Jim Follett - Are you there? (Question for you.)
~~seadancer~~
"Seeking advice on placing gifs on my Google Web Page".]
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> ~~seadancer~~ wrote:
>>Today I created the following Google Webpage:
>> http://seadancer1934.googlepages.com/imstillhere
>>(It contains lyrics to a song by Stephen Sondheim.)
>
> Is that out of copyright then, or are the copyright laws more relaxed in
> the USA?
> Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
Hi Jeff. I was under the impression that if I quote a writer and I give him
full credit, it's OK. Isn't that the way it works? Or perhaps I can quote
only a small portion of his work? I dunno.
At alt.quotations, we quote writers and authors and no one complains. We
also post lyrics, giving full credit to the composer of the lyrics. I've
never seen a complaint.
Maybe author James Follett can shed some light on this for us.
Jim, are you there?
---Sea
Michaelangelo
with the following:
> Hi Jeff. I was under the impression that if I quote a writer and I give him
> full credit, it's OK. Isn't that the way it works? Or perhaps I can quote
> only a small portion of his work? I dunno.
That's certainly no the way it works, Sea. Strictly speaking if you
want to quote someone else's work you need the copyright holdrers
written permission to do so. The copyright holder may be the author of
the work or the person/company who commissioned it or the publisher of
the work or the original authors employer or any persopn/organisation
to whom the copyright has been assigned. Which of those depends on the
type of contract involved.
Generally you can quote a small portion of someone else's work without
permission if you are doing so in a legitimate context - eg if you were
reviewing a book for a magazine or newspaper.
Where the 'author' of the work - writer, painter, photographer holds
the copyright that copyright usually exists for 70 years after the
authors death. Note that the calculation of the seventy years starts
from the beginning of the year following their death. When copyright
finally expires the materiasl is said to be 'in the public domain'.
Of course, where permission to use material is given the copyright
holder can make any conditions they see fit including making a charge
for using that material.
> At alt.quotations, we quote writers and authors and no one complains. We also
> post lyrics, giving full credit to the composer of the lyrics. I've never
> seen a complaint.
This is a common misconception which sometimes lands people in a law
suit.
It's not generally realised that even letters and e-mails are subject
to copyright. the recipient is not entitled to allow anyone else to
read uch communications without permission from the 'author'. Of course
a degree of common sense comes into play here. In Usenet we all
regularly quote each other's posts. It's part of accepted Usenet
convention and would be unlikely to lead to any action but, strictly
speaking, if a post is quoted, substantially or entirely, that is
breaching copyright unless the OP has given their express permission
for the post to be quoted.
All of the above is a generalisation, of course, since copyright law
varies from country to country and nowadays even countries who are
signatories to the Berne Convention don't always fully comply with its
provisions.
Finally, don't assume that something is not copyright just because it
doesn't carry a copyright stament - eg 'Copyright © Seadancer 2008'.
Such statements are not a legal requirement though it's a wise
precaution to use them when publishing any original material -
including publishing items to web pages. The word 'copyright' should
always be used as the traditional symbol - © - is not recognised in
some countries.
BTW You have my permission to quote this post, in whole or in part and
without payment or restriction. :)
--
Michaelangelo
"Youth is Wasted on the Young"
www.mikenagel.co.uk
Accessible, self-catering, holiday
accommodation for physically disabled people
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk
~~seadancer~~
Thanks, Mike. I think I'll delete my webpage containing those lyrics. (g)
I'm also going to post a question about this on alt.quotations.
I'd like to quote your post there, if you don't mind.
It should get some interesting responses.
Question: Isn't a newsgroup like alt.quotations
considerered a legitimate context?
Perhaps the legal ramifications of newsgroups are
still being hammered out?
---Sea
~~seadancer~~
> Thanks, Mike. I think I'll delete my webpage containing those lyrics. (g)
> I'm also going to post a question about this on alt.quotations.
> I'd like to quote your post there, if you don't mind.
> It should get some interesting responses.
