| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Peter McCormick wrote: I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA. In both countries, The OP's remarks, below, are an accurate statement of _today's_ environment. When dealing with _old_ items, at least in the U.S. (I _don't_ know anything about 'ancient' Canadian law on the matter), the situation gets *much* more complex. _Prior_ to the U.S.'s adoption of "Berne Convention" standards: copyright was *NOT* automatic. There *did* have to be an assertation of copyright on every item, *AND* the claim had to be 'registered'/filed with the Government (simultaneous with, or prior to first publication.) The Berne Convention 'alignment' also _radically_ changed the classification of "work done for hire" -- greatly to the benefit of the individual producing the work, and the detriment of the party paying for it. That change in what constitutes 'work done for hire' applies only to work done after the law was adopted. Works produced before that date are still judged by the rules in effect _when_ they were produced. As regards 'duration of copyright', the details on older works get *messy*. Works that were still 'in copyright' at the time of the statutory revisions, automatically 'inherited' the new, longer protections. Works that were 'out of copyright' by the rules when they were produced, but would be 'in copyright' if the new rules hadn't been in force at the time they were produced, got special treatment. *IF* the original owner chose, they could file for a 're-establishment' of the copyright, that ran from the time of that filing forward. Any 'copying' that had been done between the time of the prior expiration, and the re-establishment was *not* infringement. 'Re-establishing' copyright *did* require that the item had been protected by copyright originally -- i.e., the claim asserted on the item, and the requisite 'registration' with the government. The gov't published listings of the works for which copyright was re-established -- it can be found on-line on the web. (I was looking for a 1950's children's book, and got a hit on that list.) Works that were of an age that, even if the new rules had been in effect at the time of their creation, would be 'out of copyright', remained unprotected. The subsequent 'tweaking' of copyright duration has introduced additional variations on the above. Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two exceptions... 1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment. (In this case the copyright belongs to the employer). 2. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and client, that assigns the copyright to a third party. When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore, are not entitled to an automatic copyright. Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production (prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph. Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright. A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish copyright. Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years following his death. Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value obtained from selling further copies of the work. In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be actionable. Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image. If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays your money and takes your chances." Fleet |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: "Peter McCormick" wrote in message In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be actionable. OK, the law is the law and I'm not going to dispute it, but what do you do as a practical matter? You have an old family photo take by a professional about 55 years ago. There is a good probability the photographer is dead as he would be 75+ years old, maybe over 100. His business has been long gone, closed up probably 40+ years ago. No one can recall his name as we were only kids and our parents and grandparents are also long gone. The copyright would still be in effect if any of the unknown heirs are alive. How do you go about getting the photo copied? Just do it. In my case, the photo was taken 60+ years ago, by an adult male, just before WWII. At that time, IIRC, copyrights were for either 26 or 28 years, and could be extended for another 26 or 28 IF a form was filed. It is exceptionally unlikely that the form was filed, so the photo is probably in the public domain. Once something is in the public domain, it stays there, AFAIK. We constantly see reprints of 100 year old material with copyright notices on them. You also see reprints of Government Printing Office material with copyrights by the new publisher. Regardless of what the publisher would like you to think, such copyrights only apply to new material, not to old, which usually means a new foreword or introduction, or, possibly, a new arrangement of pagination. As a writer, I am in favor of strong copyright laws, but some of the current law is totally arrant nonsense, including the asininity of presumed copyright on exceptionally old photos (those taken today are good for a lot longer time than I describe above, which is also ridiculous: does anyone believe Olan Mills or any similar company will be in business in 100 years? Or that today's small company photographers will care about benefits from photos taken today, or, in fact, will be able to benefit after customers are scattered far and wide? If it were practical for customers, or the relations of customers, to locate the photographer or the photographer's company in 100 years and request reprints, I'd feel differently, but in every case I've ever seen or heard of, it is literally impossible). |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article , Peter McCormick wrote: I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA. In both countries, The OP's remarks, below, are an accurate statement of _today's_ environment. ############################ Robert Bonomi did and Fred did such a stellar job I am almost reluctant to comment. -- but.. Again -- for those