Q: Art stamps on the Internet ??
amesh
again.
I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in public
on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the artist's
estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the estate's
(or the still living artist's) legal rights.
Example 1.
Pablo Picasso died in 1973. His art works as a whole are protected from
being shown in public until 70 years after his death, i.e. they can only be
shown on the Internet or other public exhibitions in 2043 (!), unless the
exhibitor can provide a written permission from the estate (or the copyright
owner) or pays a *very* substantial due to Copy-Dan for the permission (for
a limited period of 1 month). Any art work -- whether on stamps or not --
may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission of the estate,
or payment of dues to Copy-Dan for the permission.
Example 2.
Arnold Machin died in 1999. The case is the same as for Picasso, and stamps
designed by Machin may not be shown on the Internet or elsewhere in the
public before 2069.
Esample 3:
A living post war artist, who has had the luck of having one of his art
works published on a stamp by a postal administration (of whichever
nationality), can not have his/her art work on the stamp shown in public
until 70 years after his death (whenever that may be). Given that he/she is
still alive and may easily live for another 30 years, his work on stamps is
not admissible to the public for the nest 100 years -- even when issued
legally on a stamp !!!
It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material may be
legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes. Copy-Dan does
not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever nationality)
the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps and related
philatelic material on the Internet or special museum exhibits, as long as
the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at least 70 years. The
rigid interpretation is that the artist must have passed away 70 years prior
to the issues in question -- if not, either the exhibitor produces a written
permission from the artist / his estate, or pays his dues as settled by
Copy-Dan.
I know of a recent case in Great Britain, where the National Gallery in
London had planned an exhibit of the Art Nouveau artist Alfons Mucha in
collaboration with the Czech National Gallery. The exhibit was stopped by
Mucha's estate, claiming that Mucha died "only" in 1939, and that the
exhibit could therefore not be shown legally before 2009. There are other
similar cases in Europe, based on this rigid interpretation, which have
nearly ruined the exhibitors who have worked in good faith.
Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations throughout the
world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country (through
their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated nations in
Europe and the Mediterranean Area.
How are things working in *your* country?
--
Best regards
Ann Mette Heindorff (Mette)
------
Outgoing messages.checked with Norton AV
Roger Smith
"amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:42ab4d64$0$58819$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
I have to say that in my opinion far too much power is given to owners of
intellectual property rights nowadays, including copyright owners.
For example we have the pharmaceutical lobby, using the excuse of inadequate
rewards for their investment to screw the third world as much as they can
and force them to buy their products at prices that are ruinous either for
the economies of these poor countries or for their citizens' well-being, and
the powerful European software lobby demanding "software patents", allegedly
to keep pace with the USA, but we all know the real reason.
We now have copyright organisations demanding many different far-reaching
changes in the law. The extension of copyright term in artistic works from
life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years not so long ago is a case in point,
entirely without justification in my opinion. Another new right being
currently debated is for the author (painter, sculptor) to share in gains
made whenever their works are re-sold, presumably at any time during the
extended copyright period. For author, read their greedy descendants (I
believe that the Picasso family have indeed been instrumental in pushing for
this right). This business is getting as sick as the world of football
transfers!
We now have organisations purporting to represent copyright owners
attempting to stretch these rights even further, and in the present case
they are surely pre-judging the rights granted to postal authorities when
stating that they do not consider the issuing postal administration (of
whichever nationality) as the legal copyright owner. Even if the artist
grants rights to the relevant a licence only for use on material relating to
postage stamps (or whatever items are defined in the licence document) then
it is possible that those rights are "exhausted" once the work in question
appears on the postal item. In that case, any unauthorised reproduction of
that item might be an infringement of the rights held by the postal
authority, but would no longer be actionable by the owner of the copyright
in the work illustrated on the item.
I have to say that I do not think the legal position is at all clear, and
that test cases will need to be brought, and these would need to involve
defendants with sufficient resources to force the legal action up to a
sufficiently high level for any judgement to be influential.
Of course, it is not just the artist who might claim an interest. What
about the stamp designer, or the engraver who might have made no small
contribution to the final appearance of the stamp?
I think that in contacting you, Copy-Dan are trying to stretch their muscles
with a bit of scare tactics. Are they at all specific about their reference
to what they describe as "European copyright legislation"? I suspect they
are putting their own interpretation on some of the vague terms in which EC
Directives are normally drafted.
Regards, Roger
Bill Sharpe
of Copy-Dan's notice.
2. Would this 70 years + limitation apply also to printed/CD-ROM
catalogs depicting these stamps?
In the US there's a "fair use" doctrine that may or may not apply here.
Still, this sounds like several disasters in the making!
Bill Sharpe
"amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:42ab4d64$0$58819$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
amesh
news:TIIqe.7239$q46...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:42ab4d64$0$58819$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
- snip -
Roger,
You and I are on exactly the same level of thinking, and I am more than
tempted to bring this question before the court to have some of these
questions clarified. But I also fear that as an individual I am bound to
loose my case. Frankly, I cannot think of anyone who as an individual might
win a case against a powerful and self-righteous bureaucracy ;-)
Regards
Mette
amesh
news:42AB65DA...@mindspring.com...
>
- snip -
>
> There is a well known living painter that either trademarked or
> copyrighted
> 'painter of light'. It would seem that artists previous to that have been
> dubbed thus. I am going to trademark 'painter of canvas' and 'painter of
> light
> and heavy canvas'.
>
> As far as stopping people from showing postage stamps, that in my thinking
> are
> something in themselves separate from the art and artist they may honor, I
> agree with Roger, let 'em go to court.
>
> The Mucha estate could have given permission or it could easily have been
> requested by the museums. Unless that was some precedent it would seem
> they,
> the museums, would have known that.
The preparations for the Mucha-exhibit were begun in 1998, when the life +
50 years protection was still in force. The general extension enforced in
1999 to life + 70 years made more harm than good to the art world.
amesh
news:lr-dneUfDZY...@adelphia.com...
> 1. I would hate to see Mette's beautiful web pages disappear as a result
> of Copy-Dan's notice.
Thanks Bill :-) they won't disappear totally, only the 20th century artists
and artistic movements have been requested removed (or "paid for"). E.g.
Chagall, Picasso, Dali, Miro, Matisse etc., and such movements as
Expressionism, Post-Expressionism, Fauvism, Surrealism, and all the "wild"
movements from the 1960s.
But, of course, I can always pay Copy-Dan about 1,000 dollars per month for
their "protection"!
> 2. Would this 70 years + limitation apply also to printed/CD-ROM
> catalogs depicting these stamps?
Probably, but I haven't investigated that. However, it is a fact that most
art books concerning the 20th century artists and movements are now hard to
find, because they have been retracted from the market. One that has
survived, is about "Suprematism" and Kasimir Malevich, who died in 1935 (70
years ago), and therefore is freely available.
>
> In the US there's a "fair use" doctrine that may or may not apply here.
The fair use doctrine does apply, but is interpretated differently by the
authorities and the users ...
>
> Still, this sounds like several disasters in the making!
Yes, this lobby has done more harm than good.
Mette
Douglas Myall
General questions concerning the scope of copyright protection,
whether in literary or artistic works, are simply not capable of being
given answers of worldwide application. Even in countries of the
European Union which are subject to the directive of 1993, it is left
to individual countries to embody it in their domestic law (although,
ultimately, interpretation may be the prerogative of the European
Court). In the context posed by
Mette, there may well be two copyrights, one vested in the original
artist and another in the engraver of a printing plate bearing that
image. It is very likely, therefore, that a postage stamp bearing an
image of a painting is itself copyright. (As in GB stamps bearing the
Machin head; Mette's example 2 is plain wrong.) Further one is
entitled to assume that postal authorities who reproduce artistic
works on stamps have obtained the necessary permission from the artist
or his estate where it is still in copyright. Under the Berne
Convention the duration of such copyrights is 50 years from the END of
the year in which the copyright owner died (not from the date of his
death). Under the imperative of "harmonisation" this became 70 years
within the EU because that was the period applicable in Germany and
the other countries had to fall in line. The "fair use" provisions,
which incidentally were first applied under English law, are, in my
personal view interpreted too strictly within the EU. The USA applies
them much more sensibly and flexibly. There are also provisions in
most jurisdictions for people threatened with an action for
infringement to be able themselves to start an action for a
declaration by the Court that the work in question does not possess
copyright, but that is an expensive road to tread and the destination
uncertain. However, I do not consider that Copy-Dan's claims that the
original artist's copyright in his painting extends to its
reproduction on postage stamps where such reproduction is done with
the artist's permission, is wrong in law (caveat any express provision
to the contrary in Danish law).
