Copyrights and pinball backglass reproductions
FrankH
result, many collectors are looking for replacements for them.
However, because the backglasses were silk screened on glass, the paint
tends to crack, flake and peel, and generally wear out before the
playfields do.
It's possible to scan these damaged playfields and to correct this wear
using computer graphics. These images can then be used to produce
reproduction backglasses for these damaged machines using inkjet
printing, or actual silk screening.
The question is, how does copyright law affect this? Would the original
owner be allowed to do it? How about a 3rd party who only produced them
for bona fide owners?
Should the reproduction be allowed provided that it was a replacement
for an original glass and not intended as a wall hanging or for
publication? Or should it be prohibited unless under license from the
original copyright holder?
Isn't this analogous to a company which produces unique replacement
parts for other equipment, like automobiles?
FrankH
Horrigan
>result, many collectors are looking for replacements for them.
Your best bet would be to work out a licensing deal with the manufacturers.
Otherwise you may run into problems, no matter what sort of disclaimers you
issue about what sort of intended use you have in mind for the backglasses.
*****
Tim Horrigan <horr...@aol.com>
*****
Jonathan Sachs
news:tn7bg0d9j4h8b3hdn...@4ax.com...
> The backglasses of many old pinball machines are in bad condition. As a
> result, many collectors are looking for replacements for them....
>
> The question is, how does copyright law affect this? Would the original
> owner be allowed to do it?
If the original owner is also the current owner, yes. Otherwise no -- no
more than the original owner of a house would be allowed to exercise rights
over it after selling it.
> How about a 3rd party who only produced them
> for bona fide owners?
If the artwork is copyrighted, not without permission. If someone reproduces
it without permission they are violating the copyright even if they never
sell it to anyone.
> Isn't this analogous to a company which produces unique replacement
> parts for other equipment, like automobiles?
It is not, because a replacement part for a car is functional. The backglass
itself is also functional, but the art on it is a non-functional, expressive
work. That is what distinguishes copyright from other forms of intellectual
property protection: it applies to a "work of authorship" (in any medium,
including images on glass) rather than an object whose value is inherent in
its design, like a piston ring, a stapler, or a pair of pants.
Now, the basic situation I've just described is about as bad as it could get
for a hypothetical entrepreneur investigating the pinball machine backglass
replacement market, so the inevitable complications will be mostly good
news.
First, those images aren't necessarily copyrighted at all. Before 1978, U.S.
copyright law had some fairly specific requirements for obtaining copyright
protection. The most elementary one was that magic © symbol, without which
there simply was no copyright. Study the machine -- if it was manufactured
before 1978 and it doesn't doesn't bear any signage which says that the
artwork is copyrighted, it ain't.
Second, the term of copyright protection used to be a lot shorter than it is
now. The legal changes which took effect in 1978 extended the terms of
copyrights which were then active, but did not touch those which were
already expired. Under the old law, the term of the copyright was 28 years,
renewable once for an additional 28 years. Thus, any copyright obtained
before 1922 passed into the public domain before 1978, and remains there.
Any copyright obtained before 1950 was still active in 1978 only if the
copyright owner renewed it, which would happen only if the owner (1) still
existed, (2) remembered that it had a copyright to renew, and (3) still
cared enough to bother. If you know the history of the pinball industry, you
probably see plenty of opportunities here for a free pass.
The laws governing copyrights that were obtained before 1978 but still
active when the law changed are nightmarishly complex, and I won't go into
them. Suffice it to say that such a copyright will live for quite a while
yet if its owner renews it at the appropriate time; if not, it will expire
within a few years if it has not already done so.
The U.S. Copyright Office maintains records of when copyrights were granted
and renewed. It also records transfers of copyright ownership much as a
county's recording office records transfers of real estate. Thus, in theory,
you can find out whether any given work that was once copyrighted is still
protected, and if so, who owns the rights.