> Question: Isn't a newsgroup like alt.quotations
> considerered a legitimate context?
> Perhaps the legal ramifications of newsgroups are
> still being hammered out?
> ---Sea
PS-I found those lyrics online.
I'm wondering if all the lyric websites online have permission
from the copyright holders to put lyrics on the Internet.
Have you heard anything pertaining to this?
---Sea
Tickettyboo
"Michaelangelo" <mike...@lineone.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.b41f7d858...@lineone.net.invalid...
> ~~seadancer~~, having carefully considered all the angles, harangued us
> with the following:
>
>> Hi Jeff. I was under the impression that if I quote a writer and I give
>> him full credit, it's OK. Isn't that the way it works? Or perhaps I can
>> quote only a small portion of his work? I dunno.
>
> That's certainly no the way it works, Sea. Strictly speaking if you want
> to quote someone else's work you need the copyright holdrers written
> permission to do so. The copyright holder may be the author of the work or
> the person/company who commissioned it or the publisher of the work or the
> original authors employer or any persopn/organisation to whom the
> copyright has been assigned. Which of those depends on the type of
> contract involved.
>
> Generally you can quote a small portion of someone else's work without
> permission if you are doing so in a legitimate context - eg if you were
> reviewing a book for a magazine or newspaper.
>
> Where the 'author' of the work - writer, painter, photographer holds the
> copyright that copyright usually exists for 70 years after the authors
> death. Note that the calculation of the seventy years starts from the
> beginning of the year following their death. When copyright finally
> expires the materiasl is said to be 'in the public domain'.
>
> Of course, where permission to use material is given the copyright holder
> can make any conditions they see fit including making a charge for using
> that material.
But if you wrote down what you hear in the song and present it as 'this is
what I heard', then 'technically' it is your work and you would have
copyright?
I have recently been reading the FAQ on FreeReg, the new-ish project to
transcribe old parish registers.
<quote>
The actual registers, and the films themselves are copyright. In the case of
Church of England parish registers, the registers (books) are the copyright
of the present incumbent (vicar) of the church, and the films / microfiche
(and prints from them) will usually be the copyright of either the LDS or
the County Record Office.
However, extracting data from them and presenting it in a different form,
i.e. extracting names and dates from them, presents no problem in terms of
copyright. As a matter of interest, that transcription (in the form that you
produce it) actually becomes your copyright automatically.
</quote>
Don't know if that just applies to stuff like written records and I am
assuming that the statement was checked carefully to make sure it was
correct( I think it woud have been).
Interesting slant though
--
Ticketty᧧
~~seadancer~~
> But if you wrote down what you hear in the song and present it as 'this is
> what I heard', then 'technically' it is your work and you would have
> copyright?
> I have recently been reading the FAQ on FreeReg, the new-ish project to
> transcribe old parish registers.
> <quote>
> The actual registers, and the films themselves are copyright. In the case
> of Church of England parish registers, the registers (books) are the
> copyright of the present incumbent (vicar) of the church, and the films /
> microfiche (and prints from them) will usually be the copyright of either
> the LDS or the County Record Office.
>
> However, extracting data from them and presenting it in a different form,
> i.e. extracting names and dates from them, presents no problem in terms of
> copyright. As a matter of interest, that transcription (in the form that
> you produce it) actually becomes your copyright automatically.
> </quote>
>
> Don't know if that just applies to stuff like written records and I am
> assuming that the statement was checked carefully to make sure it was
> correct( I think it woud have been).
> Interesting slant though
Yes, that is an interesting slant, Boo.
When I was sending articles to a newspaper as a public relations person for
a non-profit organization, I was told that the newspaper would be more apt
to publish a short quote of someone else's opinion, rather than your own
opinion, because the newspaper article is not supposed to present the
writer's opinions (unless it's an OpEd-type article). That idea is a bit
off-topic here, but it's a useful tip, nevertheless.
---Sea
~~seadancer~~
PPS-I've changed the webpage.