My advice to Mette, for what it is worth, is that so long as she
reproduces only stamp images as distinct from the original paintings,
and so long as those images purporting to be mint and are in colour
are `cancelled' in some way, e.g., by a line or arc in one corner, and
so long as she makes it clear that she IS reproducing stamps that are,
or were, on sale to the public, she should be free of interference
from bodies such as Copy-Dan.
Douglas
amesh
news:d8h2ca$nt7$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
- snip -
>
> My advice to Mette, for what it is worth, is that so long as she
> reproduces only stamp images as distinct from the original paintings,
> and so long as those images purporting to be mint and are in colour
> are `cancelled' in some way, e.g., by a line or arc in one corner, and
> so long as she makes it clear that she IS reproducing stamps that are,
> or were, on sale to the public, she should be free of interference
> from bodies such as Copy-Dan.
Thanks for your advice Douglas. I have been discussing this with Copy-Dan
for 2-3 years, and they insist that the copyright protection applies to
*all* depictions -- also on stamps -- insofar the artist involved was still
alive in 1935 or later. In other words, a rigid interpretation of the
70-year protection.
They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files listed,
or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a formal
invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!
That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?
Mette
Douglas Myall
here goes
> again.
>
> I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
> (Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
> legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material
on the
> Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were
still
> alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
public
> on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
artist's
> estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the
estate's
> (or the still living artist's) legal rights.
>
Further to my earlier post in reply to Mette's questions, perhaps I
could make a couple of further points.
1. The last sentence of my penultimate paragraph had an intrusive `do
not' which completely altered what I wished to say. It should have
read as follows (I have taken the opportunity to add to it a bit):
However, I consider that Copy-Dan's claims that the
original artist's copyright in his painting extends to its
reproduction on postage stamps where such reproduction is done with
the artist's permission and to reproductions of such stamps for purely
philatelic purposes other than for sale, is wrong in law (caveat any
express provision
to the contrary in Danish law).
2. Attempts to secure a further widening of the scope of protection
within the EU so as to include an ability to prevent public exhibition
are unlikely to succeed. They are certainly not covered by the present
directive nor, as I know, are they prevented under UK domestic
law.While the renting or lending of an artistic work to the public are
`restricted acts' for which the artist's permission is required, the
making of works available for a public exhibition is not renting or
lending to the public. Also, galleries can lend works to each other
without the consent of the artist whether or not the purpose of the
loan is public exhibition. Galleries can prevent the public from
taking photographs of the exhibits so long as they make this a
condition of entry by printing it on the admission tickets.
3. It is true that in some foreign countries a `droite de suite'
exists which entitles the artist to a payment on a resale of his work.
It is also true that the European Commission is in favour of extending
this right to countries of the Union for works of contemporary and
modern art.
Douglas
Douglas Myall
purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright? Do
they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate? Might I
expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
for this from Royal Mail?
Douglas
amesh
>
- snip -
> Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do.
As said elsewhere in this thread I fear that I -- as an individual -- may
loose my case against a powerful and self-righteous bureaucracy.
Does Copy-Dan
> purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright?
Yes. They have sent me a long -- but not complete -- list of artists
protected.
> Do they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate?
Yes.
> Might I
> expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
> stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
> for this from Royal Mail?
No, with a written permission from the copyright owner you are on the safe
side. But you would never receive an invoice from Copy-Dan. They would
notify their British sister organisation to take action for what happens in
England.
The problem is purely mine, since I displayed my personal collections
without any specific permission from any copyright owner, may it be the
issuing postal administration, or the artist, or the estate. I have
therefore removed files that were specifically mentioned in their invoice,
nothing more, nothing less.
All I can do now is to display my collections of artists and their works in
any context up to 1935, provided that the artist involved had passed away
prior to 1935. Next year the limit will be 1936, and so on. In the case of
for instance Alphons Mucha (Art Nouveau), he will be back online in 2009.
Mette
moh...@charter.net
I wonder how many others would be in the same position as you? It
seems that this gets to the point of absurdity, especially when it
comes to stamps.
If the artist (or estate, etc) has holdings on the painting and
doesn't want it shown in any form other than their original, then why
are there art stamps in the first place by "reputable" countries all
over the world?
These are on mail, if used by the consumer and are noticed by the
general public as they pass through the mail system. Are they going
to limit that as well?
Sheesh... Darn absurd, I say.
=======================
Tracy Barber
-----------------------
adirondack-pc
-----------------------
"Freebie Stamp Project"
=======================
moh...@charter.net
I'd LOVE to see that ONE. Heh! (Go get 'em Douglas!)
moh...@charter.net
<dee...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files
>listed,
>> or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
>> permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a
>formal
>> invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!
>>
>> That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?
>>
>> Mette
>>
>Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do. Does Copy-Dan
>purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright? Do
>they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate? Might I
>expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
>stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
>for this from Royal Mail?
Mette's position...
This sounds like some far-reaching type of scam. A loophole for
collecting money from some company that has made itself up for that
purpose. It's only purpose is to police something they may not be
able to enforce but attempt to scare people into paying? I wonder
about that...
Is there a Better Business Bureau type of thing in Denmark? Are they
listed? How are their ratings? Are they legit? Any other complaints
from the public?
Sheesh, Mette - for the $ they request, you could probably build a
lawsuit against them, for less. :^)
I'm of the mind of what Douglas just mentioned. Are ALL of the
"estates" represented by COPY-DAN or are they simply intimidating you?
We've had and still have "protection schemes" by gangs / Mafia. It's
as old as time itself, it seems...
amesh
news:1tgoa1t4fa8rotj9b...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:57:20 +0200, "amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote:
>
>>"Roger Smith" <r.sm...@ntlworld.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>news:TIIqe.7239$q46...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
>>> news:42ab4d64$0$58819$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>- snip -
>>
>>Roger,
>>You and I are on exactly the same level of thinking, and I am more than
>>tempted to bring this question before the court to have some of these
>>questions clarified. But I also fear that as an individual I am bound to
>>loose my case. Frankly, I cannot think of anyone who as an individual
>>might
>>win a case against a powerful and self-righteous bureaucracy ;-)
>
> I wonder how many others would be in the same position as you? It
> seems that this gets to the point of absurdity, especially when it
> comes to stamps.
Ha! All collectors who have the temerity to display their modern stamps on
the internet without the artist's or estate's written permission are at
stake. We are talking about artists who were still around in 1935 or later.
Picasso died in 1973, so his estate can claim royalties up to 2043!! Yes,
it is absurd -- I would even say surrealist theatre.
>
> If the artist (or estate, etc) has holdings on the painting and
> doesn't want it shown in any form other than their original, then why
> are there art stamps in the first place by "reputable" countries all
> over the world?
That's a good question, but might be answered by the simple term "greed".
If they can sell a copyright to a given work for the purpose of a national
stamp issuing entity to issue a stamp, that's money in the piggy bank. And
then they can claim more royalties, when collectors show their legailly
acquired material on the internet, provided that the artist was still alive
in 1935 or later.
>
> These are on mail, if used by the consumer and are noticed by the
> general public as they pass through the mail system. Are they going
> to limit that as well?
They cannot. But they can prevent such items be scanned and shown to the
grand public on the Internet. "Safe" artists are only those who died prior
to 1935. I remember a joint issue (Germany/Belgium) of Rubens-stamps for
Christmas last year. Those are safe enough, since Rubens has been gone for
a while ;-)
>
> Sheesh... Darn absurd, I say.
Yes ...
Mette
b.ing...@shaw.ca
to the Supreme Court," then this is it. I wonder what "Copy-Dan" would
do if the web site were hosted "off shore." No doubt the long arm of
the law would still be effective, although porn producers certainly
seem to operate freely by using second and third parties.
We all know that web sites are ephemeral creatures. To have them die a
"natural" death is one thing, but to have them murdered? Have you
sought legal advice, Mette?
Other questions arise:
-- How about the myriad books that include images of stamps?
-- How about stamp exhibitions?
-- How about photographs that include stamps within the image?
-- How about motion pictures that include stamps?
-- How about illustrated listings of stamps for sale or auction?
-- How about illustrated listings of covers? Often, the stamp itself
makes up a tiny proportion of a cover's value, but without the stamp
the cover would be worthless.
I would like to know more about "Copy-Dan". I smell a corporation,
which under law has the rights of an individual but, this case, the
morals of a tomcat.
Bob
amesh
news:6choa15sh6isfb3jn...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:00:06 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall"
> <dee...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>> They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files
>>listed,
>>> or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
>>> permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a
>>formal
>>> invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!
