
beyond the death of the author.
Now if an entity owns the copyright and the entity still exists, the
copyright is still in force until 70 years after the entity no longer
exists. In short, you can forget about Mickey Mouse ever becoming an
image in the public domain.
Countries that reciprocate the 70 year ruling are, Canada, USA,
Australia, the UK and possibly others.
The Church with the stained glass windows is an entity. If they ever
did have a copyright on the windows via license from the artist, the
copyright will stand for 70 years after the organization of its
membership ceases.
The rules are not as cut and dried as I make them appear, they are
typical governmental gray as always.
TTUL
Gary
Debra
<Rhianno...@netscape.net> wrote:
>What are the rules if the photo is of a building that no longer exists?
> The church my parents were married in was removed in 1972 when a new
>building was opened on a different site. I have thought of making a
>chart of the old church for my Mom.
In the case of making a pattern just to give to, or stitch for, your
mom, I don't think there would be a copywrite problem. If you were
making patterns to sell then you would still need to contact the
proper people at the new building. It is the same Church even though
it is a new building on a different piece of land, the same way your
family is still the same family even if you move to a new house.
Debra in VA
Debra
(Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.) wrote:
>Hi Judy
>
>>150 years old -- hasn't this passed the age limit for copyright??
>>
>>Judy
>
>Not necessarily!
>
>It depends whether the copyright belongs to an individual or to an
>entity and whether or not it was renewed.
>
>In general, since January 1, 1978 all copyrights were automatically 50
>years beyond the death of the author. But in 1998, 20 more years were
>added to that, so now the copyright automatically extends for 70 years
>beyond the death of the author.
>
>Now if an entity owns the copyright and the entity still exists, the
>copyright is still in force until 70 years after the entity no longer
>exists. In short, you can forget about Mickey Mouse ever becoming an
>image in the public domain.
>
>Countries that reciprocate the 70 year ruling are, Canada, USA,
>Australia, the UK and possibly others.
>
>The Church with the stained glass windows is an entity. If they ever
>did have a copyright on the windows via license from the artist, the
>copyright will stand for 70 years after the organization of its
>membership ceases.
Would this mean that if the Church was part of a large denomination,
lets say Catholic for an example, the Catholic Church would own the
copywrite, not the specific church diocease (I probably spelled that
wrong.), and if that diocease ceases to exist you would still need to
contact the Catholic Church for permission to use the image of the
window? I am thinking that you would need to do that.
>The rules are not as cut and dried as I make them appear, they are
>typical governmental gray as always.
>
>TTUL
>Gary
Debra in VA
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
When I was a professional photographer working for a calendar company,
the only person we were required to get a signature from for
permission to use the image was the local entity authority.
In the case of a church, this would be the pastor, reverend, minister,
etc. Even if it was a Catholic Church that we took an image of, it
only required the signature of the assistant to allow us to use it.
The whole image that is. A particular statue in one image could not
be cropped and used without permission for that particular piece. But
if included in the building picture, then it was OK.
While working for the calendar company, we took many old churches, log
cabins, fountains and historical buildings. Taking the pictures was
the easy part, finding someone in authority that could sign the
releases was another matter entirely, except for the Churches, someone
in authority was always around if the doors were open.
TTUL
Gary
Dianne Lewandowski
artists who paint buildings, scenes, homes, streets, all sorts of
architecture. Must they get permission? I have forgeries of famous
paintings - done in oils (not prints). Do artists have to get
permission from museums?
I realize a photographer has to get permission to publish a person. As
you say, you need permission to "publish" some buildings.
But if I want to take a picture and put it in my photo album, I don't
need permission. If I want to take that picture and produce a fiber art
out of it for my own use, I don't need permission. If I want to PUBLISH
it or sell it, now I've entered another territory.
I can take wallpaper patterns and adapt them - without permission. Mind
you, I don't want anyone to steal anyone's copyright. But for my own
use, I can adapt whatever media. Just like I can make a photocopy of a
page from a library book for my own use. Just like I can quote
somebody's words in the context of an article.
Dianne
Rachel Janzen
"Dianne Lewandowski" <dia...@heritageshoppe.com> wrote in message
news:3E55121F...@heritageshoppe.com...
> This issue intrigues me. Late last night, I was thinking: What about
> artists who paint buildings, scenes, homes, streets, all sorts of
> architecture. Must they get permission? I have forgeries of famous
> paintings - done in oils (not prints). Do artists have to get
> permission from museums?
>
I recently read an article in the Smithsonian about a program at the Louvre
where people can apply to copy the paintings at the museum. Everyone from
students to hobbyists to people who make their living selling the copies do
this. I'm sorry I don't know which issue it was in, but probably in the last
8 - 12 months. It was very interesting.
Rachel
lily
have to ask permission of the owner. But, if you stand in the street or on
the sidewalk and you are not on the property of the building, you don't need
to ask permission.
And when a painter copies famous paintings from museums, it's his
interpretation of it. That's why his is sold for a few hundred dollars and
the originals are worth thousands or sometimes millions. That's why one is
called "authentic" or "original" and the other ones are called "fakes" or
"copies".
Lily
"Dianne Lewandowski" <dia...@heritageshoppe.com> wrote in message
news:3E55121F...@heritageshoppe.com...
Lara H
> This issue intrigues me. Late last night, I was thinking: What about
> artists who paint buildings, scenes, homes, streets, all sorts of
> architecture. Must they get permission? I have forgeries of famous
> paintings - done in oils (not prints). Do artists have to get
> permission from museums?
Depends again on who owns the painting, how old it is and who owns the
copyright!
> I realize a photographer has to get permission to publish a person. As
> you say, you need permission to "publish" some buildings.
Some buildings...and publish is one thing like in a text book and an
entirely different thing in an ad. I can shoot an old church for a
newspaper story, or a text book without obtainging permision, editorial
use that is called. But commercial use is another ballgame.
I can take a picture of a person in a public place and put it in my
newspaper without permission but I can't use it for an ad unless I obtain
a model release. The same with a building. I have many house images that I
have model releases for from the owner. If the house changes hands then I
must get a new release to use it in a commercial way.
> But if I want to take a picture and put it in my photo album, I don't
> need permission. If I want to take that picture and produce a fiber art
> out of it for my own use, I don't need permission. >If I want to PUBLISH
> it or sell it, now I've entered another territory.
Again, it depends on how it is published.
