letter from FOX about copyrights
Wilfried
Here is an E mail I got from the FOX about copyrights:
Date sent: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: "BOUTILLIER WILFRIED"
<bout8440@c230_acs_mailserv.edmonds.ctc.edu>
From: ********@newscorp.com (Chris Fusco)
Subject: Re: X-Files Pictures
No. X-Files pictures as a whole are copyrighted by Fox and they have
agreements with the photographers, etc. that they have to live up to.
Part
of these agreements include usage rights which are being violated all
over
the web. Fox is going to crack down on this in the very near future and
shut down many of these sites to protect themselves from legal action.
The words The X-Files are safe, as long as you are not using the
logo or the words in the X-Files font. The Truth is Out There, Deny
Everything, and Trust No One are copyrighted too believe it or not.
Fox can't let people upload pictures whether it is commercial or
not because putting a site on the web is akin to digital publishing.
Legally this would amount to reproduction and distribution of copyrighted
materials and they would liable for not enforcing their copyright.
Chris
Deborah R. Fuller
> No. X-Files pictures as a whole are copyrighted by Fox and they have
> agreements with the photographers, etc. that they have to live up to.
> Part
> of these agreements include usage rights which are being violated all
> over
> the web. Fox is going to crack down on this in the very near future and
> shut down many of these sites to protect themselves from legal action.
> The words The X-Files are safe, as long as you are not using the
> logo or the words in the X-Files font. The Truth is Out There, Deny
> Everything, and Trust No One are copyrighted too believe it or not.
> Fox can't let people upload pictures whether it is commercial or
> not because putting a site on the web is akin to digital publishing.
> Legally this would amount to reproduction and distribution of copyrighted
> materials and they would liable for not enforcing their copyright.
Ya know, they are legally correct but I think they are getting a bit
uptight about it. There are millions of illegal sites all over the web
that are using pictures and logos without permission. It is almost
suicide to try and shut down every joe with a scanner and photoshop. I
don't know if any other company is being this anal about their shows.
I wouldn't worry about it. If you really want to get technical about it,
you can't display any X-Files pictures/logos/etc. in public like haning
them on your office door because that would count as exhibition without
permission.
As long as someone isn't making money off their site and they are doing it
for their own personal enjoyment, let it slide Fox!
Deb
ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk
Victor R. Volkman (v...@iware.com) wrote:
: Correction these are TradeMarked (and probably ServiceMarked phrases).
: You can't copyright two words but you can certainly TradeMark them.
They might well be TradeMarked according to Fox, but any word or phrase
that was in common usage before being TMed can't be restricted, any more
than common knowledge can be resticted through copyrights or patents.
The words "Deny Everything" occur in just about every political and spy
story ever written. I'm sure it's even cropped up in Yes Minister. It's
been a common phrase, long long before the X-Files, which puts it far
and away outside their reach.
I can understand Fox getting jittery over the logo and any pictures that
are about. That's fair enough. If they want to restrict who can use them,
that's entirely up to them. They won't get many kudos for it, though. But
they can only protect their own work, no-one else's.
Tal Boyd
I don't know if this has been a big discussion or not, but has anyone
thought how FOX's actions will affect the X-Files fan base. It seems to
me that all of the sites and images are free advertising for the show and
the network. By taking down all of the sites they are ticking off the
folks who keep the show going.
Thanks,
Tal
Mike/Damon or Peni R. Griffin
It is not possible to put a graphic on a webpage without making it
available for download by knowledgeable people. In fact, I'm not all
that knowledgeable, and I can steal images without any problem.
It is customary among html professionals to assume that an image which
does not bear a copyright notice is public domain and fair game for
downloading. Therefore, any time you put a copyrighted image on your
webpage you should indicate copyright ownership. Conscientious html
writers will contact the copyright holder for permission to use the
image, and will credit the holder on the page when permission is
obtained.