>>>
>>> That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?
>>>
>>> Mette
>>>
>>Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do. Does Copy-Dan
>>purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright? Do
>>they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate? Might I
>>expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
>>stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
>>for this from Royal Mail?
>
> Mette's position...
>
> This sounds like some far-reaching type of scam. A loophole for
> collecting money from some company that has made itself up for that
> purpose. It's only purpose is to police something they may not be
> able to enforce but attempt to scare people into paying? I wonder
> about that...
It's *their* interpretation of the law that counts, not mine, believe you
me!
>
> Is there a Better Business Bureau type of thing in Denmark? Are they
> listed? How are their ratings? Are they legit? Any other complaints
> from the public?
No.
>
> Sheesh, Mette - for the $ they request, you could probably build a
> lawsuit against them, for less. :^)
Lawsuits in this country tends to last for years, and might in the end ruin
you, because an individual won't win a case against bureaucracy. There are
plenty of recent examples of that here (not philatelic, though). Not only
have you lost your money and time, but will also be liable to pay the
counterpart's costs.
>
> I'm of the mind of what Douglas just mentioned. Are ALL of the
> "estates" represented by COPY-DAN or are they simply intimidating you?
No, they are not intimidating me. They are deadly serious. Yes, through
their sister-organisations throughout the world they represent ALL estates
and ALL living artists. If they go into a US website, and find art stamps
displayed from, say, Denmark, they will ask their US network to take action
on their behalf. And so on for all countries.
>
> We've had and still have "protection schemes" by gangs / Mafia. It's
> as old as time itself, it seems...
It seems to work so, just under another "brand".
But, as said already, it is only the 20th century art that is affected,
which means from Art Deco and onwards. Impressionism and farther back is not
covered, since the artists of that movement all died prior to 1935. Next
year the limit will be 1936, and so on.
Mette
b.ing...@shaw.ca
Sunday, June 12:
I have recently encountered a problem which has to do either with a
money grab or copyright or perhaps both. I would like to purchase a
photograph from a "public" archive in Northern Ireland. copyrighte us
iwbed bt the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland, Ulster
Folk & Transport Museum. The image would be used as a collateral item
in the philatelic exhibit I am working on for Vanpex 2005 and it would
eventually end up being displayed on a web site.
The archive would charge me 7GBP for an electronic image, 25GBP for
one-time use of the image in the exhibit, and 108GBP to use it on a web
site. The only price break for educational, non-commercial use is
half-price for the reproduction of the image, if it will be used in
"Educational Textbooks" or "Scholarly Publications." The best-case
scenario, then, is that I would have to pay US $247.41 for use of this
image.
This is certainly not standard international practice for archival
material. I recently purchased an image from the national archives in
Canada and had to pay about $20 in total for a hi-res image supplied on
CD Rom. The curator I dealt with understood that the image would be on
public display.
I have an image of a painting on one of my web pages that I scanned
from a book jacket. The original image is a painting in the Canadian
War Museum. The museum web page states that permission to reproduce
images of items in its collection must be obtained prior to use. I
tried to obtain that permission, but I was told that the person in
charge of that department was on holidays, and would get back to me.
That person never "got back to me" and I have been using the image
ever since.
Since I have been publishing on the internet, coming up on 10 years
now, it has been my understanding that copyrighted images may be used
freely if the intent of their use is educational and non-commercial. It
seems that my understanding may, sadly, be incorrect.
Bob
b.ing...@shaw.ca
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/pubs/regime/10_e.cfm,
that explains the workings of Copy-Dan and other similar organizations
in Scandinavia. I would say that Mette's case is bows-and-arrows
against the lightning. Big Brother isn't just watching, he's picking
our pockets and destroying our freedom of expression. I would never
argue against any law that protect's artistic and intellectual
property. But Copy-Dan's long reach is bureaucracy gone mad.
Bob
John DeBoo
profit to you whatsoever) yet they have no problem with them being on
stamps and franking covers all over the world (a profit for the
perspective postal offices)? It sounds like they took lessons from the
idiots in the US where I live. Life would be so much easier without
lawyers.....
Grandpa John
John DeBoo
>
> They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files listed,
> or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
> permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a formal
> invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!
>
> That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?
>
> Mette
You *might* consider removing them, then pursueing it in court. That
way if you do lose, there is no big financial hit to yourself.
Grandpa John
Douglas Myall
"John DeBoo" <jsd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I-ednaD_w45...@comcast.com...
> Isn't it amusing that they can whine about you showing them (for no
> profit to you whatsoever) yet they have no problem with them being
on
> stamps and franking covers all over the world (a profit for the
> perspective postal offices)? It sounds like they took lessons from
the
> idiots in the US where I live. Life would be so much easier without
> lawyers.....
> Grandpa John
Whoa there Grandpa.
Douglas
(Retired intellectual property lawyer)
amesh
privately. I never realized that I had so many friends out there, both
among the regulars on RCSD and among the lurkers :-) I shall now hide away
for a while and think the situation over before taking any actkon. I have
some ideas, but need to air them in connection with legal advice. A rather
turbulent weekend is over, starting with that infamous letter on Saturday
morning!
For the moment the files in question are removed, and life goes on. The
whole thing is not sooo disastrous, as I can still show any artist in any
context up to 1935, provided that the artist involved was dead in 1935 or
earlier; from next year until 1936, and so on. I will for sure not be "out
of the market" because of this! ;-)
Thanks again to all of you, and
Best regards
Mette
"amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42ab4d64$0$58819$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
Douglas Myall
> "Douglas Myall" <dee...@dial.pipex.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:d8hbkm$bhn$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> - snip -
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Might I
> expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of
Machin
> stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
> for this from Royal Mail?
No, with a written permission from the copyright owner you are on the
safe
side. But you would never receive an invoice from Copy-Dan. They
would
notify their British sister organisation to take action for what
happens in
England.
That would seem to indicate that Copy-Dan concede that the copyright
in reproductions of Machin's sculpture on stamps and thus in
reproductions of those stamps is vested in Royal Mail and not in
Machin's estate. If I should ever receive a claim for royalties on the
coloured images of Machin stamps on my CD, whether from Copy-Dan or
any English equivalent claiming to act on behalf of Machin's estate,
it would be defended vigorously and publicly.
Douglas
Victor Manta
> This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
> again.
>
> I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
> (Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
> legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
> Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
> alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
> public on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
> artist's estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect
> the estate's (or the still living artist's) legal rights.
>
>
> It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material may be
> legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes. Copy-Dan
> does not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever
> nationality) the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps
> and related philatelic material on the Internet or special museum
> exhibits, as long as the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at
> least 70 years. The rigid interpretation is that the artist must have
> passed away 70 years prior to the issues in question -- if not, either the
> exhibitor produces a written permission from the artist / his estate, or
> pays his dues as settled by Copy-Dan.
>
> Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations throughout the
> world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country (through
> their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
> legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated nations
> in Europe and the Mediterranean Area.
>
> How are things working in *your* country?
I don't know how the things are in my country, and I surely won't ask.
An idea could be that you ask for support the Danish Philatelic Association
and the FIP (who awarded you in the recent past for your websites).
Aren't they supposed to help the development of philately, on the Web and
elsewhere? This is exactly what you have done; I wonder how could you do it
without presenting the material (stamps) about that you were writing about?
--
Victor Manta
moh...@charter.net
>Unbelievable. If ever I've seen a case that deserves to go "all the way
>to the Supreme Court," then this is it. I wonder what "Copy-Dan" would
>do if the web site were hosted "off shore." No doubt the long arm of
>the law would still be effective, although porn producers certainly
>seem to operate freely by using second and third parties.
>
>We all know that web sites are ephemeral creatures. To have them die a
>"natural" death is one thing, but to have them murdered? Have you
>sought legal advice, Mette?
>
>Other questions arise:
>
>-- How about the myriad books that include images of stamps?
Auction catalogs, for one.
>-- How about stamp exhibitions?
Heh!
>-- How about photographs that include stamps within the image?
>
>-- How about motion pictures that include stamps?
>
>-- How about illustrated listings of stamps for sale or auction?
Oops... BIG ONE!
>-- How about illustrated listings of covers? Often, the stamp itself
>makes up a tiny proportion of a cover's value, but without the stamp
>the cover would be worthless.
Advertising covers...
>I would like to know more about "Copy-Dan". I smell a corporation,
>which under law has the rights of an individual but, this case, the
>morals of a tomcat.
Me-row!
A.E. Gelat
thousands, of people like you with that problem. Collective action is
required. Have you consulted a lawyer friend about what he thinks? It will
cost you nothing.