> I can take wallpaper patterns and adapt them - without permission.
Are you sure about this?
> Mind
> you, I don't want anyone to steal anyone's copyright. But for my own
> use, I can adapt whatever media.
NOT LEGALLY YOU CAN'T! Please read the copyright law. It is very clear on
this point.
>Just like I can make a photocopy of a
> page from a library book for my own use. Just like I can quote
> somebody's words in the context of an article.
Yes...but you are not taking someone else's work and creating a derivative
piece of art. You can't make a copy of a page from a book, let's say
photographs of old cars, and make cross stitch patterns out of them. The
photographer probably owns the copyright to those images, or the
publisher. I have pics of trains in a book on, you guessed it, trains! You
can't make a copy of one of the pages for the purpose of making needleart
from it, even for your own use. But you can make a copy to take home to
put in a school report. But you can't copy it in charcol for a new piece
of art.
Make sense? People are going to steal what they are going to steal. It
doens't matter whether or not you think it is ok, what matters is if it is
legal or not.
lara
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
Duplicating a copyrighted works is illegal, even for personal use.
However, it is normally overlooked as their is no monetary gain made
from it. And/or it is not infringing on the original artists ability
to make sales.
You can buy material from the local store that may have copyrighted
images on that material. It is licensed for home use only by the
consumer. Using that material to manufacture a product for resale is
a violation of the copyright. If it's one of the big guns like
Disney, they will come after you for it.
Painting or art is a whole issue in and of itself. Most museum pieces
are no longer protected by copyright, so an artist has free reign to
paint a likeness of that image.
In many cases, you can take photographs of people or a particular
person and use that photograph for public display or sell copies of it
without the persons consent, it just depends on the form of
publication it appears in. Freedom of the press covers most
subscription type and free media publications.
But to sell the photograph or copy of it, solely for the image
content, does require their permission, with very few exceptions.
One of those exceptions would be a person dressed out of the ordinary
for a particular purpose, personal or public, who stands out from the
rest. Making a spectacle of ones self in public display forfeits ones
rights to anoniminity (sp), in other words, they are doing it for
attention, which becomes the authorization necessary to use their
image (in whole).
For certain purposes, even copyrighted works may be photographed and
sold without permission and without recourse by the owner of the
copyright. Often there is an unwritten agreement to use the
copyrighted works based on the purpose it is used.
Mattress King may reprint the copyrighted Serta logo our use their
registered trademark in their stores advertising campaigns, is a
common and obvious example.
But some things are not so clear as to whether a copyright has been
violated. It depends a whole lot on the content and purpose. A
sculpture in front of a building on public display cannot help but
appear in images of the landscape or building. Thus the sculpture
copyright is not violated because it appears in such an image.
However, if the sculpture itself was the focal point of the image,
then the copyright is violated.
I do know that when we were taking photographs of log cabins for a
calendar project, we did have to get permission from the owners to use
a photo of their home in the calendar. We also asked about the
history of the home and gave recognition to the owner for their input
into the project. However, those same pictures could have been
published in a subscription newsletter or magazine without the owners
permission under freedom of the press, which does not apply to many
types of publications, such as calendars.
TTUL
Gary
Dianne Lewandowski <dia...@heritageshoppe.com> verbositized:
Walker Family
(Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.) wrote:
>
>You can buy material from the local store that may have copyrighted
>images on that material. It is licensed for home use only by the
>consumer. Using that material to manufacture a product for resale is
>a violation of the copyright. If it's one of the big guns like
>Disney, they will come after you for it.
I usually avoid this controversy but now I find myself with a
question. Are you saying that if I have someone offer to pay me to
sew a dress using legally purchased Disney fabric, I'd have to say no
because I'd be violating a copyright if I get paid for using this
fabric? Technically though, by paying me, they would be purchasing
the fabric so does that make it ok?
How about those Wilton cake pans with Disney characters? They are
obviously sold to be used more than once and often by professionals
who make and sell dozens of cakes using the Disney images. How is
that any different from the fabric issue? I feel like we have moved
into a "secondary lease" or "sublease" of a copyright. Where is this
line drawn?? Personally, I usually make things for friends and family
just for the cost of the materials, so they are making the fabric or
supply purchase by paying me and the product goes with them so I guess
that seems right.
Any further thoughts?? Moni
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Dianne Lewandowski
or she bought it for you to sew. :-)
Those Wilton Cake pans: Wilton's has bought the rights to produce them
and Disney knows full well the use they will get, both professionally
and at home. Go ahead and make all the Disney cakes you want and sell
them if you like. Disney already made their royalty money from the
manufacturer of the pan.
I also agree that our copyright laws are getting stickier and stickier.
Especially since the Internet. And more especially since DVD's, MP3's
and digital television. Pretty soon you won't be able to record by any
means ANYTHING.
Another issue: I pay for satellite and cable, yet I'm not only
subjected to regular advertising, which has increased tremendously over
the past decade, but now I'm forced to watch banner ads for "what's
coming next or what network I'm on, non-emergency weather reports,
sports highlights. We call this PROGRESS? Commercialism, including
copyright laws, are running roughshod over everybody.
Dianne
Julie in Hondo
intrigued at the idea of finding out who designed the windows. The church
was destroyed by fire in the late 1800's and rebuilt and some of the windows
were restored. Some are newer and you can definately tell which is which. He
gave me permission to use the images as I please ( I do a lot of paperwork
for the different associations within the church.) I was going to say
clerical, but when talking about a church that would have sounded funny.
He said he would like to research the origin so I could use the designers
name in the pieces if he could find it.
Thanks to all who replied. I didn't mean to start another controversy....but
I must say it has been interesting...
Julie in Hondo
Lara H
> copyright laws, are running roughshod over everybody.
I don't see how copyright laws are running roughshod over any one! They
are to protect the work of artists, writers, composers etc. from theft.
That is not running roughshod over people, but rather protecting them.
Artists have a basic right to determine what happens to their art and how
it is used. They should be able to make a profit, a living, whatever, from
their work and others should not unless they have permission.
Just because they are artists doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to live
from their work.
As an interesting aside. I was told once that my job must really be a fun
one and it is. And publishers routinely pay us less than others in the
same educational bracket because we have such a "fun job".
Photojournalists are the lowest paid college-educated professionals in the
country. It is as if because it is fun we shouldn't be paid very well. Fun
doesn't pay the bills.