How is this? ===>
> http://seadancer1934.googlepages.com/imstillhere
---Sea, trying to be "legal" (g)
Michaelangelo
with the following:
>
> But if you wrote down what you hear in the song and present it as 'this is
> what I heard', then 'technically' it is your work and you would have
> copyright?
'Technically' has nowt to do with it, Boo. It's 'legally' that matters.
If you went to an Alan Bennett play, for example, and wrote it all down
in shorthand and then got your local ADS to perform it from your
transcript you would be breaching copyright. If you claimed the work as
your own that would be plagiarism. Virtually every original creation is
subject to copyright until it enters the public domain. After all why
shouldn Mr Sondheim not benefit financially from someone else's use of
his original lyrics?
Ali
> When I was sending articles to a newspaper as a public relations
> person for a non-profit organization, I was told that the newspaper
> would be more apt to publish a short quote of someone else's opinion,
> rather than your own opinion, because the newspaper article is not
> supposed to present the writer's opinions (unless it's an OpEd-type
> article). That idea is a bit off-topic here, but it's a useful tip,
> nevertheless.
And as the PR person, you would be expected to have obtained copyright
clearance from the person you quoted, probably by asking them for a quote
to send to the newspaper.
--
Ali
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/ Don't go there.
UPS/FUNTO April stats: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/stats/
Five years' statistics now available.
~~seadancer~~
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:40:00 GMT, ~~seadancer~~ commented
>> When I was sending articles to a newspaper as a public relations
>> person for a non-profit organization, I was told that the newspaper
>> would be more apt to publish a short quote of someone else's opinion,
>> rather than your own opinion, because the newspaper article is not
>> supposed to present the writer's opinions (unless it's an OpEd-type
>> article). That idea is a bit off-topic here, but it's a useful tip,
>> nevertheless.
>
> And as the PR person, you would be expected to have obtained copyright
> clearance from the person you quoted, probably by asking them for a quote
> to send to the newspaper.
Good point, Ali. But if you had read the opinion in a magazine, for example,
would it be OK to refer to the quote, naming the magazine as the source of
the quote?
It sure gets complicated, doesn't it!
---Sea
Ali
> "Ali" <ali.on...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>> And as the PR person, you would be expected to have obtained
>> copyright clearance from the person you quoted, probably by asking
>> them for a quote to send to the newspaper.
>> Ali
>
> Good point, Ali. But if you had read the opinion in a magazine, for
> example, would it be OK to refer to the quote, naming the magazine as
> the source of the quote?
> It sure gets complicated, doesn't it!
Copyright law *is* different in the US and UK. You have a 'fair use'
clause, we don't.
There are also special rules for 'news', which mean that newspapers and
TV stations don't need to get permission to quote each other - that's for
reporting events, not for the opinon and commentary pieces.
Michaelangelo
with the following:
>> And as the PR person, you would be expected to have obtained copyright
>> clearance from the person you quoted, probably by asking them for a quote
>> to send to the newspaper.
>> Ali
>
> Good point, Ali. But if you had read the opinion in a magazine, for example,
> would it be OK to refer to the quote, naming the magazine as the source of
> the quote?
> It sure gets complicated, doesn't it!
> ---Sea
Not without permission.
~~seadancer~~
> Copyright law *is* different in the US and UK. You have a 'fair use'
> clause, we don't.
> There are also special rules for 'news', which mean that newspapers and
> TV stations don't need to get permission to quote each other - that's for
> reporting events, not for the opinon and commentary pieces.
I see, Ali. That's interesting to know.
I'm glad I'm not the PR person for that organization anymore. (g)
---Sea
Michaelangelo
following:
>
> Copyright law *is* different in the US and UK. You have a 'fair use'
> clause, we don't.
Fair use exists as a concept within UK copyright law.
~~seadancer~~
> ~~seadancer~~, having carefully considered all the angles, harangued us
> with the following:
>
>>> And as the PR person, you would be expected to have obtained copyright
>>> clearance from the person you quoted, probably by asking them for a
>>> quote
>>> to send to the newspaper.