Tony
"amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:42ac78f7$0$58738$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
amesh
news:42aca2cd$1...@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
> Mette, why are you tackling this alone? There are hundreds, maybe
> thousands, of people like you with that problem. Collective action is
> required. Have you consulted a lawyer friend about what he thinks? It
> will cost you nothing.
Tony, I received the letter with the ultimatum from Copy-Dan only yesterday,
Saturday, so there has been no time to consult anybody so far. I need no
lawyer friends, but a super professonal barrister, one who is specialized in
copyright legislation and intellectual properties, and who has absolutely no
connection with me in daily life, in order to stay totally objective. This
is not a case about my person, but a case about principal philatelic
interests. I have made up my own thoughts and arguments, and am ready for a
meeting during this coming week. We shall see what happens.
Thanks for your support :-)
Mette
A.E. Gelat
if I am asking questions that have been raised before, I apologize. What is
Copy Dan? Is it a registered company, a non-profit organization or what?
Did it need government approval? In the USA, there are numerous groups that
telephone people asking for donations to buy special protective equipment
for the police, or to buy toys for poor children or for similar causes.
These are scams. It turns out that they are a crooked business. In some
cases, they keep all the money, in others, they give only 10% to the group
they are helping. These accept that, as they consider it better than
nothing. The Better Business Bureaus advise people not to contribute to any
of these scams.
Tony
"amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:42aca7f9$0$58792$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
Rodney
and do a philatelists version here,
The broadsheet announcing a reduced Mette on the internet
http://cjoint.com/data/godtxP4YZf.htm
Ted Tyszka
permits the use of copyrighted works for research and educational purposes,
which I think applies to almost any use of stamp images on web pages. Here
are a couple of web page links which talk a little about "fair use."
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://www.cetus.org/fair6.html
Cheers,
Ted
<moh...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:611pa1p6k6l0dv4fp...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jun 2005 07:55:43 -0700, b.ing...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>>-- How about the myriad books that include images of stamps?
>
> Auction catalogs, for one.
>
amesh
news:42ae30eb$1...@news.eftel.com...
he he he :-) This applies exactly to my infuriated mood right now :-)
I might even consider making my own philatelist version ;-)
Mette
amesh
news:spqre.10982$rt3....@fe03.lga...
> Copyright does not apply to images used of an item for sale. "Fair use"
> also permits the use of copyrighted works for research and educational
> purposes, which I think applies to almost any use of stamp images on web
> pages. Here are a couple of web page links which talk a little about "fair
> use."
>
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>
> http://www.cetus.org/fair6.html
As said elsewhere in this thread, the fair use doctrine is interpretated
differently by the authorities and the users. I know of a similar case in
Germany where the philatelist is in exactly the same situation as me, and
has been forced to remove some of his website by the same ultimatum as I was
given. "Either you pay, or you remove that artist". This happened some
years ago; I have been lucky enough not to be "hi-jacked" much earlier.
Research and educational purposes do not -- according to the authorities --
apply to a website like mine or my German colleague's, as we are working
ourselves systematically through art and art history. The ONLY factor that
counts to the authorities is whether the artist was dead in 1935 or later,
so that the life+70 years limit can be maintained. Next year the limit is
defined by 1936, and so on.
Never mind, my site will continue with this limit.
Cheers
Mette
Douglas Myall
"Ted Tyszka" <tedsk...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:spqre.10982$rt3....@fe03.lga...
> Copyright does not apply to images used of an item for sale. "Fair
use" also
> permits the use of copyrighted works for research and educational
purposes,
> which I think applies to almost any use of stamp images on web
pages. Here
> are a couple of web page links which talk a little about "fair use."
>
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>
> http://www.cetus.org/fair6.html
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ted
>
The USA interpretation of fair use does not apply in Denmark (or many
other countries come to that).
Douglas
b.ing...@shaw.ca
I was telling my son, Paul, about Mette's problem. He has been
interested in copyright issues for some time, both as a fiction
writer/essayist/broadcaster and a businessman with a web site that
contains a great deal of professional writing pertaining to massage
therapy. He suggests that the copyright laws under which Copy-Dan
operates are a case of good intentions having unintended outcomes. It
is hard to imagine that any of the artists represented on Mette's web
site would be anything but pleased at having thier life's work so
broadly advertised in a non-commercial manner.
Bob
amesh
news:1118757630.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bob, this is exactly the opinion of the barrister who is preparing the
future case, and who has added that the law is at present administered the
most "easy" way, namely sticking rigidly to the life + 70 year limit,
without consideration of "fair use" for educational purposes.
But life goes on, and as far as I am concerned, they can have it their own
rotten way :-) My site continues with the limitation they have imposed, and
I will continue setting up new pages and improve the existing ones.
Best regards, also to Paul :-)
Mette
Doug Spade
>
> But life goes on, and as far as I am concerned, they can have it their own
> rotten way :-) My site continues with the limitation they have imposed,
and
> I will continue setting up new pages and improve the existing ones.
>
> Best regards, also to Paul :-)
> Mette
>
Mette:
I truly hope that your barrister friend is willing to take on the cause pro
bono (or at the very least, for a minor fee) and fight it as far as it can
go. As you've described it, what happened to you absolutely reeks of
blackmail.
As Edmund Burke put it, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is
that good men do nothing.”
Or to make it politically correct, "that good people do nothing."
Fight on, Mette! Fight on!
Mike
Victor Manta
news:d8m1f0$5ob$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Perfectly true.
The USA interpretation surely applies to all pages on servers located in the
USA. And, because the competition is huge there, the web hosting prices can
be there very, very interesting.
This practically solves all the problems related to COPY-DAN & Co.
Vive the Internet!
--
Victor Manta
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish North Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Manta
Go ahead, they deserved it!
BTW, you have nothing to loose, because you can move anytime, so to say.
moh...@charter.net
So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she could
continue in the "educational" mode she was before this brou-ha-ha?
Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?
moh...@charter.net
Wasn't the original stolen recently?
Further, I have seen the "Panic Dude" used as a panic button in some
software. I wonder if a license was acquired or this was simply
another form of "fair usage" ?
You could always start an off-shore web site that has a lot of hoops
to jump through before the web host is discovered.
Just a thought...
moh...@charter.net
wrote:
>
>>
>> But life goes on, and as far as I am concerned, they can have it their own
>> rotten way :-) My site continues with the limitation they have imposed,
>and
>> I will continue setting up new pages and improve the existing ones.
>>
>> Best regards, also to Paul :-)
>> Mette
>>
>
>Mette:
>
>I truly hope that your barrister friend is willing to take on the cause pro
>bono (or at the very least, for a minor fee) and fight it as far as it can
>go. As you've described it, what happened to you absolutely reeks of
>blackmail.
Or a pond scum version of extortion.
>As Edmund Burke put it, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is
>that good men do nothing.”
>
>Or to make it politically correct, "that good people do nothing."
>
>Fight on, Mette! Fight on!
>
>Mike
>
>
>
moh...@charter.net
But - isn't your site used for "educational" purposes now? Teacher
Mette, I have a question!
moh...@charter.net
Exacta-mundo... Further, through ftp and other programs, she can, of
course, maintain it quite easily. :^)
amesh
news:7ceua1drj7vlbkrob...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:37:04 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall"
> <dee...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ted Tyszka" <tedsk...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:spqre.10982$rt3....@fe03.lga...
>>> Copyright does not apply to images used of an item for sale. "Fair
>>use" also
>>> permits the use of copyrighted works for research and educational
>>purposes,
>>> which I think applies to almost any use of stamp images on web
>>pages. Here
>>> are a couple of web page links which talk a little about "fair use."
>>>
>>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>>
>>> http://www.cetus.org/fair6.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>
>>The USA interpretation of fair use does not apply in Denmark (or many
>>other countries come to that).
>
> So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she could
> continue in the "educational" mode she was before this brou-ha-ha?
>
> Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?
250 megs :-) But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject I
would be "chased" under Danish law, no matter where the server is located.
That goes also for .nu-domains. Nope, I intend to remain where I am, simply
because I haven't done anything wrong in not amswering their blackmailing.
The removal of a few artistic periods isn't worth the fuss. The removed
pages will be converted to "club-matters", where nobody can touch them.
Mette
amesh
news:76eua1tbg353lsbea...@4ax.com...
Yep, it certainly is. But fair use does still not apply, as also said by
Douglas. Question answered ? :-)
Mette
amesh
news:3h3d0mF...@individual.net...
- snip snip -
> Aren't they supposed to help the development of philately, on the Web and
> elsewhere? This is exactly what you have done; I wonder how could you do
> it without presenting the material (stamps) about that you were writing
> about?