I get requests for images all the time, from writers and book publishers
and most all want the same thing...free use of the picture. But of course
they will give me credit.
Honey, I can NOT buy groceries with a photo credit. Magazines are the
worst. They pay their printer, they pay for the paper, they pay writers
and copy staff, but photos they want for free. I just don't get it.
People do not place much value on photographs and they rationalize using
others work as the basis for derivative works of art, like in needlearts,
or sculptures from photos, or paintings from photos.
No matter how you turn it, it is theft, pure and simple.
Personal use can turn into commercial. It may be a little farfetched but
let's say a stitcher copies a photo in cross stitch. That stitcher dies.
The family sells the piece. Now it is in the hands of someone else who
figures they can do with it what they will because they bought it.
Now anyone can scan a photo from a magazine or calendar and make a chart
from it. Will they get caught? Probably not. Is it theft. Yes. The person
is a thief.
emerald
"Walker Family" <wal...@midwest.net> wrote in message
news:vlqc5vkjv8b8t0ab8...@4ax.com...
> I usually avoid this controversy but now I find myself with a
> question. Are you saying that if I have someone offer to pay me to
> sew a dress using legally purchased Disney fabric, I'd have to say no
> because I'd be violating a copyright if I get paid for using this
> fabric?
No, you wouldn't because Disney has already licensed the fabricmaker to use
its (Disney's) images, with the expectation that the fabric will be used in
clothing, quilts and so on, that may be re-sold. I expect the fabric maker
paid a large sum of money for those rights too!
emerald
Brenda Lewis
personal use that would probably be fine. If you were using Disney
fabric to make a costume of a Warner Bros. character, the Disney police
might hunt you down no matter who bought the fabric! Of course you
could buy Disney fabric and burn it publicly in an Anti-Disney
demonstration but that is freedom of speech...
With cake pans it is assumed they will be used more than once and that
assumption is built into the pricing. Not to mention AFAIK there is no
copyright on cake pans--just trademark. With large cross-stitch designs
and especially with kits it is assumed you will use them only once.
With cross-stitch patterns you have both a copyright and a trademark
issue when dealing with these licensed characters. The designer has
some form of copyright--no other designer can claim it is their
design--and Disney (or Warner, etc.) has the trademark rights.
Walker Family wrote:
> I usually avoid this controversy but now I find myself with a
> question. Are you saying that if I have someone offer to pay me to
> sew a dress using legally purchased Disney fabric, I'd have to say no
> because I'd be violating a copyright if I get paid for using this
> fabric? Technically though, by paying me, they would be purchasing
> the fabric so does that make it ok?
>
> How about those Wilton cake pans with Disney characters? They are
> obviously sold to be used more than once and often by professionals
> who make and sell dozens of cakes using the Disney images. How is
> that any different from the fabric issue? I feel like we have moved
> into a "secondary lease" or "sublease" of a copyright. Where is this
> line drawn?? Personally, I usually make things for friends and family
> just for the cost of the materials, so they are making the fabric or
> supply purchase by paying me and the product goes with them so I guess
> that seems right.
--
Brenda Lewis Rhianno...@netscape.net
WIP: Dimensions "Blessed Nativity Sampler" ccs (only bs left!)
Mill Hill "Cameo Heart" ccs/bead
Dianne Lewandowski
Copyright law has changed and is changing. I have absolutely no problem
with protecting works. I have my own registered copyrights, as does my
husband.
However, we are going away from the original intent and more at
protecting commerce at the expense of the public. The more we give
"business", the more we take from ourselves.
And currently, if you have little resources, there is little you can do
to protect your works. I've had mine stolen. I know. Only big
business profits from copyright laws.
For those who still misunderstand me, I am NOT against copyright laws
and I am NOT for stealing others' works. What *is* being eroded is
"personal use". Also, there's a lot of misconception about "personal
use" and "fair use". Currently, I can do what I want in the privacy of
my own home, which includes taking your image and making an embroidery
out of it. As long as it's on my walls or my pillow case, I've done
nothing illegal. My six-year old (I don't have one) can trace Disney
figures from his reading books and color them to his hearts desire. He
can put them on his walls. I can take a record, record it to tape and
play it in my car or on my home stereo.
Now: If that IS illegal, then you'd all better shudder because now
government and business has the right to "intrude" into my personal
life. That, frankly, scares me to death.
Dianne
Karen C - California
ClassicHa...@bbs.galilei.com.nospam (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.) writes:
>it is normally overlooked as their is no monetary gain made
>from it.
Damages in a copyright case are generally limited to lost profits plus legal
fees. It's not cost-effective to spend $10,000 on legal fees over a $1 profit,
therefore only the big offenders who are selling hundreds of copies are
seriously pursued. Most of the small offenders don't have enough assets to pay
the judgment. But just because you're not being dragged into court doesn't
make it any less wrong.
That said, let me bring up the classic anomaly. Both the Federal and State
Court local rules require you to attach a photocopy of any outside case you
cite (e.g., if you're arguing that a New Jersey decision should be followed in
California). Since the judge could walk over to the County Law Library and
read the case from the same book I read it in, this was entirely for the
convenience of the judges. Pre-internet, we had no choice but to photocopy a
copyrighted book in order to comply with the court rules! I'm sure West
Publishing was aware of the fact that judges were ordering people to violate
copyright law. I'm not aware of any cases where West Publishing sued a court
to get them to change the rules to strictly adhere to copyright law.
--
Finished 12/20/02 -- Glad Rags
WIP: Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler, Holiday Snowglobe, Guide the Hands (2d
one)
Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html
Karen C - California
<RedShoesGirl-2...@lsanca2-ar30-4-46-192-109.lsanca2.dsl-veriz
on.net>, RedSho...@MyRealbox.com (Lara H) writes:
>Honey, I can NOT buy groceries with a photo credit. Magazines are the
>worst. They pay their printer, they pay for the paper, they pay writers
>and copy staff, but photos they want for free. I just don't get it.
A lot of them don't pay the writers, either. At least once a week, some
publication or website posts to the writing NG looking for someone to write for
free, and is totally offended that we expect to be paid just like other
professionals.
Seeing my name in print is a rush, but I can't pay my bills with contributor's
copies of magazines. Sometimes I'm willing to write in exchange for an
advertisement for my editing business instead of cash, but it has to be a
subject I *want* to write about.