>>> Ali
>>
>> Good point, Ali. But if you had read the opinion in a magazine, for
>> example, would it be OK to refer to the quote, naming the magazine as the
>> source of the quote?
>> It sure gets complicated, doesn't it!
>> ---Sea
>
> Not without permission.
Oh, my. I'm not going to quote anybody anymore. (g)
Except at alt.quotations. (g)
---Sea
JF
<seadan...@yahoo.com> writes
>[This is a spin-off from thread entitled:
> "Seeking advice on placing gifs on my Google Web Page".]
>
>"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> ~~seadancer~~ wrote:
>>>Today I created the following Google Webpage:
>>> http://seadancer1934.googlepages.com/imstillhere
>>>(It contains lyrics to a song by Stephen Sondheim.)
>>
>> Is that out of copyright then, or are the copyright laws more relaxed in
>> the USA?
>> Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
>
>Hi Jeff. I was under the impression that if I quote a writer and I give him
>full credit, it's OK. Isn't that the way it works? Or perhaps I can quote
>only a small portion of his work? I dunno.
Copyright is a minefield. The BBC recently dumped many copyright experts
on their staff and it cost them dear, especially when they dramatised
chunks of 'Catcher in the Rye' without getting Mr Salenger's okay.
Strictly speaking, anything written is protected by the various
copyright conventions, largely aimed at protecting a writer's work.
Citing a quotation with a credit is fine because there's unlikely to be
a question of damage to the writer's earnings. If the writer is known
then obtaining his or her consent to reproduce is sensible and
courteous, and is unlikely to be withheld.
Poems and song lyrics fall into the category that they are usually short
and have earning potential therefore seeking reproduction permission,
even for a quatrain or couplet, is essential. I once wanted to quote a
single line from a Bee Gees number as the opening to each chapter in a
trilogy. I gave up the idea because it would've meant securing the
consent of about 20 music publishers. In the end I settled for quoting
the title only of 'Stayin' Alive!'.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
--
James Follett
Tickettyboo
"Michaelangelo" <mike...@lineone.net.invalid> wrote in message
> Tickettyboo, having carefully considered all the angles, harangued us with
> the following:
>
>>
>> But if you wrote down what you hear in the song and present it as 'this
>> is what I heard', then 'technically' it is your work and you would have
>> copyright?
>
> 'Technically' has nowt to do with it, Boo. It's 'legally' that matters. If
> you went to an Alan Bennett play, for example, and wrote it all down in
> shorthand and then got your local ADS to perform it from your transcript
> you would be breaching copyright. If you claimed the work as your own that
> would be plagiarism. Virtually every original creation is subject to
> copyright until it enters the public domain. After all why shouldn Mr
> Sondheim not benefit financially from someone else's use of his original
> lyrics?
Well I can see that in a commercial situation but not for personal webpages
where no one is making any money from it or ( with respect to Sea) only a
very very few people will actually see it. Good Lord, next they will be
chasing round after you if you sing along to the wireless. I am all for
artists getting a reward for their labours but there is a line that divides
fair and silly and the current trend seems to be crossing it ( imo and you
can quote me LOL)
--
Ticketty᧧
Michaelangelo
>
> where no one is making any money from it or ( with respect to Sea) only a
> very very few people will actually see it. Good Lord, next they will be
> chasing round after you if you sing along to the wireless. I am all for
> artists getting a reward for their labours but there is a line that divides
> fair and silly and the current trend seems to be crossing it ( imo and you
> can quote me LOL)
One of the most common misunderstandings surrounding copyright is that
it's to do with making money from other people's intellectual property.
It can be about that, of course, but it's also about using other
people's IP for your own purposes - such as making ones own web pages
more interesting and then basking in any reflected glory.
And you're right - singing someone else's song if they've not been dead
70 years, other than to yourself, probably is breach of copyright.
I don't think the trend today is much different from 60 years ago. It's
just that breaches are more prevalent because of the internet and
because communications worldwide are faster and better, so breaches are
more likely to be noticed - there are less places to hide.