The issue of when it is and is not appropriate to put up an image
owned by someone else on a web-page is still legally iffy; however, it
strikes me as impolite, at best, to have an image on the web if the
owner of that image doesn't want it there.
This is Peni.
Kid books are better than grownup books.
Check out http://www.geocities.com/athens/3401
John Switzer
In article <4t2j9e$n...@viper.txdirect.net>,
Mike/Damon or Peni R. Griffin <gri...@txdirect.net> wrote:
> It is not possible to put a graphic on a webpage without making it
>available for download by knowledgeable people. In fact, I'm not all
>that knowledgeable, and I can steal images without any problem.
>
>It is customary among html professionals to assume that an image which
>does not bear a copyright notice is public domain and fair game for
>downloading. Therefore, any time you put a copyrighted image on your
>webpage you should indicate copyright ownership. Conscientious html
>writers will contact the copyright holder for permission to use the
>image, and will credit the holder on the page when permission is
>obtained.
I don't know what HTML "professionals" you know, but the professionals
I know realize that the pictures themselves do not have to be copyrighted.
If the page itself has a copyright notice, either overtly or embedded
somewhere in the HTML source, then true professionals will assume that the
pictures are copyrighted, too, just as they would while reading the
newspaper or magazine. They would no more "steal images," as you so
aptly phrase it, from the web then they would from a newspaper, magazine,
or any other source.
As a general rule, BTW, if you didn't take the photograph or create the
picture, then it is not wise to assume you can use it unless your source
specifically and explicitly says so (such as with a clipart or photo CD),
and even then you have to have a reasonable belief that your source owns
the picture.
This is no different than the text of web pages - anyone who would copy the
verbatim text from a web page is infringing upon the copyright unless they
have prior permission. Why should graphics be any different? And just because
a graphic does not have a copyright symbol on it doesn't mean it's fair game.
--
John Switzer | "Why haven't you sent us a scientist who can cure
| AIDS?" screamed the AIDS activist at God. "I did,"
jswi...@limbaugh.com | God replied, "but he was aborted."
*** Access the Congressional Record at http://thomas.loc.gov ***
David Haines
If I understand the copyright laws correctly, which I probably do not,
as long as you do not distribute the logos, picts, whatever to anyone
it is not a copyright infringement. It is just a question of if
putting a graphic - which cannot be downloaded on the page - is
infringement.
For instance it is perfectly LEGAL to copy an entire book for
yourself, but as soon as you give that copy to someone else free, at cost,
or profit, it becomes illegal, but if you just use it for yourself it
is legal.
Thus putting a graphic on your homepage, that cannot be captured, I
believe, would not violate the copyright laws. I do not hear about
anyone getting busted for taping up a copy of this weeks "Dilbert"
on there desk where anyone can see it. The same _should_ be the same
for a homepage.
$0.02
P.Landsmeer
In article <4t1ccs$o...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
You're wrong. The author of the graphic image basically has two exclusive
rights: to reproduce his work and to make it available to the public (by
putting it in books, magazines, on billboards, etc) Thus, even if you should
succeed in creating a homepage where certain graphics cannot be downloaded by
other users, you still make the graphic available to the public (everyone can
look at it, can't they?), which would considered to be a copyright
infringement.
However, your story was not entirely wrong; reproducing a work for personal
use is purely legitimate. That's why no one gets busted for taping up
'Dilbert' - unless they start to use that copy for commercial purposes, of
course.
Paul
Jonathan Day
David Haines (d...@unlgrad1.unl.edu) wrote:
: For instance it is perfectly LEGAL to copy an entire book for
: or profit, it becomes illegal, but if you just use it for yourself it
: is legal.