At least half the calls that I have gotten from my local advertising, I've
quoted them my hourly rate and they've offered me a fraction of it. Would you
expect your plumber to do quality work for minimum wage? Would you insult your
auto mechanic by trying to negotiate his fee down to $5? You're paying for my
25 years of experience so that it's done right, the same reason that you pay
any other professional to do something that you "could" do yourself. Back in
the Dark Ages, people even doctored themselves instead of paying for someone
with the proper education, and you know how that turned out..........
Darla
wrote:
>I know I am double posting this but PLEASE do not tell people they can
>make charts from photos that they did not take without the permission of
>the copyright holder, usually the photographer.
Oh, for crying out loud!! It's a GIFT for her MOTHER and the freaking
design will be stitched once and KEPT IN THE FAMILY. Where's the
harm?
Darla
wrote:
> copywrite
And it's still copyright. "Copywrite" is what people in advertising
do when they compose the words used in an ad.
HeyPaula21
I recently read about a lawsuit brought against Disney by an eBay seller. They
were using legally purchased Disney fabric and making items such as aprons from
it, then selling those items on eBay. Disney had eBay cancel several of their
auctions because they claimed that fair use was violated by this. The seller
successfully brought suit against Da Mouse. I'm looking now for the links and
will post them when I can find them. It made for some pretty interesting
reading.
I'm with Dianne.. I support copyright protection, but some of the implications
get pretty frightening.
Paula
EJ
dia...@heritageshoppe.com says...
> You're missing my point and making assumptions that I never meant to imply.
>
> Copyright law has changed and is changing. I have absolutely no problem
> with protecting works. I have my own registered copyrights, as does my
> husband.
>
> However, we are going away from the original intent and more at
> protecting commerce at the expense of the public. The more we give
> "business", the more we take from ourselves.
>
> And currently, if you have little resources, there is little you can do
> to protect your works. I've had mine stolen. I know. Only big
> business profits from copyright laws.
>
> For those who still misunderstand me, I am NOT against copyright laws
> and I am NOT for stealing others' works. What *is* being eroded is
> "personal use". Also, there's a lot of misconception about "personal
> use" and "fair use". Currently, I can do what I want in the privacy of
> my own home, which includes taking your image and making an embroidery
> out of it. As long as it's on my walls or my pillow case, I've done
> nothing illegal. My six-year old (I don't have one) can trace Disney
> figures from his reading books and color them to his hearts desire. He
> can put them on his walls. I can take a record, record it to tape and
> play it in my car or on my home stereo.
>
> Now: If that IS illegal, then you'd all better shudder because now
> government and business has the right to "intrude" into my personal
> life. That, frankly, scares me to death.
>
> Dianne
>
It is not illegal to make one "fair use" copy of a CD or recording to
play in the car for example. Every time you buy any of the recording
media part of the price you pay goes into a "royalty fund" (or whatever
they call it) that is used to recompense the copyright holders by some
system of the industry's devising. So the artist doesn't lose out and
you can play your favorite recording in your car (or wherever). What you
cannot do is make a bunch of copies and give them away or sell them. The
issue isn't whether money changes hands, its that you only have the
right to ONE copy for your own use. The same applies to using a VCR to
tae a program from TV.
EJ
emerald
"HeyPaula21" <heypa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030221232248...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> Emerald,
>
> I recently read about a lawsuit brought against Disney by an eBay seller.
They
> were using legally purchased Disney fabric and making items such as aprons
from
> it, then selling those items on eBay. Disney had eBay cancel several of
their
> auctions because they claimed that fair use was violated by this. The
seller
> successfully brought suit against Da Mouse. I'm looking now for the links
and
> will post them when I can find them. It made for some pretty interesting
> reading.
> I'm with Dianne.. I support copyright protection, but some of the
implications
> get pretty frightening.
Thanks Paula, I hadn't heard that story and I agree that's a very scary one!
How many individuals or small business owners would have the
time/energy/financial resources to go up against the power of Da Mouse?
In my mind, it fits right in (in a general sort of way) with the way big
business is hijacking everything these days, including democracy.
emerald
Lara H
> my own home, which includes taking your image and making an embroidery
> out of it. As long as it's on my walls or my pillow case, I've done
> nothing illegal.
This is where we disagree. I don't consider that fair use. You used the
word "take".
The laws says"
>>>>WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United
States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ³original works of
authorship,² including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain
other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published
and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally
gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize
others to do the following:
* To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
* To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
* To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale
or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
* To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical,
dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and
other audiovisual works;
* To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary,
musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion
picture or other audiovisual work; and
* In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means
of a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of
attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976
Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, ³Copyright
Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.²
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the
copyright law to the owner of copyright.<<<<<<
What we are interested in is the the second example...derivative works.
Creating a needle art from someone else's photo is to make a derivative
work. That is illegal. Period. Whether or not you are going to hang it or
sleep on it. It is still derivative.
And you can't control what happens to it after you are dead! And once
created, what if you want to enter it in a state fair? Can you now
rationalize that also?
People, take your own photos to make new art, or just ask the photograhper!!!
Lara H
> Seeing my name in print is a rush, but I can't pay my bills with contributor's
> copies of magazines.
Exactly! The problem is folks who don't need to make a living doing this
stuff, they are the ones that "donate" their work to magazines so the mags
feel like they don't have to pay for art/writing - if someone will give it
to them for free. So what if it isn't quite the quality...it was free.
Those who give away their work really hurt those of us trying to make a
living doing it!
Lara H
> Oh, for crying out loud!! It's a GIFT for her MOTHER and the freaking
> design will be stitched once and KEPT IN THE FAMILY. Where's the
> harm?
Two things, one, it is the principal. She, whomever, can't control what
happens to it after she dies or gives it away.
Brenda Lewis
already stated I have legally inherited the original photograph. I have
decided IF I HAVE TIME I will do as I wish regarding the design since
other members of my family do not care and they are the only ones who
could have reasonably contested the inheritance. In any case, copyright
on personal photographs does not last forever...as of yet.
Lara H wrote:
<unattributed>
>>Oh, for crying out loud!! It's a GIFT for her MOTHER and the freaking
>>design will be stitched once and KEPT IN THE FAMILY. Where's the
>>harm?
>
> Two things, one, it is the principal. She, whomever, can't control what
> happens to it after she dies or gives it away.
--
HeyPaula21
I was pretty surprised. I'm still searching for the link because there was
some very interesting (and clear!) information on exactly what fair use is..
especially when it comes to things like fabric that you purchase legally!