interested here are the copyright links that can get you started. Also -- at the end of _my_ post (minor rant?), I posted the definitions from dictionary.com for trademark, trade name, patent etc. They are pretty good/ And reading them can help eliminate confusion in _most_ cases. A quick reference to where things are usually applied.... This is only useful for _generally_ determining where to start... Copyright -- a "work" (music, book, document, picture, sculpture, a program, a wood turning, a wood art (wood work) creation... etc.) Copyright protection can be _very_ broad. Eye of the beholder right... moral rights -- related to copyright -- they may limit the use or the enjoyment of an item to what the original creator intended. (Unless you are assigned (purchase?) the moral rights you cannot alter a work you purchased.) Eye of the beholder right... Patent " a process or means to produce an invention or thing" The rights to make a thing for commercial (or other) exploitation. The rights to a plan of a thing. (eye of the courts...) Trademark -- a "symbol" to identify an entity. Trade name -- a language based name to represent a business (see dba) This is a quickie idea of "how to start thinking" when you see a term... nothing more. They don't always work and someone else may have a better way to make a quickie classification. If you have people working for you in _any_ way -- you really must have agreements as to who owns what... Eye of the beholder... What I mean by that is that of the copyright holder does not consider your use to be a violation then "no problem" -- however, if your use of an item comes to their attention and they feel it is "unfair use" then they can take action. Fair use -- _usually_ allows you to extract small portions of an item for discussion or criticism. ...Say in a newspaper article or a student or academic paper. (Tough to do with a a photo copy...) But -- see the treaties... Without paying a royalty... **************************************** Having had to write agreements and use IP protection agreements, having spent time in front of judges on these issues and being a strong Believer in IP -- what would I do? Copy the photo myself and shut up or find someone who _will_ do it and shut up (not a big shop -- they are too vulnerable to law suits -- They have $$$). As long as the item was of a personal nature and of no perceived value to another person. Having said that many photogs are getting smarter and put a "studio stamp" on the back of their photos... and if they still exist... If I knew the photographer who took the photo, I would grit my teeth and go back to them... and expect to pay through the nose as usual -- sigh. And that is why like Charlie S. I do my own photos and processing now... ************* Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web. Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike... A link to the Canadian Copyright Act. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/ Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk. Note: Moral rights.... Read that section it should be of interest based on most questions I have seen here. Most questions in this forum are answered here. The Berne Convention is much more clear on "the limits" for plagiarism copying and term of rights than the acts of some countries... Again -- note moral rights here. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ USA Enactment of... http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US....onvention.html More stuff on ethics and protection of authors http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/berne.html Economic Right vs. Moral rights... Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law (and perhaps most of the rest of the world) http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/economic.html And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further... http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+...tart=1 0&sa=N ===================== Before getting into these discussions a quickt trip to dictionary.com can be useful... As George C. pointed out, a lot of these definitions must be clear or the arguments/discussions become worthless. ************* fair use n : the conditions under which you can use material that is copyrighted by someone else without paying royalties ++++++++++++++++ trademark A distinctive proprietary emblem, insignia, or name that identifies a particular product or service. A trademark is an intangible asset that may be protected from use by others. ---------------------------- trade name n. 1. A name used to identify a commercial product or service, which may or may not be registered as a trademark. Also called brand name. 2. The name by which a commodity, service, or process is known to the trade. 3. The name under which a business firm operates. (Also -- for interest -- see DBA, dba or "doing business as") ------------------------------------ intellectual property (Or IP for short) n. A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes. ======================================== pat·ent n. 1. 1. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time. 2. Letters patent. 3. An invention protected by such a grant. 2. 1. A grant made by a government that confers on an individual fee-simple title to public lands. 2. The official document of such a grant. 3. The land so granted. 