Here's a link to a page on a website well known to you. This collector is
in exactly the same situation as me with regard to Alfons Mucha.
http://www.batz-hausen.de/damm.htm
Mette
Victor Manta
>> continue in the "educational" mode she was before this brou-ha-ha?
>>
>> Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?
>
> But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject I would be
>
> Mette
On which base? For example a tourist's obligation is to observe the rules of
the country where s/he is (and a more concrete example is that the
punishment for example for drugs is different in The Netherlands when
compared to Singapore).
Victor Manta
Sorry, but he isn't in a very bad situation. I find that you are in a much
worse situation thanks to those from Copy-Dan, if I understand well.
My friend Gerhard writes on his page:
http://www.batz-hausen.de/damm.htm
"An dieser Stelle hatten Sie bis vor kurzem die Möglichkeit, drei
aufeinander folgende Seiten mit Briefmarken zu sehen, auf denen Werke Alfons
Muchas abgebildet war. Außerdem konnten Sie auch einen Blick auf eine
Abbildung des Originals werfen. Über die Rechte-Verwertungsgesellschaft
BILD-KUNST, Bonn, wurde von mir im Namen der Nachkommen die Entfernung
dieser Abbildung verlangt und gleichzeitig für die bisherige Darstellung die
Zahlung eines größeren Geldbetrags gefordert. Selbst die Abbildung von
Ausschnitten aus dem Briefmarkenbild wurde mir untersagt. Lediglich die
ganze Briefmarke darf abgebildet werden. Den Aufforderungen bin ich
inzwischen nachgekommen."
Shortly, Gerhard writes that he took out three pages on Mucha, on which he
presented not only stamps but also images of Mucha's works (reproductions of
paintings, if I understand well). What this Gesellschaft reproach him was
that he published images of works, or excerpts of them (which is forbidden),
but not of stamps as such. He had to accept this.
He writes that they asked for money for the time when images were presented
on his site but he doesn't tell us what happened with this demand.
BTW, Mucha's stamps continue to be present on his pages, see:
http://www.batz-hausen.de/muceng.htm
I think that this is an interesting case in your defense in what concerns
the _stamps_ on Web pages.
--
Victor Manta
Victor Manta
news:u0eua11kro66gmpo6...@4ax.com...
>
> You could always start an off-shore web site that has a lot of hoops
> to jump through before the web host is discovered.
>
> Just a thought...
In the USA it would be "fair use", so not absolutely necessary to go
off-shore.
Now how about our images from Spanish Africa (not from SNA), Tracy? What if
the designers of those stamps are still alive (or some photographs)? ;-)
Douglas Myall
"Victor Manta" <manvic_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ha5m4F...@individual.net...
> "amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:42af4901$0$38968$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
> > <moh...@charter.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:7ceua1drj7vlbkrob...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she could
> >> continue in the "educational" mode she was before this
brou-ha-ha?
> >>
> >> Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?
> >
> > snip
> > But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject I
would be
> > "chased" under Danish law, no matter where the server is located.
snip
> >
> > Mette
>
> On which base? For example a tourist's obligation is to observe the
rules of
> the country where s/he is (and a more concrete example is that the
> punishment for example for drugs is different in The Netherlands
when
> compared to Singapore).
> --
> Victor Manta
On the basis that the internet is worldwide. Most governments treat
websites available in their countries as published within their
jurisdiction. The World Intellectual Property Organisation, based in
Geneva but an agency of the United Nations and of which most countries
of the world are members, is responsible for overseeing developments
in this field. For more information, and to participate in the
discussions, visit:
http://www.wipo.int/ipisforum/en/
Douglas
Victor Manta
> snip
> Douglas
I can't follow you, Douglas.
That the Internet is worldwide is a fact.
Because "Most governments treat websites available in their countries as
published within their jurisdiction", how does this contradict the idea that
Mette's full site wouldn't be prosecuted if the server were in USA (and
where her stamps images would be treated under the "fair use" doctrine).
--
Victor Manta
Douglas Myall
Because, as Mette has already said, it does not matter where the
server is. If the images are made available to a computer in Denmark
they are published in Denmark.
Douglas
moh...@charter.net
<manvic_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><moh...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:u0eua11kro66gmpo6...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You could always start an off-shore web site that has a lot of hoops
>> to jump through before the web host is discovered.
>>
>> Just a thought...
>
>In the USA it would be "fair use", so not absolutely necessary to go
>off-shore.
>
>Now how about our images from Spanish Africa (not from SNA), Tracy? What if
>the designers of those stamps are still alive (or some photographs)? ;-)
Ahhh... Exactly my point in my reply to Douglas about Mette's
situation. How absurd would it be for anyone to come after you for
the SNA stuff? Hmmm?
It would actually make it pseudo-legit as a postal entity and maybe
even funnier that it was / is! hehehehehehehehehe...
I actually do have the web space available for Mette over here, but it
might just be a hassle setting up - maybe not. The domain name may or
may not be the only hassle, depending on Danish or other laws. I
don't think it would be, but one never knows.
moh...@charter.net
This is almost like saying:
(Please, nobody take offense here - just a very poignant statement.)
"If a swastika on a web site is made available to a computer in
Israel, then the swastika was a published item in Israel."
Eh? That's TOTALLY ABSURD.
(Return to normalcy now.)
In Mette's case, if the server was in the US, then US publication
rights apply - correct? Who's the Danish publisher? The Danish ISP?
Once again - ABSURD.
So, I take it - that every computer that has anything questionable has
to get permission from EVERY country in order to post their stuff to
the world, otherwise attempt to limit what they post?
Bah, humbug... There are 1000s of site out there like Mette's then.
Maybe not with art, but in the same EXACT BOAT.
[ Display Munch's "Panic" caricature here. Too bad I couldn't post the
binary here - I'd like to see Copy-Dan come after me. ]
A.E. Gelat
(which I DO NOT), and posted a photo of it on the internet, or on eBay,
would that be a violation of these crazy rules?
Tony
"Victor Manta" <manvic_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ha5m4F...@individual.net...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Victor Manta
news:42b059be$1...@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
> Picasso has been gone for less than 70 years. If I had a Picasso for
> sale, (which I DO NOT), and posted a photo of it on the internet, or on
> eBay, would that be a violation of these crazy rules?
>
> Tony
Tony,
If you are the owner of the work, then you can do with it and with its
images what you want, like publishing them on the Web. This, IMHO, is
perfectly legit, because:
- the artist sold you all rights on it
- if you can't do what you want with your property then you aren't an owner
anymore.
Now let's extrapolate the idea a bit. If you are the owner of an engraving,
one that was copied by the artist 100 times, and whose other 99 pieces were
sold by him to 99 different people, have you still the same right on your
engraving as for only one painting, as above? I would say yes, you do,
because it's your copy, and it is different from others (maybe it has a
number, like 12/100, and anyway there are variations in the reproduction
process).
And now the last, larger step. You are the owner of a stamp that was printed
10 million times. It's your copy, you paid for it with your money, and it is
also surely a bit different from all others. Have you the same rights as
above? You know my answer...
--
Victor Manta
Victor Manta
I understand this like follows: if the images are made available to a
server, found anywhere on the Terra, by a Dane, then this Dane person is
guilty because the laws from Denmark forbid it, even if it's permitted
elsewhere.
Therefore, if it's so, then (just for example) if the abortion is forbidden
in England and an English women makes an abortion in (let's say) Denmark,
because there it is legit, then she could/should be punished in England when
she returns. And maybe all English persons who know about what she did even
have the obligation to denounce her, and will be rewarded for this patriotic
act. This just for showing the totalitarian direction that such things can
take...
--
Victor Manta
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romania by Stamps: http://www.marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/communism/
Victor Manta
news:h1h0b1docnp2ugqc0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:31:11 +0200, "Victor Manta"
> <manvic_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>><moh...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:u0eua11kro66gmpo6...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> You could always start an off-shore web site that has a lot of hoops
>>> to jump through before the web host is discovered.
>>>
>>> Just a thought...
>>
>>In the USA it would be "fair use", so not absolutely necessary to go
>>off-shore.
>>
>>Now how about our images from Spanish Africa (not from SNA), Tracy? What
>>if
>>the designers of those stamps are still alive (or some photographs)? ;-)
> Ahhh... Exactly my point in my reply to Douglas about Mette's
> situation. How absurd would it be for anyone to come after you for
> the SNA stuff? Hmmm?
>
>snip
Tracy,
Please don't try to escape your moral responsibilities. ;-)
You made many of scans, as acknowledged on the Spanish Africa site, so we
can count only on Blair to set us free (or, at least, to bring us something
to eat, and to show us from time to time our stockbooks, full of SNA
stamps).