Paula
Dianne Lewandowski
EJ wrote:
Ahhhh. But if you are paying attention to events over the last couple
of years, "industry" wants to change all that. And they are getting
their way, so far. The public doesn't really understand, rolls their
eyes and says to themselves, "who cares." Just wait until you can no
longer tape that television show and watch it some other time. Industry
is trying to stop that.
Here's another example of "excess" copyright. I played piano in a
lounge. I don't memorize music, so I bring lots of music books. By
law, I have to pay a royalty for every single song I play - even if it's
my own interpretation. Now, at $30 bucks a night (long time ago,
folks), how am I going to pay royalty and eat? Do you realize how many
songs it takes over a three-hour period? Most songs are about 3 minutes.
Copyright was suppose to protect the original copyright holder from mass
abuse. You make a film, use my music, you pay me a licensing fee.
It has "become" something else.
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
Material to make puppets was available in some stores for a long time.
You could buy this material, make the puppets and give them to family
and relatives even some friends, but when they eventually hit the
church bazaar sales the fit hit the shan.
Someone contracting your sewing services for a personal item does not
constitute public distribution or sale of copyrighted pieces.
The cake pans sold by Wilton are for home and personal use only.
Bakeries using trade marked characters are paying a royalty type fee
to do so. Just as juke box owners or musicians pay a fee to ASCAP.
Bad example, I don't want to get into the music end of copyrights.
If you are buying material, it is obviously a single use product. If
trade marked images appear on this material, the royalties have
already been paid by the manufacturer. But depending upon the usage
of that material, it may or may not be in compliance with the
copyright agreement. If you are making dresses or other garments,
curtains or bedspreads from the material, that is its intended
purpose. But if you are cutting out the characters to make dolls
(puppets) for resale, then you are not using it for its intended
purpose and probably violating the copyright.
Even if you physically purchase the material to make a dress or
whatever, you are probably doing so on behalf of your client as a
courtesy, thus you become in a sense just a distribution step of this
material. Your primary occupation being as a seamstress. If the
material is used in accordance with the copyright license of the
material, you are just fine. All stores selling materials of a
copyrighted nature are supposed to have a copy of the license which
should be distributed with the material.
I purchased a sports jacket once that had a logo on the front pocket.
It looked generic to me. But when I put the suit on, I found in one
of the pockets a little slip of paper that stated that the logo could
not be removed from this jacket and reused for any purpose. I have
also hit the same thing about buttons on some articles. The buttons
could not be removed and reused on other articles.
TTUL
Gary
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
You have the same option the rest of us do.
Call the cable or satellite company and tell them to turn it off or
disconnect the service.
It was bad enough all the stations jumped on the logo bandwagon,
having it appear during shows. You notice it is removed during
commercials! But those distracting banner ads running during a show
is what took the icing off the cake for us.
If your TV has a height adjustment, like your computer monitor, you
can enlarge the picture until these ads are below the viewable part of
your screen also. Even if you don't, it can be done inside the TV.
They don't make many adjustments available to users anymore, but most
are still hidden inside.
The other reason we had ours turned off is the channel guide has been
constantly in error for a couple of months. The cable company blamed
it on TV Guide, which was a lie, the cable companies themselves
extract the information and convert it to their lineup.
Plus, most of the channels we did watch, they removed from the service
and moved it over to a service that is 3 times the price and *1/5 the
availability. *Depending upon how many TV's you have.
When enough people fight back, Charter is already on the skids, you
will get what YOU want and not the bull farkle THEY want to feed you.
Since having our cable turned off, they have been calling offering all
kinds of services and promotions to get us back. But none of them are
acceptable to us yet.
Many people don't think they have options with Cell Phone Service.
The last phone my wife got has several features they said they
couldn't do when asked about it. But to make the sale and get the
contract, suddenly everything they said they couldn't do, they did.
Set a specific outstate area code as the local code, included caller
ID, but the best feature is an 800 number or *3-digit number to call
to get 10 free minutes everytime a call is dropped, which several
have. On hers, if a call is dropped and she recalls the same number
within 3 minutes, the 10 minutes prime time is added automatically.
And she checks ever call on her bill to make sure too!
TTUL
Gary
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
The government makes laws they don't enforce, and only the big guns
with a 1/4 million to spare for every infringer can use them on their
behalf.
If a poor person manages to get a patent, it is as useless as the
paper it's printed on, if they can't come up with 1/4 million dollars
to protect it themselves from each infringer. And if they don't
pursue the infringers, the big guns come in and strip you of your
patent for not pursuing other infringers.
The same holds true for copyrights and even other laws you would think
should be enforced, like Arson for example. If you took the steps to
find out who a particular arsonist was, the city will tell you to
pursue it yourself in civil court.
TTUL
Gary
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
You ARE allowed to copy a certain percentage of a written work or
image without violating the copyright that applies to it.
You can also copyright items that are already copyrighted in a
roundabout way. Think Not?
Every magazine you purchase is copyrighted, even though much of the
content of that magazine is already copyrighted or protected by trade
mark registrations.
Whole industries have developed from ideas originally printed in, for
example Better Homes & Gardens magazine, at some time in their
history. But what kind of copyright is a magazine copyright?
In the US we have both Design and Utility type Patents.
Every tire you buy is covered by a Design Patent, but the differences
between manufacturers may be as miniscule as a single groove sliced at
a different angle. Thus a Design Patent for all intensive purposes is
totally useless.
Most Copyrights are that way too and becoming even moreso, especially
in the visual arts. So what does the copyright actually cover?
You can take a picture of a safety pin and 100 different angles and
copyright every picture you have taken. I can come along and do the
same thing and have each of mine copyrighted also. There may be one
or two of our photos that were at the same angle, same lighting, same
f-Stop setting and same distance and we may have used the same camera
and same lens, yet we both will own a valid copyright of our image.
And neither of us could pursue the other because we both hold original
images, even if they are duplicate.
TTUL
Gary
Dianne Lewandowski
watching. But "one" of us isn't going to get things changed. It's
going to take a LOT of people. And unfortunately, most just "take it"
without question. They don't even stop to wonder about it. In time,
nobody will even remember there was television without banner ads.
:-)
Dianne
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr. wrote:
Brenda Lewis
ones getting rich. Unless an artist has one heck of a good contract
they get squat. Notice who is fighting to end the internet music
swapping...hint, it isn't the artists! Killing all internet swapping
kills the indie artist movement which IS totally legal but the big
companies don't make any money off that.