3. An exclusive right or title. ************************************* When dealing with _old_ items, at least in the U.S. (I _don't_ know anything about 'ancient' Canadian law on the matter), the situation gets *much* more complex. _Prior_ to the U.S.'s adoption of "Berne Convention" standards: copyright was *NOT* automatic. There *did* have to be an assertation of copyright on every item, *AND* the claim had to be 'registered'/filed with the Government (simultaneous with, or prior to first publication.) The Berne Convention 'alignment' also _radically_ changed the classification of "work done for hire" -- greatly to the benefit of the individual producing the work, and the detriment of the party paying for it. That change in what constitutes 'work done for hire' applies only to work done after the law was adopted. Works produced before that date are still judged by the rules in effect _when_ they were produced. As regards 'duration of copyright', the details on older works get *messy*. Works that were still 'in copyright' at the time of the statutory revisions, automatically 'inherited' the new, longer protections. Works that were 'out of copyright' by the rules when they were produced, but would be 'in copyright' if the new rules hadn't been in force at the time they were produced, got special treatment. *IF* the original owner chose, they could file for a 're-establishment' of the copyright, that ran from the time of that filing forward. Any 'copying' that had been done between the time of the prior expiration, and the re-establishment was *not* infringement. 'Re-establishing' copyright *did* require that the item had been protected by copyright originally -- i.e., the claim asserted on the item, and the requisite 'registration' with the government. The gov't published listings of the works for which copyright was re-established -- it can be found on-line on the web. (I was looking for a 1950's children's book, and got a hit on that list.) Works that were of an age that, even if the new rules had been in effect at the time of their creation, would be 'out of copyright', remained unprotected. The subsequent 'tweaking' of copyright duration has introduced additional variations on the above. Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two exceptions... 1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment. (In this case the copyright belongs to the employer). 2. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and client, that assigns the copyright to a third party. When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore, are not entitled to an automatic copyright. Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production (prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph. Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright. A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish copyright. Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years following his death. Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value obtained from selling further copies of the work. In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be actionable. Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image. If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays your money and takes your chances." Fleet -- Will Occasional Techno-geek |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Charlie Self" wrote in message oups.com... As a writer, I am in favor of strong copyright laws, but some of the current law is totally arrant nonsense, including the asininity of presumed copyright on exceptionally old photos (those taken today are good for a lot longer time than I describe above, which is also ridiculous: does anyone believe Olan Mills or any similar company will be in business in 100 years? Or that today's small company photographers will care about benefits from photos taken today, or, in fact, will be able to benefit after customers are scattered far and wide? If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed.... |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George" wrote in message
If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed.... LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme Court ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the fact that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real property from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep it, or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with at ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it. This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer ... -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Swingman" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in message If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed.... LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme Court ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the fact that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real property from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep it, or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with at ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it. This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer ... "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema.... |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George" wrote in message
"Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema.... LOL Your analogy is right on, but as of last week the spelling is debatable .... apparently even OE's spell checker is convinced of that. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George" wrote in message ... "Swingman" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in message If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed.... LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme Court ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the fact that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real property from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep it, or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with at ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it. This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer ... "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema.... I'd like to see this happen http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in news:aWkwe.9495$GH6.283
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com: I'd like to see this happen http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html Amen. Patriarch |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Swingman wrote:
"George" wrote in message "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema.... LOL Your analogy is right on, but as of last week the spelling is debatable ... apparently even OE's spell checker is convinced of that. Har. Har. Computer programs don't set the standard, at least this week, this day, this hour. or in the case of Microsoft, this year. The spelling is not debatable! The beginning letter remains "E" just like it has for decades (?centuries?) in standard references. Just imagine a Microsoft programs being used as a standard. Makes you think of, "It depend on what is is." |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:19:34 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"George" wrote in message ... "Swingman" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in message If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed.... LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme Court ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the fact that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real property from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep it, or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with at ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it. This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer ... "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema.... I'd like to see this happen http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html I love it! There should be no issue with this, right? It is further interesting to note, that despite all of the rhetoric about how the right, conservatives, and the current adminstration are only in it for giant corporations and to advance the corporate agenda, look who of the men in black robes voted *for* government siezure of private land from individual citizens for the benefit of large corporations and who voted against that siezure; writing some very strong language regarding the absolute tyranny that this move represented. Think about that when the next supreme court justice vacancy is being filled. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
I love it! There should be no issue with this, right? It is further interesting to note, that despite all of the rhetoric about how the right, conservatives, and the current adminstration are only in it for giant corporations and to advance the corporate agenda, look who of the men in black robes voted *for* government siezure of private land from individual citizens for the benefit of large corporations and who voted against that siezure; writing some very strong language regarding the absolute tyranny that this move represented. Think about that when the next supreme court justice vacancy is being filled. Don't look now, but being a hypocrite comes easy to ALL these *******s ... the organization that Geo.W was a part of as managing partner used eminent domain to seize private property for the Texas Ranger's baseball stadium. http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.a...=970509_f1.htm (just a convenient link ... definitely NOT a Molly Ivins fan, by any strecth) The bigger problem is that we continually let them get away with it ... ..... "we gave you a republic, if you can keep it." B. Franklin I've either lived too long, or the change is coming faster and faster as it seems. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
Swingman wrote: George wrote: "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema.... LOL Your analogy is right on, but as of last week the spelling is debatable ... apparently even OE's spell checker is convinced of that. You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong word. No ****!? And as long as we're being sticklers for correctness, your assumption is incorrect: OE's spell checker "spelled" it from my typo (debatably a poetic omen in choice of replacement words, in case you missed that also). -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
Swingman wrote: Tom Quackenbush wrote in message snip You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong word. No ****!? And as long as we're being sticklers for correctness, your assumption is incorrect: OE's spell checker "spelled" it from my typo (debatably a poetic omen in choice of replacement words, in case you missed that also). My mistake, I guess. You didn't spell "imminent" correctly, your spell checker did - is that your point? If I want to refer to one of your posts, should I refer to it as a "Swingman" post or an Outlook Express post? I mean, you didn't actually post anything, your newsreader and ISP did that. Aside from the "who (or what) is responsible for one's post" issue, it does seem odd that OE wouldn't offer several correctly spelled alternatives for a misspelled "eminent". Could be a defect in OE's spellcheck. Do you recall your original (mis)spelling? While delusions of perfection may run in your family, judging from your above, we obvioulsy shouldn't ask too closely about having a clue ... unless of course, you are that rare man on Usenet ... the one who's never transposed an "i" and "e" on a keyboard. You're either new to Usenet, as dense and as clueless to the vagaries of spell checkers as you appear, or you are just one of those dickheads who doesn't have anything to add but correcting typos and spelling. Nonetheless, feel free to go **** your perfect self at whim. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Quackenbush wrote: Swingman wrote: Tom Quackenbush wrote in message snip You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong word. No ****!? And as long as we're being sticklers for correctness, your assumption is incorrect: OE's spell checker "spelled" it from my typo (debatably a poetic omen in choice of replacement words, in case you missed that also). My mistake, I guess. You didn't spell "imminent" correctly, your spell checker did - is that your point? If I want to refer to one of your posts, should I refer to it as a "Swingman" post or an Outlook Express post? I mean, you didn't actually post anything, your newsreader and ISP did that. Aside from the "who (or what) is responsible for one's post" issue, it does seem odd that OE wouldn't offer several correctly spelled alternatives for a misspelled "eminent". Could be a defect in OE's spellcheck. Do you recall your original (mis)spelling? Your eminence may be imminent, but you also must be fairly new to newsgroups. As a pro writer, I could have myself a time correcting spelling and use throughout most forums, but it is frowned upon, so strongly that it creates almost life threatening wrinkles in the forehead. If you can understand what is being written, don't bitch about it. There are too many levels of education and ability here in other areas to make parsing sentences and moaning over misspellings worthwhile. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark & Juanita wrote: On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:19:34 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "George" wrote in message ... "Swingman" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in message If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed.... LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme Court ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the fact that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real property from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep it, or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with at ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it. This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer ... "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema.... I'd like to see this happen http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html I love it! There should be no issue with this, right? It is further interesting to note, that despite all of the rhetoric about how the right, conservatives, and the current adminstration are only in it for giant corporations and to advance the corporate agenda, look who of the men in black robes voted *for* government siezure of private land from individual citizens for the benefit of large corporations and who voted against that siezure; writing some very strong language regarding the absolute tyranny that this move represented. Think about that when the next supreme court justice vacancy is being filled. I personally find the common usage of terms like 'right' and 'left' or 'liberal' and 'conservative' to be insensible. But to the extent that one can misuse them as does the media one sees that 'left' leaning politicians (which includes judges) tend to be hostile to a person's ownership rights, whether it is real-estate, business, vehicles, money, etc. The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to a person's behaviour rights, whether it is religious practice, sexual activity, grooming and clothing, performance and fine art and so on. So we see that choosing between poitical parties on a basis of comparing their respect for human rights is rather like choosing between motorcycle gangs on the basis of their preference in beer. -- FF |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:21:08 -0700, lgb wrote:
In article , says... You're either new to Usenet, as dense and as clueless to the vagaries of spell checkers as you appear, or you are just one of those dickheads who doesn't have anything to add but correcting typos and spelling. Nonetheless, feel free to go **** your perfect self at whim. While perfection somehow escapes most of us, including me, I do know how to spell "profane blockhead." And your response seems to qualify you for that appellation. Or were you just having a bad day? Hm, I saw it as a well-crafted and eloquent example of a flame. I think his observations and invitation are correct and appropriate. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
I realize that I might be biased in my own favor and would appreciate an objective third party take on why what I said was so bad. Let it die ... I apologize for taking you too harshly to task for your reaction to what I considered lighthearted banter on my part. We obviously both misunderstood each other ... it happens, but does not signify, nor should it have long lasting consequences/bitterness. Have a good fourth. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
We're supposed to have sunny and dry weather all weekend up here, which means that I can make some sawdust outside. If you could see the sad state of my basement "workshop", you'd realize what good news that is (and, in Vermont, fairly rare). No lack of sunshine here in Houston and it's punishingly hot, especially in a shop with no AC. However, I am determined to take advantage of some hopefully uninterrupted shop time this long weekend and complete the remaining sliding shelves in a new kitchen that has been the victim of procrastination. Shelves ... should be a piece of cake, but somehow they've taken longer to complete than the cabinets. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Glen wrote: wrote: The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to a person's behaviour rights, whether it is religious practice, sexual activity, grooming and clothing, performance and fine art and so on. I can't say I agree with you. To me, it seems that the left is attempting to put limits on my free speech with its move for political correctness. I left free speech out because it is opposed by both 'lefties' and 'righties'. _Some_ 'Lefties' want hate-speech legislation, bans on cross-burning and so on while _some_ 'righties' want to bad flag burning require the pledge of allegience in classrooms etc. Every part of the (multiaxial) political spectrum seems to have people who some manner of speech based entirely on the speaker's choice of content. This, more than anything else, is why I find the commonplace labeling to be all but insensible. Yes, people should feel as strongly about a '**** Koran' as about a '**** Christ'. What I find repugnant are the bigots who feel differently about one than about the other. -- FF |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry,