Tickettyboo
"Michaelangelo" <mike...@lineone.net.invalid> wrote in message
> Tickettyboo, having carefully considered all the angles, harangued us
>>
>> Well I can see that in a commercial situation but not for personal
>> webpages where no one is making any money from it or ( with respect to
>> Sea) only a very very few people will actually see it. Good Lord, next
>> they will be chasing round after you if you sing along to the wireless. I
>> am all for artists getting a reward for their labours but there is a line
>> that divides fair and silly and the current trend seems to be crossing it
>> ( imo and you can quote me LOL)
>
> One of the most common misunderstandings surrounding copyright is that
> it's to do with making money from other people's intellectual property. It
> can be about that, of course, but it's also about using other people's IP
> for your own purposes - such as making ones own web pages more interesting
> and then basking in any reflected glory.
In the words of the poet - poppyock!
LOL I don't misunderstand, I realise that its not always about money, but we
are talking about the entertainment industry. Without folk who pass the word
along ( for free) that its good and worth a listen they are dead in the
water. I reckon that Sea is due a fee for advertising <g>
>
> And you're right - singing someone else's song if they've not been dead 70
> years, other than to yourself, probably is breach of copyright.
Well, I could probably be arrested for being off tune and causing a public
nuisance <g>
>
> I don't think the trend today is much different from 60 years ago. It's
> just that breaches are more prevalent because of the internet and because
> communications worldwide are faster and better, so breaches are more
> likely to be noticed - there are less places to hide.
I still think its bordering on silly :-)
--
Ticketty᧧
Peter Parry
<seadan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Oh, my. I'm not going to quote anybody anymore. (g)
http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use might help a bit.
~~seadancer~~
> Copyright is a minefield. The BBC recently dumped many copyright experts
> on their staff and it cost them dear, especially when they dramatised
> chunks of 'Catcher in the Rye' without getting Mr Salenger's okay.
>
> Strictly speaking, anything written is protected by the various copyright
> conventions, largely aimed at protecting a writer's work. Citing a
> quotation with a credit is fine because there's unlikely to be a question
> of damage to the writer's earnings. If the writer is known then obtaining
> his or her consent to reproduce is sensible and courteous, and is unlikely
> to be withheld.
>
> Poems and song lyrics fall into the category that they are usually short
> and have earning potential therefore seeking reproduction permission, even
> for a quatrain or couplet, is essential. I once wanted to quote a single
> line from a Bee Gees number as the opening to each chapter in a trilogy. I
> gave up the idea because it would've meant securing the consent of about
> 20 music publishers. In the end I settled for quoting the title only of
> 'Stayin' Alive!'.
>
> Sorry I can't be of more help.
Hi James,
I think you covered it when you said: "Copyright is a minefield".
(I hope you won't sue me for quoting you without permission.) (lol)
I've changed my webpage. Instead of providing the lyrics to "I'm Still Here"
by Sonheim, I provided links to the lyrics.
When I posted the lyrics, my intent was to share my delight with the wit of
Sondheim's lyrics. They're clever and so entertaining. I especially enjoyed
Elaine Stritch's performance of the song when I saw her do the number on TV.
After all, aren't most of us glad that we're "still here"? (g)
Thanks for your reply. It was interesting to read about your publishing
experience regarding quoting the Bee Gees. I love anecdotes like that.
---Sea
~~seadancer~~
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 "~~seadancer~~" wrote:
>>Oh, my. I'm not going to quote anybody anymore. (g)
>
> http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use might help a bit.
Thank you for the link, Peter. It contains some valuable information. I've
bookmarked the page, but the easiest solution is to avoid quoting. I could
never have been a lawyer. These legal topics make my eyes glaze over. :)
---Sea
Rabbit
"Michaelangelo" <mike...@lineone.net.invalid> wrote in message
> And you're right - singing someone else's song if they've not been dead 70
> years, other than to yourself, probably is breach of copyright.
I'm sure I read years ago that every time we sing *Happy Birthday* we are in
fact breaching copyright.