Another example: The band "Damn Yankees" have another album in the can
with Warner. The band is no longer together since Tommy Shaw has
committed himself to Styx again. Even if DY gets together again in the
future they cannot re-record and use these songs since WARNER claims to
own them. The individuals (Ted, Jack and Tommy did all their own
songwriting) can re-record them solo (Ted has done this) or with a
different group. If Warner ever does release the recordings you can bet
the guys will get next to nothing for them since they were just slaving
to meet the record company's contract. The company may/may not release
recordings at their whim. They may/may not promote releases at their
whim. They may/may not (usually NOT) financially support the artist on
tour to promote the release. This is the kind of garbage artists like
Don Henley and Sheryl Crow are fighting to end. Today's serious
musicians must live on the road because they only make any significant
money by touring.
This trash also hurts school and church choirs since they are required
to own at least one copy of the music for every two singers plus copies
for director and accompanist(s). A single sheet used to be US
$0.15-0.35 but now can run $3.50 or more. The number of members in
these groups can vary wildly from year to year (our HS chorus usually
ran 50-60 but swelled to over 120 the year we went to TX and church
choir would magically triple at Christmas) so they might buy a piece in
a low membership time and never be able to perform it again without
purchasing additional copies. Their public/non-profit status does not
give them a price break.
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
> Here's another example of "excess" copyright. I played piano in a
> lounge. I don't memorize music, so I bring lots of music books. By
> law, I have to pay a royalty for every single song I play - even if it's
> my own interpretation. Now, at $30 bucks a night (long time ago,
> folks), how am I going to pay royalty and eat? Do you realize how many
> songs it takes over a three-hour period? Most songs are about 3 minutes.
--
EJ
dia...@heritageshoppe.com says...
>
>
> EJ wrote:
> Ahhhh. But if you are paying attention to events over the last couple
> of years, "industry" wants to change all that. And they are getting
> their way, so far. The public doesn't really understand, rolls their
> eyes and says to themselves, "who cares." Just wait until you can no
> longer tape that television show and watch it some other time. Industry
> is trying to stop that.
>
> Here's another example of "excess" copyright. I played piano in a
> lounge. I don't memorize music, so I bring lots of music books. By
> law, I have to pay a royalty for every single song I play - even if it's
> my own interpretation. Now, at $30 bucks a night (long time ago,
> folks), how am I going to pay royalty and eat? Do you realize how many
> songs it takes over a three-hour period? Most songs are about 3 minutes.
>
> Copyright was suppose to protect the original copyright holder from mass
> abuse. You make a film, use my music, you pay me a licensing fee.
>
>
But most clubs and other venues that have live music DO pay fees that
basically cover that. They, in effect, are licensed to have performers
play live or, in the case of places like discos, play recordings. They
pay fees according to size, type of esablishment, type of performance
etc.
We actually had a discussion about this on a music board I frequent, and
when that every question was asked that was the answer given by people
in the industy. But perhaps that was not the case back when you played.
As you pointed out, things do change, and it is quite likelyt the rules
about recording will also change. But for now we still pay our royalties
every time we buy thise blank tapes or CDs.
EJ
EJ
says...
> My other gripe about royalties is the big recording companies are the
> ones getting rich. Unless an artist has one heck of a good contract
> they get squat. Notice who is fighting to end the internet music
> swapping...hint, it isn't the artists! Killing all internet swapping
> kills the indie artist movement which IS totally legal but the big
> companies don't make any money off that.
That may be so but, in terms of copyright it is irrelevant. The question
is not who makes the money, it's who owns tha material And put bluntly,
if it ain't yours and you take it you stole it. If someone steals a car
does it matter if he steals it from someone who has 5 of them or someone
who has just one? Either way it's theft and either way it's a crime.
By your logic stealing from someone who has more than you do is ok
because "they are rich". It may be unfair that some have so much and
others so much less but that's not an excuse to just go and take what
you want.
I agree that some big corporations go a little overboard but they are
protecting their product and their business. They are in the business of
selling something--music, art, film etc. If they let people just take it
there goes their livelihood. I don't have a lot of sympathy for
corporate thinking but I do understand protecting their products.
EJ
LC aka Fiddy
>nobody will even remember there was television without banner ads.
>
We don't have any on our satellite system!
The Blessed Fiddy, Patroness Saint of the Disorganized
LC in Sunny So Cal
Personality Development Specialist (Full-Time Mom!)
Susan Hartman/Dirty Linen
BMI/ASCAP wanted to collect huge fees, and the clubs don't generate
enough income to cover the fees. And most of those musicians sing their
own material, with only a very few "covers", so the fees were way out of
whack with what was being charged. Not to mention that the material the
might cover were generally songs of other folkies, who would never see a
dime of the royalty money collected!
Sue
EJ wrote:
> But most clubs and other venues that have live music DO pay fees that
> basically cover that. They, in effect, are licensed to have performers
> play live or, in the case of places like discos, play recordings. They
> pay fees according to size, type of esablishment, type of performance
> etc.
> We actually had a discussion about this on a music board I frequent, and
> when that every question was asked that was the answer given by people
> in the industy. But perhaps that was not the case back when you played.
> As you pointed out, things do change, and it is quite likelyt the rules
> about recording will also change. But for now we still pay our royalties
> every time we buy thise blank tapes or CDs.
>
> EJ
--
Susan Hartman/Dirty Linen
The Magazine of Folk and World Music
http://www.dirtylinen.com
Dianne Lewandowski
>>nobody will even remember there was television without banner ads.
To which LC aka Fiddy replied:
> We don't have any on our satellite system!
Are you watching network on your satellite? We have both satellite and
cable. After June, we can get network on our satellite, thank the
universe for that. We can get NBC on satellite at the moment. I'll
have to watch to see if they have the "banner ads".
But I imagine satellite will go the way of cable. When it first
arrived, they couldn't drool fast enough to please us. After they had
us hooked . . . .
Dianne
LC aka Fiddy
Yep, both west and east coast feeds. I love to tease my friends and family by
calling them up and telling them who got kicked off the tribe when Survivor is
on...
JUST kidding...my SIL would kill me. NBC is the only network that won't give
me the east coast feed, but I keep papering them with the "exception"
paperwork, in hopes that they'll get sick of me and lemme have it!!!