In the UK, copying an entire book, even for personal use, is likely to be
forwned on heavily. I think the rule is that you're ok with one article
out of a journal or up to 10% of a book, but you'd really need to check
that with someone. I'm not sure what the rule is for graphics in web
pages, but fair usage (ie: relevent pictures which add to the informational
content) is usually not going to worry anyone, /unless/ they've already
said otherwise. What the owner says /goes/, always. At a seminar I attended
on the web, a lawyer who specialises in such things made it clear that free
advertising - the usual plea, when these things go to court - isn't a defence.
This isn't to scare anyone - I'm sure Fox and CC are willing to sit down
with fans and sort something out. Even if you want to be cynical about
such things, image is still 90% of the revenue and Fox aren't fools. It
is just a case of various groups covering their backs and forgetting that
most problems are solved by sensible people sitting down and talking. It
probably needs little more than Fox and co. to feel wanted and to know
that fans aren't bloodthirsty profiteering modern-day pirates. (An image
fandom /has/ acquired over recent years and needs to shed. Fast!)
Dave Teegarden
In article <4tc91b$m...@lex.zippo.com>, ba...@i1.net wrote:
>In article <4tbr89$f...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk says...
>>
>>David Haines (d...@unlgrad1.unl.edu) wrote:
[big discussion on copyright laws & webpages]
I'd like to make the observation that putting something on a web page is
not "personal use" because you're putting it where you know complete
strangers are going to look at it.
I'd also like to observe that I've never seen a personal X-Files web page
that had any advertisements on it, so it's not like anyone's making money
off the pirated stuff that Fox isn't getting a piece of. But that doesn't
make the pirating legal.
But I'm not going to. I'd much rather hear a lawyer's opinion. I know
lawyers watch the X-Files, I used to date one. This has got to be an
easier question than anything on the bar exam, so let's hear from you!
-Dave
--
Don't let the X-Files move to Sundays! Write to:
Fox Broadcasting Co.
PO Box 900
Beverly Hills CA 90213
Juicinet
STOP ALL OF YOUR WHINING. FOX OWNS THE COPYWRITE.
If you want to use stuff be willing to ask and possibly pay.
Philebrarian
> In article <4tbr89$f...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk says...
> >> >David Haines (d...@unlgrad1.unl.edu) wrote:
> >: For instance it is perfectly LEGAL to copy an entire book for
> >: yourself, but as soon as you give that copy to someone else free, at cost,
> >: or profit, it becomes illegal, but if you just use it for yourself it
> >: is legal.
<UK response snipped> and then
On 26 Jul 1996 ba...@i1.net wrote:
> As far the 10% Rule goes. At SLCC - Forest Park Community College fair usage
> deems that no more than 10% of a book may be copied. One chapter from a book,
> one article from a magazine/periodical unless copyright clearance is on file.
> Newspapers are considered in the "public domain" which means it may be copied
> with as many copies as deemed needed By Instructors. And that's it from my
> side of the computer screen.
OK Now... from a librarian who spent a year doing copyright clearance for an
instructional media dept... The first statement is NOT TRUE !!!!!! It is
stretching the boundaries of the meaning of the "Fair Use" issue of Title17
(the copyright laws). Fair use simply says one copy for
educational/personal purposes but does NOT say you can make a copy of the
whole thing to avoid buying it... books no longer in print have different
issues involved...
Donnaj's comments about 10% *is* true... however the statements about
Newspapers and magazine articles is true *only* if they are simply being
handed out to students. If they are being put in course packs for sale at
the campus printing plant or Kinko's it IS NOT TRUE ! Copyright
permission *must* be obtained.
The Music Library Association Legislation Committee has a web page that
is a very good place to start investigating this issue. The specifics are
aimed at music materials, but the legalities are applicable in most
media formats. There are also links to several legal association such as
the "Cyberspace Law Center, "Findlaw," the US Copyright Office at the
Library of Congres.
The URL is:
http://www.music.indiana.edu/tech_s/mla/legcom/copyhome.htm
please go look at what the experts and law makers are saying in stead of
just talking off the top of your heads...
--philebrarian