--
Sandra
People will forget what you said.
People will forget what you did, but
People will never forget how you made them feel.
wtwjgc (Joe)
> "Michaelangelo" <mike...@lineone.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mn.b4c27d85a...@lineone.net.invalid...
>> And you're right - singing someone else's song if they've not been dead 70
>> years, other than to yourself, probably is breach of copyright.
>
> I'm sure I read years ago that every time we sing *Happy Birthday* we are in
> fact breaching copyright.
Maybe.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You>
--
wtwjgc (Joe)
Main website:- http://wakefield.110mb.com/
Flash Games section:- http://wakefield.110mb.com/games/
http://partnerpage.google.com/welcometowakefield.org.uk/
Rabbit
"wtwjgc (Joe)" <privac...@PLEASEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3VyZj.8198$DZ6....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> On 23/05/2008 13:15, Rabbit wrote:
>> I'm sure I read years ago that every time we sing *Happy Birthday* we are
>> in fact breaching copyright.
>
> Maybe.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You>
Or yes according to http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp It *is* a
minefield ain't it :-)
wtwjgc (Joe)
> "wtwjgc (Joe)" <privac...@PLEASEblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3VyZj.8198$DZ6....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> On 23/05/2008 13:15, Rabbit wrote:
>>> I'm sure I read years ago that every time we sing *Happy Birthday* we are
>>> in fact breaching copyright.
>> Maybe.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You>
>
> Or yes according to http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp It *is* a
> minefield ain't it :-)
Sure is. :)
~~seadancer~~
> "wtwjgc (Joe)" wrote
>> On 23/05/2008 13:15, Rabbit wrote:
>>> I'm sure I read years ago that every time we sing *Happy Birthday* we
>>> are in fact breaching copyright.
>>
>> Maybe.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You>
>
> Or yes according to http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp It *is*
> a minefield ain't it :-)
Wow! That is so interesting!
It's amazing to read that "Happy Birthday" is valued at $5 million US
dollars and gets $2 million in royalties per year!
What a story!
---Sea
~~seadancer~~
> Wow! That is so interesting!
> It's amazing to read that "Happy Birthday" is valued at $5 million US
> dollars and gets $2 million in royalties per year!
> What a story!
> ---Sea
In case you'd like to save the music to "Good Morning to All" as
a .jpg, go here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GoodMorningToAll_1893_song.jpg
---Sea :)
Michaelangelo
with the following:
A this very moment I am composing a new song to be sung every other day
of the year - 'Happy Not Your Birthday?' :)
Bernadette
> ~~seadancer~~, having carefully considered all the angles, harangued us
> with the following:
>> "Rabbit" <Rabb...@Hotmail.com> wrote
>>> "wtwjgc (Joe)" wrote
>>>> On 23/05/2008 13:15, Rabbit wrote:
>>>>> I'm sure I read years ago that every time we sing *Happy Birthday* we
>>>>> are in fact breaching copyright.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe.
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You>
>>>
>>> Or yes according to http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp It
>>> *is* a minefield ain't it :-)
>>> Sandra
>>
>> Wow! That is so interesting!
>> It's amazing to read that "Happy Birthday" is valued at $5 million US
>> dollars and gets $2 million in royalties per year! What a story!
>> ---Sea
>
> A this very moment I am composing a new song to be sung every other day of
> the year - 'Happy Not Your Birthday?' :)
Too late Michaelangelo, Walt Disney beat you to it! ;-)
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/theunbirthdaysong.shtml
--
You’re only young once, but you can be immature forever
Michaelangelo
with the following:
>> A this very moment I am composing a new song to be sung every other day of
>> the year - 'Happy Not Your Birthday?' :)
>
> Too late Michaelangelo, Walt Disney beat you to it! ;-)
> http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/theunbirthdaysong.shtml
Doh! Looks like it'll have to be the lottery , after all.