Dawne Peterson
"Rachel Janzen" wrote
(very interesting things about a progam at the Louvre)
Since the copying of great artworks is a part of the academic tradition for
artists' training, many museums have in the past offered the opportunity to
sketch or use other materials on site. I remember very well over 20 years
ago getting my "sketch passes" at the old National Gallery of Canada, after
those at the desk noted my name and inspected my materials, and then
spending hours in front of old works trying to see now this or that "went"
in them by working it through in pencil or charcoal.
I didn't see anyone painting on site though--and imagine museums are quite
cautious about allowing media that are potentially more permanent, like
acrylics or oils. I did always carry a small knife though (still do) and
that seemed to worry no one!
Dawne
Darla
wrote:
>What we are interested in is the the second example...derivative works.
>Creating a needle art from someone else's photo is to make a derivative
>work. That is illegal. Period. Whether or not you are going to hang it or
>sleep on it. It is still derivative.
Meredith
afternoon when I was there, they had stations that let passersby stop
and draw live models. It was really interesting to see.
Meredith
Brenda Lewis
not condone it. Indie artists use sites like mp3.com to promote their
works for free or for a very low fee. They wrote and performed the
songs and if they want to give them away for free or charge just a
minimal fee to fans and bypass the big record companies they should have
that right. The big dogs want to shut down ALL types of online music
trading that don't directly benefit them. I do not and never have used
napster, kazaa or any of the other file sharing programs (not only
because it is illegal but also because I think a lot of the "big
company" artists are putting out CRAP and it isn't worth my time or the
bandwidth) but I do have indie artist friends who offer their songs
online. These indies will never get heard outside of a local (regional
at best) club if they don't have a good online venue for their work.
These artists also collaborate online with people around the world just
because someone heard them on one of these sites, liked their music, and
wanted to work with them.
As for record companies protecting "their products" I think that is
wrong in the sense the company claims ownership of material they did not
write and did not perform. The musicians and songwriters are slave
labor and the way I see it is the record companies are stealing from
them. It is difficult for a performer to break out of a record contract
even if a member of the band dies and rest do not want to continue or
they simply can't stand to work together anymore. The best they can
hope is the label will just make "greatest hits" album(s) to fulfill the
rest of the contract. The label on the other hand can drop a band
whenever they want with no recompense or reason and their pockets are so
deep very few artists could afford to take them to court.
If you want to talk about price gouging look to the major labels. The
cost to actually manufacture CDs has gone down dramatically since the
intro of the medium back in the 80's yet prices have skyrocketed. The
quality of the performers/songs is generally lower since they want stuff
cranked out as quickly as possible (before the latest flash-in-the-pan
fades) and songs are written by "formula". They pay little to promote
most recordings--the artists are expected to bust their humps doing
radio show call-ins starting at 5 am, followed by record signings at
Borders/Wal-Mart/some contest winner's backyard at mid-day, then
interviews with music magazines/reviewers, a sound check and a show that
doesn't end until around midnight followed by a backstage autograph
session, and then a short night's sleep on a bus to get to the next city
and do it all again. The record company does little more
post-production (for the majority of their artists) than distribute the
CDs to retailers. And they wonder why sales are down and musicians are
increasingly irate...
By my logic it isn't all about "taking what I want" but about having the
right to leave garbage on the shelf instead of having it crammed down my
throat and being able to support real talent in the manner the artists
choose.
EJ wrote:
> That may be so but, in terms of copyright it is irrelevant. The question
> is not who makes the money, it's who owns tha material And put bluntly,
> if it ain't yours and you take it you stole it. If someone steals a car
> does it matter if he steals it from someone who has 5 of them or someone
> who has just one? Either way it's theft and either way it's a crime.
>
> By your logic stealing from someone who has more than you do is ok
> because "they are rich". It may be unfair that some have so much and
> others so much less but that's not an excuse to just go and take what
> you want.
>
> I agree that some big corporations go a little overboard but they are
> protecting their product and their business. They are in the business of
> selling something--music, art, film etc. If they let people just take it
> there goes their livelihood. I don't have a lot of sympathy for
> corporate thinking but I do understand protecting their products.
--
EJ
says...
But again...in terms of copyright this is irrelevant. the only relevant
fact is....who owns the copyright. Sometimes the performer/writer does
and the label is promoting/selling on his/her behalf. Sometimes the
record company owns the copyright in which case it is their product and
they have a right to protect it. The material belongs to the one who
owns the rights to it and whether they are a huge corporation or a
struggling artist makes no difference.
And yes...I know what indie artists go through. I have a good friend who
actually owns his own small label and spends a lot of the year traveling
from place to place playing for audiences that range from a dozen or so
to a few hundred. It's a tough life and yes it shouldn't be as difficult
as it is. But I assure you he protects his material as strongly as any
corporation. Why? The same reason they do...it's the way they make their
money.
You make a lot of excellent points and I do not disagree with most of
them. But copyright isn't about any of this. It's about ownership, plain
and simple. Whoever owns the copyright had the right to do with it as
he/she chooses. WHAT they may do is a different matter, and that may be
unfair or wrong. But as long as they own it they can do whatever they
like and control access to it. And that was all I was saying,
And I am not saying aything else.
Dawne Peterson
"Meredith" wrote..
> The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, MA, also has a >similar program. One
afternoon when I was there, they >had stations that let passersby stop and
draw live >models. It was really interesting to see.
Did you try your hand? And have you seen the Mr. Bean episode about the
"Open" day at the local adult education centre?? It is a good thing I did
my life drawing classes before I saw his adventures with the live model.
Dawne
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
I thnk we all lost some proportions, while gaining new insights.
When teaching i taught my students , that Quoting a sentence or two,
in a worjk was ok , as long as they give the source.
Using big parts of other works , needs persmission, uaually from the
publisher.
In my experience i wanted once to translate an article from a certain
mag, wrote them a letter and Got permission as long as i give their
proper name. They weere delighted with my printed Hebrew translation.
Lately, a mag sent me 7-8 papers to validate ownership of photos, they
requested of me, even tough they were intended to acompany an article
about my work. and even wanted me to state who the had the
copyright/ownership of my own portrait.
Lately i am working on family papers and some family pics. A cousin of
my mother said she does not allow me to Name her and my late mother`s
Grandfather name ,,, After my surprise , i told her she can`t do that
, as he was my mother`s GF as well. But in a meeting with some lawyer
asked him to check for me , use of old family photos is allowed Unless
it has been claimed by some regulation.