You can't count on the registry, though, because registration is not
mandatory. And there is a strong possibility that if you try to trace the
ownership of a copyright in something like pinball artwork you'll end up
with the name of a corporation that vanished in 1959, and you'll have to
hire a gumshoe to find out what happened next. In this situation it would be
pretty reasonable to conclude that if a copyright owner is that hard to
find, then he, she or it probably doesn't know or care about the copyright,
and is not worth looking for.
Paul Cassel
no questions or if you were going to make close copies of the graphics
again, there would be no issues. The problem is if you are going to make
perfect dupes for collectors and it gets even worse if the collectors will
attempt to pass off your dupes as originals when they sell their machines
later on.
OK, let's let the subsquent sales matter slip because it isn't in your
orignal question. Let's take Ford starter motors. Ford doesn't copyright the
motors, but it does hold trademark on the Ford logo. Note if you buy a NAPA
replacement motor for a Ford engine, it does not say Ford using the Ford
logo on it, but it fits the Ford engine. Likewise, if you made a piece of
glass that fit the backplane there is no issue, but if it had all the
original graphics, then you are in violation unless you have a license of
the copyright is run out.
As a practice, my guess is that the older companies making these machines
are long gone, the holders of the copyrights are long dead and so they
aren't enforcing the rights. You need to check carefully to make sure and
I'd also consult with an intellectual rights attorney about how you research
such things and what you need to to do to be reasonably sure that you are in
the clear if you think there is a copyright that's not being enforced.
OTOH, even if the copyright holders are out there, they may be happy to
license you their designs for a new business making backplanes. They sure
aren't making money from these old machines so you both may benefit from
your idea. Also, if you license, the collectors can sell under license
increasing value instead of pirate editions. This makes a big diff to
collectors. Good luck.
-paul
ianal
Robert Bonomi
FrankH <frank@med-%nospam%-zilla.com> wrote:
>The backglasses of many old pinball machines are in bad condition. As a
>result, many collectors are looking for replacements for them.
>
>However, because the backglasses were silk screened on glass, the paint
>tends to crack, flake and peel, and generally wear out before the
>playfields do.
>
>It's possible to scan these damaged playfields and to correct this wear
>using computer graphics. These images can then be used to produce
>reproduction backglasses for these damaged machines using inkjet
>printing, or actual silk screening.
>
>The question is, how does copyright law affect this? Would the original
>owner be allowed to do it? How about a 3rd party who only produced them
>for bona fide owners?
An owner, original, or 'in due course', of the machine, would have no
problem with copyright -- as long as the copy was for his 'personal use'.
Either doing it personally, or having his 'agent' make the copy on his
behalf.
Note: *selling* the 'restored' machine at a later date raises a whole
snakes-nest of issues.
>Should the reproduction be allowed provided that it was a replacement
>for an original glass and not intended as a wall hanging or for
>publication? Or should it be prohibited unless under license from the
>original copyright holder?
"Should" is a moral issue. Has -nothing- to do with what the law *is*.
<wry grin>
>Isn't this analogous to a company which produces unique replacement
>parts for other equipment, like automobiles?
Yes, and *NO*. <grin>
There are TWO issues involved.
1) the 'replacement part' (a piece of glass with paint on it)
2) the 'artistic work' that is the image on the glass.
The 'replacement part' is a non-issue. just like an automobile part.
The 'artistic work' is the can-of-worms issue.
Use a new, unique, different, piece of art (that you have the rights to
use), and there are no problems.
'Copy' the original, or use it as 'source' for making up something, and
copyright _does_ rear it's ugly head. Either 'direct' copying, or the
'derivative work' swamp. Now, either you have to have permission from the
copyright owner, *OR* you have to find an applicable 'exception' to their
'exclusive rights'. 'Personal Use' may provide a -partial- loop-hole,
but there are serious complications attached.
Legally, the "clean" approach is to 'restore' the *original* image, not
create a replacement part.