~~seadancer~~
> On the vexed copyright minefield isue, about thirty years ago, my editor
> at Weidenfeld and Nicolson, the late and much-missed Simon Dally, wanted
> to publish a book of spoof letters written by a journo called Donaldson (I
> forget his Christian name). For the 'Henry Root' letters Donaldson wrote
> slightly insulting or fawning letters to the great and good, usually
> enclosing a GBP5 'bung' to ensure he got a reply.
>
> Some of the letters were quite outrageous. He applied for the job LWT
> advertised for an ethnic communications officer saying that he was
> delighted to see that LWT were cracking down on wogs and similar
> miscreants and that they could count on him to put his shoulder to the
> wheel.
>
> Simon had no problem publishing Donaldson's letters -- Donaldson obviously
> held the copyright in his own work, but permission to reproduce all the
> replies (they included Margaret Thatcher) had to be obtained from the
> authors of the replies.
>
> The odd thing is that Donaldson owned the mechanical right in the replies
> because they had been given to him, but he didn't own the copyright in
> their content. Luckily all the good and great appreciated the hoax and
> gave their consent with the exception of Esther Ratszen. Simon decided:
> "Sod it. Let's publish and be damned."
>
> So he did just that and nothing was heard from the lady.
> James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
> A wise and all-knowing Providence gave us an abundance of losers to endure
> all the suffering and to do most of the work.
> http://scripts.digicc.com/powtv/prog_synopsis.php?id=655
Donaldson sounds like a risk-taker. Interesting anecdote.
They were probably very amusing letters to read.
I wonder how well they sold.
---Sea
"You have to risk going too far to discover just how far you can really go."
- Jim Rohn, Originally from T.S. Eliot
> http://thinkexist.com/quotations/risk-taking/
JF
<valerie....@invalidgmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 23:28:15 +0100, JF wrote:
>
>> http://scripts.digicc.com/powtv/prog_synopsis.php?id=655
>
>James, a question. When and where can I see Ice ? Is it a TV production ?
I think Power are the largest Western movie producer in the world. They
specialize in unlevered distribution of TV miniseries such as 'Flood'
and 'The Virgin Queen'. So the answer to where? is on TV.
I don't know the answer to when? I know that they've now got a working
script they're happy with so I'm assuming that post-production is well
underway. Power's budget control is legendary. They story board so that
not a penny is wasted during principal photography. I'm hoping to have
sight of working script and the story board. That's the day when the
serious money is handed over as opposed to options sales and stage
payments. My wife is drooling over the bathroom fittings in the TLC
catalogue.
I'm sorry I can't be more helpful.
--
James Follett
JF
<seadan...@yahoo.com> writes
>"JF" <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> For the 'Henry Root' letters Donaldson wrote
>> slightly insulting or fawning letters to the great and good, usually
>> enclosing a GBP5 'bung' to ensure he got a reply.
>
>Donaldson sounds like a risk-taker. Interesting anecdote.
>They were probably very amusing letters to read.
>I wonder how well they sold.
The hardback of 'The Henry Root Letters' was a so-called best seller for
several weeks. The actual letters were reproduced so that readers got to
see the stationery of the great and the good. The paperback did less
well because the letters were reset in body text.
There was a feeble TV spin-off in which George Cole (I think it was)
played Henry Root, wet fish (retired). 'Henry Root goes into Europe' I
think it was called. A real turkey.
--
James Follett
~~seadancer~~
The stationery of "the great and the good" would be interesting to see.
Probably fancy letterheads.
Speaking of letterheads, I once found an interesting letterhead in an old
1938 encyclopedia in our attic. I don't know how it got there, but it was
the letterhead of my grandfather and grandmother's millinery business in
NYC.
It said: "Manufacturer of High Grade French Plumes, Novelties, and Willows -
Ostrich Work Exclusive." It even had a "cable address" on it.
Evidently it had been used as scrap paper for a composition about
Christopher Columbus because it had handwriting on it, including the date,
"October 13, 1918." I suspect it was memorabilia of my mother; it might well
be her handwriting. She used to stick things in books to save them. She
never kept scrapbooks.
---Sea