--
Victor Manta
amesh
news:42B096BE...@mindspring.com...
> Victor,
> I hate to be the barer of bad news but selling a painting and it's
> copyright
> are separate. Artists retain copyright on art they sell (yes, 70 years
> after
> they die). Permission to reproduce it in print must be obtained from the
> artist
> and it is merely professional courtesy that the new owner be notified. I
> actually own all copyrights to portraits of the people I paint But it
> would be
> highly unprofessional to reproduce them without it being a collaborative
> effort
> or understood by all as in; use in my portfolio, website, advertising,
> etc. If
> someone wishes to make photos of their portrait to distribute among family
> or
> whatever, there is no chance that I would say no. In fact I can supply
> said
> reproductions as photo prints are a big expense each year.
> TL
You are absolutely correct on this Tom. This applies also in Europe. But,
after the artist's death within the 70-year limit, his artistic estate is
administered by copyright organisations, in Denmark Copy-Dan. I own an
original painting by a Danish artist who died in 1972, inherited from my
parents. If I want to sell it on the Internet, I can only describe it and
invite potential buyers to ask for a private photograph. I don't want to
sell it, because I like it ;-)
Mette
A.E. Gelat
you can get it for $50.
Tony
"TC" <t...@litterbox.com> wrote in message
news:u3u0b112si0p1d7r2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:35:38 -0500, "A.E. Gelat"
> <age...@kingwoodcable.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Picasso has been gone for less than 70 years. If I had a Picasso for
>>sale,
>>(which I DO NOT), and posted a photo of it on the internet, or on eBay,
>>would that be a violation of these crazy rules?
>>
>>Tony
>
>
> Tony:
>
> The rules for SELLING are different.
>
> Besides, if you were selling a Picasso,
> you should sell it privately to me for $50.00
> just to keep the authorities out of the deal.
>
> 38*)
>
> Blair (TC)
amesh
news:eqt0b1tm75rbdpiv6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:39:37 -0400, moh...@charter.net wrote:
>
- snip -
>
> Tracy:
>
> The best situation for Mette would be if YOU (a US citizen)
> were to put the withdrawn pages up on YOUR website in the USA.
>
> Thus it would be covered by US law and the fair use policy.
>
> Then anyone including Mette, myself, Victor or any of us
> could LINK to your page. It would NOT be resident on our websites.
Good idea, Blair. But I wouldn't want to ask anyone to do that. Being the
publisher the responsibility to observe law is mine, and I would hate to
impose that on anyone else, no matter how helpful other people are. There
are other ways to solve this problem, and it will be solved, thanks to the
interference of officious civil servants. So far anyone needing to see the
withdrawn pages are welcome to contact me by email, and the pages will be
mailed to them off list for personal use on their own computer, which is NOT
violating the copyright legislation.
Mette
Douglas Myall
Victor, that is not copyright law and it is not what I said. Your
first paragraph does, though, apply in some jurisdictions to
pornographic images, especially of children. Your second paragraph has
nothing at all to do with copyright.
Douglas
Eric Kenneth Bustad
}server is. If the images are made available to a computer in Denmark
}they are published in Denmark.
}
}Douglas
And Mette lives in Denmark, and so in reach of Danish law.
--
= Eric Bustad, Norwegian bachelor programmer
Victor Manta
> Blair, as I said, I do not own a Picasso, but should I find or inherit
> one, you can get it for $50.
>
> Tony
Don't you ask too much, Tony?
http://www.values.ch/Countries/Spain/Picasso/horrible.htm
--
Victor Manta
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://www.pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/
Romania by Stamps: http://www.marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/communism/
Victor Manta
> Victor,
> I hate to be the barer of bad news but selling a painting and it's
> copyright
> are separate. Artists retain copyright on art they sell (yes, 70 years
> after
> they die). Permission to reproduce it in print must be obtained from the
> artist
> and it is merely professional courtesy that the new owner be notified. I
> actually own all copyrights to portraits of the people I paint But it
> would be
> highly unprofessional to reproduce them without it being a collaborative
> effort
> or understood by all as in; use in my portfolio, website, advertising,
> etc. If
> someone wishes to make photos of their portrait to distribute among family
> or
> whatever, there is no chance that I would say no. In fact I can supply
> said
> reproductions as photo prints are a big expense each year.
> TL
The law is the law, but...
Let's say that I order you a portrait of myself and I pay you for the
result. You paint a portrait where I can be recognized (I know that you can
:-)
- Question No. 1. I publish it on a web site because I have the copyright on
my own image, on any support. How is this compatible with your copyright?
- Question No. 2. Because it's my painting, I can burn it or I can change
it. Let's say that I change it by putting the missing hair on its previous
place and I make myself look younger. Which of both artists ;-) has the
copyright now?
- Question No. 3, and the last one. I scan a stamp from my collection, and I
make some changes (just to mention that already in the scanning process some
dust was recorded and some distortions were done). Who has the copyright?
--
Victor Manta
moh...@charter.net
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:39:37 -0400, moh...@charter.net wrote:
>
>
>>This is almost like saying:
>>
>>(Please, nobody take offense here - just a very poignant statement.)
>>
>>"If a swastika on a web site is made available to a computer in
>>Israel, then the swastika was a published item in Israel."
>>
>>Eh? That's TOTALLY ABSURD.
>>
>>(Return to normalcy now.)
>>
>>In Mette's case, if the server was in the US, then US publication
>>rights apply - correct? Who's the Danish publisher? The Danish ISP?
>>
>>Once again - ABSURD.
>>
>>So, I take it - that every computer that has anything questionable has
>>to get permission from EVERY country in order to post their stuff to
>>the world, otherwise attempt to limit what they post?
>>
>>Bah, humbug... There are 1000s of site out there like Mette's then.
>>Maybe not with art, but in the same EXACT BOAT.
>>
>>[ Display Munch's "Panic" caricature here. Too bad I couldn't post the
>>binary here - I'd like to see Copy-Dan come after me. ]
>>
>>=======================
>> Tracy Barber
>>-----------------------
>> adirondack-pc
>>-----------------------
>>"Freebie Stamp Project"
>>=======================
>
>Tracy:
>
>The best situation for Mette would be if YOU (a US citizen)
>were to put the withdrawn pages up on YOUR website in the USA.
>
>Thus it would be covered by US law and the fair use policy.
>
>Then anyone including Mette, myself, Victor or any of us
>could LINK to your page. It would NOT be resident on our websites.
>
>Blair (TC)
That could most definitely be done without much effort. I set up a
folder to use and give Mette rights / access to it. No problem-o!
moh...@charter.net
But, remember - backup plan "B" is available for at least 100 - 200
megs... :^)
moh...@charter.net
moh...@charter.net
>>Because, as Mette has already said, it does not matter where the
>>server is. If the images are made available to a computer in Denmark
>>they are published in Denmark.
>
>This is almost like saying:
>
>(Please, nobody take offense here - just a very poignant statement.)
>
>"If a swastika on a web site is made available to a computer in
>Israel, then the swastika was a published item in Israel."
>
>Eh? That's TOTALLY ABSURD.
>
>(Return to normalcy now.)
>
>In Mette's case, if the server was in the US, then US publication
>rights apply - correct? Who's the Danish publisher? The Danish ISP?
>
>Once again - ABSURD.
>
>So, I take it - that every computer that has anything questionable has
>to get permission from EVERY country in order to post their stuff to
>the world, otherwise attempt to limit what they post?
>
>Bah, humbug... There are 1000s of site out there like Mette's then.
>Maybe not with art, but in the same EXACT BOAT.
<sarcasm mode on>
Comments, please, about the publishing "effect" above - let me know if
I have to contact everyone in the world in order to "publish" my web
site.
</sarcasm mode off>
See above for details...
A.E. Gelat
sent, I wonder why anybody would pay even cent for them. I am now bracing
myself for an avalanche of criticism from Mette, yourself and others.
Tony
"Victor Manta" <manvic_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3he307F...@individual.net...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
A.E. Gelat
sent, I wonder why anybody would pay even cent for them. I am now bracing
myself for an avalanche of criticism from Mette, yourself and others.
Tony
"Victor Manta" <manvic_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3he307F...@individual.net...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
A.E. Gelat
sent, I wonder why anybody would pay even cent for them. I am now bracing
myself for an avalanche of criticism from Mette, yourself and others.
Tony
"Victor Manta" <manvic_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3he307F...@individual.net...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
A.E. Gelat
is causing it. In the past, I have often RECEIVED messages in duplicate,
triplicate and more, but today is the second time that my outgoing messages
are duplicated and triplicate. I hope that this will not continue.