But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other copyright material, regardless of when produced. "lgb" wrote in message ... In article , says... Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright. A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish copyright. But these photos weren't made under current law - they were made under the copyright laws of 1909 or thereabouts. Those laws did require the photographer to stamp the photo if he wanted it copyrighted. Since none of these bore such a stamp, it is a logical assumption that the photographer did not care to copyright them. The fact the current law may have changed the status of these photos only goes to show how asinine Congress can be. Isn't there something in the Constitution about post facto laws? -- BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
says... Sorry, But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other copyright material, regardless of when produced. I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I posted, that law is ridiculous. And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional? But of course this isn't a homegrown law, from what I read it's an intenational treaty. It's almost enough to make me an isolationist :-). -- BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Charlie Self (in
) said: | What I find really repugnant are the types who bemoan the loss of | their religious freedom when what the really mean is my being able | to tell them to get off my front stoop and out of my yard with | their "messages". The underlying premise for this kind of behavior is an especially ugly bit of vanity that can be summed up as: "My conscience is better than your conscience." -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
lgb wrote: In article , says... Sorry, But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other copyright material, regardless of when produced. I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I posted, that law is ridiculous. *MOST* laws are 'ridiculous' with regard to _some_ of the situations to which they apply.  And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional? Yes, *BUT*... grin "Ex post facto" does _not_ include making something which "was allowed" to now be "not allowed". "Ex post facto" means making it a crime *now*, to _have_done_a_thing_ that it was legal to do when it was done. If, for example, one had made copies of an old photograph that lacked any copyright claim, *before* the 'Berne Convention' copyright statute revisions, that action would be legal, and those copies _would_ be "legal" copies. *IF* the copyright law changes had attempted to make one liable for copyright violation _now_, for the act committed *then*, THAT would be an unconstitutional 'ex post facto' situation. Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter' that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'. Acts done _prior_ to the enactment of the new law are unaffected. Acts done _after_ the enactment of the new law are governed by the new law. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
lgb wrote: In article , says... Sorry, But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other copyright material, regardless of when produced. I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I posted, that law is ridiculous. And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional? I suggest you check into the difference between "ex post facto" and "retroactive." -- FF |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , -
bonomi.com says... Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter' that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'. Well, we could go round and round with legalisms, but my contention is that by not stampiong the photos when that was required, the photographer implicitly refused copyright. Now he, or his estate, has been given the copyright. Refusing his refusal? And I think we've beat this to death. If someone sues me for copying a picture of myself or my kids, I'll let you all know :-). -- BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
lgb wrote: In article , - bonomi.com says... Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter' that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'. Well, we could go round and round with legalisms, but my contention is that by not stampiong the photos when that was required, the photographer implicitly refused copyright. Now he, or his estate, has been given the copyright. Refusing his refusal? "Not exactly." grin First off, he didn't "refuse" anything. He neglected to perform a particular overt act for assertation of certain protections. As a result, _at_that_time_ he did not have the benefit of those protections. At a later date, the law was changed, so that such protections accrued to the benefit of the photographer -- as of the date of the law revision, and going forward from there -- whether or not he had performed the particular overt action in the past. Whether or not this was a 'sensible' thing to do is a moot point -- it *is* the way the law is. grin I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to deal with things on that basis. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , -
bonomi.com says... I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to deal with things on that basis. No argument there. I just wonder what it'd take to get it changed. Since it apparently stemmed from an international agreement, it'd probably be a lost cause. -- BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
lgb wrote: In article , - bonomi.com says... I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to deal with things on that basis. No argument there. I just wonder what it'd take to get it changed. Without being overly facietious: it would reuqire "an Act of Congress" *grin* Since it apparently stemmed from an international agreement, it'd probably be a lost cause. The "Berne Convention" accords did not, as far as I kwow, specify anything about how "previously existing" works were to be treated. A lot of that push came from Disney & Co. -- they still make "significant" money from works that were produced long enough ago that "pre Berne Convention" copyright protection would have expired about the time the changes in the laws were being considered. Trying to 're-change' things, to "fix" the original silliness, would merely make the situation worse. |
Linear Mode