Let`s take photos of Albert Einstein , due to his PUBLIC image , he
became some kind of LOGO , and any use of his photo belongs to the
Hebrew University in Jerushalyiem. But Usual people`s photos do not
fall into this category.
mirjam
Karen C - California
lcha...@aol.comnospam (LC aka Fiddy) writes:
>I love to tease my friends and family by
>calling them up and telling them who got kicked off the tribe when Survivor
>is
>on...
Ha! My mom does the same thing. Pre-internet, she'd call and ask if I wanted
to know who won the skating competition before it started; now I can find out
myself. She'll occasionally call to tell me "don't waste your time" when she
didn't like a movie, or to tell me to watch a show she really enjoyed.
--
Finished 12/20/02 -- Glad Rags
WIP: Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler, Holiday Snowglobe, Guide the Hands (2d
one)
Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html
Karen C - California
<Rhianno...@netscape.net> writes:
>This trash also hurts school and church choirs since they are required
>to own at least one copy of the music for every two singers plus copies
>for director and accompanist(s).
Some of the music my children's choir used was on loan from the school where
the church organist taught, and vice versa. Some of it was personally owned by
the organist. No photocopies. He brought the originals to rehearsal and took
them home after church. If we needed more, he'd find someone else to borrow
originals from.
If "own" is the precise terminology of the legal requirement, rather than "have
originals in their possession at the time of performance", a contract buying 20
originals secondhand from St. Whoozits for $20 should make you the legal owner.
I haven't tracked that down via FindLaw, but if you can sell books after you
read them, and CDs after you listen to them, it makes sense that you should be
able to sell originals of sheet music after you use them, so long as the
royalty is paid for each performance.
And, yes, it's the publishers and distributors getting rich on this stuff. The
writers are paid a fraction of a cent per reader. One magazine you've heard
of, cover price times distribution, is over ten million bucks per issue, plus
however much they get for advertising. Yes, there's a sizeable outlay for
printing and postage and in-house salaries, it's not clear profit. The fees
paid to writers for most types of article are listed as "payment varies", but
assuming they paid the same price for every word of text which is listed as
their standard rate for the one type that has a standard fee, they only shelled
out about 1% of those millions to writers. (Less, since a fair percentage is
written in-house on salary.) They're dinging you for two bucks and paying all
the writers *combined* about two cents! And that's with some of the highest
per-word payment rates around.
Since they do pay so well, and are so well-known, the odds of selling anything
to them are minuscule and the writers have to put a lot of extra time into the
article to reach their standards. The 99% of articles offered to them that
aren't purchased should be factored into your understanding of the hourly rate
paid to writers: it reflects not only the hours put in by the few who were
paid, but also the thousands of hours put in by those whose work wasn't good
enough to rank in the magic Top 20 that month. The odds are too high for me
to even waste the postage, when there are smaller publications that will buy
everything I send them. It's a Lotto ticket versus hard cash. $5M would be
nice, but the $50 is a sure thing.
Meredith
Meredith
Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.
I don't think the fees are as outragous as you think. Nor do they
apply to an artist playing their own works.
For the corner tavern to have a pianist or organist providing music
for the evening, the annual fee is $150.00, if he is accompanied by a
singer or another musician, the fee for that additional artist is
$32.50 per performance. There is also a maximum fee limit of between
$2,580.00 and $2,637.00 per year, depending upon which base fee they
chose in the beginning.
If the tavern owner belongs to an association that is a member of
ASCAP-BMI & SESAC and they pay through the association, they can get a
20 to 22% discount from the normal rates.
Folkies as you called them, playing their own music ONLY, makes the
establishment exempt from the music licensing fees. Provided of
course that no copyrighted music is ever played in that establishment.
Copyrighted music is exempt if the artist holding the copyright
provides the media and request it to be played. This covers both
recorded and live performances of his/her music.
In addition, there is no reason to pay all three, if you only have one
musician who can control which music he plays. The musician can
belong to BMI for example and only play BMI held songs and refuse to
play ASCAP or SESAC held songs.
Every piece of sheet music that I own has the letter A or B noted on
it, so I knew which licensing agency held it.
The royalty fees collected by the holders is normally distributed
based on on-air sampling of radio stations and on the BMI Surveys that
all DJs must fill out each day. Not the best method, but it works.
Nonetheless, all members of the organizations do get a share of the
royalties. The top 40 do get the larger share, and the distributions
are made on a percentage bases. So even your folkies will get
something.
The raw deal that has partially been corrected in 1998 is the use of
radio or TV in public establishments.
The radio or TV station broadcasting the music has already paid heavy
royalty fees of 10 to 30 thousand dollars a month to air the music.
It should not have to be paid a second time by those public places
where a radio or TV is turned on. So as far as I'm concerned, the
artists are getting double of what they deserve as long as these
archaic laws allow such extortion of small business owners.
Pre-recorded media is a different matter but should not be rated a fee
any higher than a standard JLO (Juke Box License).
A royalty was already paid to the artist by the manufacturer or
printer, if you do play recordings or live from purchased sheet music,
the fee should be the simple one cent per public usage for each
copyrighted song played. The maximum fee any person should have to
pay to play pre-recorded media to the public in an enclosed area such
as a tavern, ballroom, dance hall, etc. should not exceed $75.00 per
year. A song lasts roughly 3 minutes, most parties last less than 7
hours. At 1 cent per song played, it would almost be impossible to
play the number of songs an establishment is charged for in fees.
Churches are exempt from licensing fees if copyrighted music is played
during the course of their worship service! They are NOT exempt if
played during other activities on the premises.
Look at the poor bowling alley, if they play radio music over their PA
system, they get stuck paying ASCAP a whopping $12.35 per bowling lane
in the alley, BMI another whopping $12.10 per lane and SESAC $3.95 per
lane. If their bowling alley has only 10 lanes (most are larger) they
will pay an additional $284.00 dollars on top of the fees already paid
by the station transmitting the music.
For the artist, it's not a bad deal, get royalties from the originator
and get more royalties from the same airing if anybody considered
public tunes to that station.
WOW - Who's gouging whom!
To the best of my knowledge, ASCAP has NEVER lost a case in pursuing
collecting these double royalties from those who should never have to
pay double royalties in the first place.
TTUL
Gary