Tony
"A.E. Gelat" <age...@kingwoodcable.com> wrote in message
news:42b21ad0$1...@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
A.E. Gelat
is causing it. In the past, I have often RECEIVED messages in duplicate,
triplicate and more, but today is the second time that my outgoing messages
are duplicated and triplicate. I hope that this will not continue.
Tony
"A.E. Gelat" <age...@kingwoodcable.com> wrote in message
news:42b21ad0$1...@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
Douglas Myall
<moh...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6hq3b15eqhu8ht2fj...@4ax.com...
Tracy, I think you are confusing the question of whether and where an
image is published on the internet with the question of whether such a
publication is legal. Only if it is illegal would you need to consider
what you might need to do about it. In a case where it would be legal
in some countries but not in others, there is a grey area and this is
one of the questions currently being considered by WIPO (see my
earlier post). To prove my point that the location of the server is
irrelevant to the question of where an internet posting is published,
consider the situation where someone downloads images of child
pornography onto their computer. They would be in trouble in most
countries of the world and it would be no defence for them to claim
that the server was in Timbuctoo or wherever.
Douglas
Douglas Myall
or claims about copyright law and why I said in my first posting on
this thread that there is NO universal answer to such matters. It is
GENERALLY true that the copyright in a commissioned work will be
vested in the person who commissioned it, and that is the likely
answer to Victor's Q1. In such a case the artist retains certain
"moral rights" one of which is the "right of integrity" which means
that he can take action if his work is treated in a derogatory manner
and published. Victor's proposed treatment in his Q2 is unlikely to
fall foul of this but it would very much depend on the facts of the
case; the copyright ownership would not change, see Q1. His Q3 has
already been answered in this thread; I do not think that such
treatment can affect the question of OWNERSHIP but it might well
constitute an INFRINGEMENT of copyright if that were vested in someone
else.
Douglas
A.E. Gelat
is causing it. In the past, I have often RECEIVED messages in duplicate,
triplicate and more, but today is the second time that my outgoing messages
are duplicated and triplicate. I hope that this will not continue.
Tony
"A.E. Gelat" <age...@kingwoodcable.com> wrote in message
news:42b21ad0$1...@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
moh...@charter.net
<age...@kingwoodcable.com> wrote:
>To all of you who have noticed the triplicate posting. I have no idea what
>is causing it. In the past, I have often RECEIVED messages in duplicate,
>triplicate and more, but today is the second time that my outgoing messages
>are duplicated and triplicate. I hope that this will not continue.
Tony -
Even the explanations are duplicate / oops / triplicate! :^)
moh...@charter.net
<dee...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Tracy, I think you are confusing the question of whether and where an
>image is published on the internet with the question of whether such a
>publication is legal. Only if it is illegal would you need to consider
>what you might need to do about it. In a case where it would be legal
>in some countries but not in others, there is a grey area and this is
>one of the questions currently being considered by WIPO (see my
>earlier post). To prove my point that the location of the server is
>irrelevant to the question of where an internet posting is published,
>consider the situation where someone downloads images of child
>pornography onto their computer. They would be in trouble in most
>countries of the world and it would be no defence for them to claim
>that the server was in Timbuctoo or wherever.
OK, but there is a broad separation between the scenarios. :^) One
is deemed appropriate and the other not so appropriate.
So, according to some, I could post some art stamps on my US site and
to others, I can't.
What gives? So, Mette couldn't view the art stamps on my web site in
the US on her computer in Denmark because of Copy-Dan? Who will
police that? The U.S.? "Fair use" does apply over here.
Yeah, maybe I'm getting a wee bit convoluted here.
We could always try it and see if the Copy-Dan cousins come out of the
woodwork!
Bob Watson
> I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
> (Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
> legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
> Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
> alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in public
> on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the artist's
> estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the estate's
> (or the still living artist's) legal rights.
I have followed this thread with interest and I particularly like the
advice to "let 'em sue". Of course it *is* easier to make such a
suggestion if you are a few thousand kms from the address on the letter.
I know you have received many practical approaches to this problem but
it crosses my mind that, if asked, at least some of the artists
concerned might be only too happy to give permission to have their works
featured on your pages.
Who knows, maybe those artists will have additional information and/or
correspondence that they could contribute to your pages.
Just a thought.
All the best,
Bob Watson
amesh
news:cXKse.11189$yU.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> amesh wrote:
- snip -
> I have followed this thread with interest and I particularly like the
> advice to "let 'em sue". Of course it *is* easier to make such a
> suggestion if you are a few thousand kms from the address on the letter.
>
> I know you have received many practical approaches to this problem but it
> crosses my mind that, if asked, at least some of the artists concerned
> might be only too happy to give permission to have their works featured on
> your pages.
>
> Who knows, maybe those artists will have additional information and/or
> correspondence that they could contribute to your pages.
Thanks for your input, Bob :-)
So far the problem is solved, simply by uploading the files and images
involved to a password-protected and closed network, where they are only
accessible to members of the network.
I will, though, consider your idea with regard to later re-publishing to the
general public.
All the best
Mette
Victor Manta
> This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
> again.
>
> I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
> (Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
> legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
> Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
> alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
> public on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
> artist's estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect
> the estate's (or the still living artist's) legal rights.
It was an interesting an passionate debate, in a surely one of the longest
threads in the last months. Now the time came for some conclusions, at least
for me, BTW a person who is directly interested by the results.
Just to mention that I feel a certain responsibility toward those who, like
Mette, followed my advice and encouragements and started to publish
philatelic pages.
Simplifying, I would categorize the expressed points of view in two groups:
1. Some of us (a minority, I have the impression) took a mixed but rather
"legalistic", so to say, position: if the law is against the publishing of
art stamps images (without the explicit approval of... etc.) in a country,
then its citizens have to abide to it worldwide, even if the local laws
don't prohibit it in other countries. That's why they put the highest
priority on the fight against these laws in their own country, and in the
meantime remove their pages from the Web.
2. Others took a moral stance: because this European law is absurd (goes to
far, don't protect what it should - even if its intentions are good, etc.),
then it is moral to circumvent it, by publishing pages with stamps images on
them in the places on the Web where this is permitted.
My position: I'm for both of these solutions, because both of them put the
pressure on the legislators and on the governments, and make advance the
cause of freedom (not of the freedom to steal but of the freedom to
inform -> "fair use").
The first solution shows clearly to the too far going (European - in our
case) legislators that people strongly disagree with them (see what happened
to the proposed European constitution after people of France and The
Netherlands said No to it).
The second one reminds to the same legislators and rulers that there are
spaces of liberty in the world (Internet being one of them) that offer
competition to their extremist ideas, and that not only businesses and jobs
stay on risk of being moved elsewhere, but also hobbies.
--
Victor Manta
moh...@charter.net
Good summary.
I can see if Mette had a cam continually on some paintings in the
specific museums / shows / etc where the "showings" were an event,
then this would be infringing on the artist.
The same applies to bootleg tapes / CDS etc. of concerts, except for
public domain freedom is given by specific musical artists, such as
the Grateful Dead.
Since, though, Mette is:
1) ONLY displaying a post office sanctioned (supposedly), miniature
copy (I'd say so, very little detail can be revealed) of said painting
/ artist work...
2) In the context of a hobby (although some may assume a "showing" /
museum stance)... herein lies part of the rub...
3) Not charging for said view of the items represented...
4) Not claiming they are her own works and giving those artistes their
due, although the organization of the web site is her own work...
5) Hopefully not advertising the web site to draw crowds in relation
to #2 above... other than mentioning new web pages here in passing,
but not on a regular basis...
6) Then this is a trivial pursuit of some absurd stance...
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I know I've been mentioning about a web site I have been doing
research on for some time about a 19th century stamp dealer. I'll
wait to see the fallout of that affair once I post it. It'll have a
lot of possible "issues". Let's see how fair usage plays out then.
[ Cracks whip, reminds himself where the project is... ]
[ One of the problems is that I need to re-scan about 200 - 300 items
and it is a chore. ]
Go get 'em Mette!
Helene Sarrazin
>
> For the moment the files in question are removed, and life goes on. The
> whole thing is not sooo disastrous, as I can still show any artist in any
> context up to 1935, provided that the artist involved was dead in 1935 or
> earlier; from next year until 1936, and so on. I will for sure not be "out
> of the market" because of this! ;-)
>
What about Slania's work... he certainly is an artist of the XXth
century (even the XXIst)... will you have to remove this site too ?
Helene
Helene Sarrazin
> "amesh" <nob...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:42ab4d64$0$58819$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk...
>
>>This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
>>again.
>>
>>I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
>>(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
>>legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
>>Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
>>alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
>>public on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
>>artist's estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect
>>the estate's (or the still living artist's) legal rights.
>>
>>
>>It is unimportant to Copy-Dan that stamps and philatelic material may be
>>legally issued by a national post office for postal purposes. Copy-Dan
>>does not consider the issuing postal administration (of whichever
>>nationality) the legal copyright owner with regard to showing art stamps
>>and related philatelic material on the Internet or special museum
>>exhibits, as long as the artist is still alive or hasn't been dead for at
>>least 70 years. The rigid interpretation is that the artist must have
>>passed away 70 years prior to the issues in question -- if not, either the
>>exhibitor produces a written permission from the artist / his estate, or
>>pays his dues as settled by Copy-Dan.
>>snip
>>
>>Copy-Dan has sent me a looong list of sister-organisations throughout the
>>world, and notified me that they will chase anyone in any country (through
>>their network) offending the interpretation of the current copyright
>>legislation, which is applicable within the EU and all affiliated nations
>>in Europe and the Mediterranean Area.
>>
>>How are things working in *your* country?
As far as I know... and regarding French law... (transposition of
European law... but not only), any reproduction of any stamp by any mean
could be regarded as an offense to author's right (and their heirs)...
(and not COPY-right, which is a US notion, and can be sold to someone else)
Even if the art reproduced by the stamp is old enough (say :
Rembrandt)... the stamp engraver is regarded as an artist also... and
HIS reproduction rights are protected by this law...
But as far as I know, no stamp-collector in France has been threatened
so far... and won't ever be... I hope !
Helene
Helene Sarrazin
> Copyright does not apply to images used of an item for sale. "Fair use" also
> permits the use of copyrighted works for research and educational purposes,
> which I think applies to almost any use of stamp images on web pages. Here
> are a couple of web page links which talk a little about "fair use."
>
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>
> http://www.cetus.org/fair6.html
>
Fair use only applies to COPYRIGHT, not to Author's right (at least for now)
Copyright is a thing... it can be given up... to someone else, or sold
to a publisher... for example...
Author's right is quite different...
it applies automatically to any "original work", whether the author
wanted it protected or not...,
which is generally the case of stamps engravers... when they accepted to
draw a stamp, they never expected their heirs to keep rights on their
work for decades after their death... nevertheless... they have !
it is "inalienable"... which means nobody can claim it except for the
author or his heirs (70 years after his death) if we are lucky (it could
be much worse if the author died pro Patria.... like St-Exupéry - his
heirs got 35 years extension for that...)
- generally, it years after the artist's death that heirs suddenly
"discover" (with the help of an interested lawyer) that they have
"rights"... and decide to be paid for them...
In fact, we had that misfortune at my work : we own a museum, and local
painters gave some of their artwork to the Museum decades ago... after
their death, the heirs suddenly asked to be paid for the authorization
to have theses paints on postcards, and even on posters made to
advertize the museum... which the painter himself never asked... and in
that case... there is no choice, you pay what THEY ask, or you cease any
museum activity...
In most European countries (I suppose in all), it is always possible to
have the kind of misfortune Mette had...
Let's just pray that Copy-Dan won't give ideas to other countries in
Europe...
Helene
Helene Sarrazin
>
> The law is the law, but...
YES
>
> Let's say that I order you a portrait of myself and I pay you for the
> result. You paint a portrait where I can be recognized (I know that you can
> :-)
>
The LAW about author's rights that applies in Europe gives the following
answers :
> - Question No. 1. I publish it on a web site because I have the copyright on
> my own image, on any support. How is this compatible with your copyright?
>
You can, as long as the painter is OK...
> - Question No. 2. Because it's my painting, I can burn it or I can change
> it. Let's say that I change it by putting the missing hair on its previous
> place and I make myself look younger.
According the author's right law (not copyright)... you CANNOT, unless
the painter is OK - he could sue you later for that...
Which of both artists ;-) has the
> copyright now?
If the author was OK, both of you, it has become a "cooperative work of art"
>
> - Question No. 3, and the last one. I scan a stamp from my collection, and I
> make some changes (just to mention that already in the scanning process some
> dust was recorded and some distortions were done). Who has the copyright?
.... scanning dust is not a work of art....
AND you have NO RIGHT to make changes to a work of art without the
author's authorization (or his heirs for 70 years)... the INTELLECTUAL
author's right is INALIENABLE and FOR EVER !
And that, unhappily, is the law that allows Copy-Dan to sue Mette...
but it could happen to many of us in many european countries...
The law was originally intended to protect artists agains abuses (like
it was the case until the XXth century) they were victim of : preventing
and "investor" to buy an art work for "a song"... and make millions with
it afterwards... (see Modigliani, Van Gogh, and others, less well known...)
But it is now used by HEIRS, and absurd administration, to sue unhappy
collectors...
Helene
amesh
news:42b69177$0$167$a3f2...@nnrp1.numericable.fr...
No. I have Slania's permission to exhibit anything from his burin. And so
does the US-based producers of the special Slania-album.
Mette
moh...@charter.net
Heinrich Hoffman's heirs attempted to sue Bavaria for the usage of his
photographs used however (including stamps) during WW II, especially
the "H_____r" ones. They lost, by all accounts and the original
paperwork is on the Internet.
So - all this tells us that anything by anyone else, posted on a Euro
web site, had better have permission or else suffer the wrath of some
long arm of the government.
Sounds like feudal taxation!
I guess I'd better get my French Colonies off my web site, however
small and incomplete it is. Looks like I'll be paid a visit by some
creep in a trench coat who wants my left arm as payment.
Naaahhh... let 'em come this way. I truly don't care.
Michael Hopper
"Helene Sarrazin" <new...@numericable.fr> wrote in message
news:42b6969e$0$171$a3f2...@nnrp1.numericable.fr...
Helene, can you point me to any site on the web that describes how the
"authors" rights differ from copyright and what legislation allows an author
(or their heirs) to protect their rights. Any European language site is OK
by me.
mike
Helene Sarrazin
I would be you, Tracy, I would not worry that much... the French CFC is
very far from suing individuals for that kind of things... they prefer
to fall on cashable administrations, that cannot avoid them... (like
mine ;-))
And since you're American, on the US territory, I don't think they would
care to try and reach for you... a too big effort, for a too small yield ;-)
Helene
Helene Sarrazin
The point is, that they do not have to "protect" their rights.... these
rights are protected by the law without them paying or asking for it...
it's only when they want to get PAID for it that they have to ask for a
lawyers help...
But as far as "copying" (i.e. xeroxing) is concerned, that organization
is collecting... and is supposed to share between the publishers and the
authors... that is "copy-right" http://www.cfcopies.com/V2/
This organization gives information on "author's rights" in Europe
http://www.cisac.org/web%5Ccontent.nsf/Builder?ReadForm&Page=Article&Lang=FR&Alias=ACT-CR-EUR1
This site gives a lesson on it :
http://thot.cursus.edu/rubrique.asp?no=18330
This is the European Directive for harmonizing european laws regarding
"author's rights"
http://lexinter.net/UE/directive_du_22_mai_2001_sur_l'harmonisation_du_droit_d'auteur_et_des_droits_voisins_dans_la_societe_de_l'information.htm
In fact, the legislations can be slightly different from one European
country from another... the French one is probably one of the oldest
(1957 for its actual formulation, but it goes back to the late XVIIIth
century for the "spirit").
http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/crt/national/miadroit.htm
And this is the French "Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle" - it does
not only protects rights of french authors in France, but gives a very
general definition, which could in fact, allow Spanish, or even Russian
artists (where there was no protection at all untill very recently)...
to sue for mis-usage or their work... a French publisher, co-publishing
in US... it is very tricky :-)
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnCode?commun=&code=CPROINTL.rcv
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/VisuArticleCode?commun=CPROIN&code=&h0=CPROINTL.rcv&h1=1&h3=3
This part gives definition of what is the "author's right"...
and I think you can find it translated in english, here :
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/codes_traduits/cpialtext.htm#Chapter%20I:%20Nature%20of%20Copyright
whereas the term "copyright" is used, it is very different, since,
according to this law, US film makers, who have no rights on their work
in US, since they "sold" it to the studios, keep them in France...
Some of them (John Huston, for example) could obtain, according to this
law, that their films could not be "colourized" in France, ais they were
in US... and they won !!
http://sf.emse.fr/AUTHORS/JCDUNYACH/jcd-cc.html
http://www.droit-auteur.com/jurisprudence_general_divers2-1.htm
I hope this will be of interest to you... but it depends on what country
you are from, and in what countries you seek protection...