OT - photos and copyrights

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.

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

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

############################

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.

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.

As George C. pointed out, a lot of these definitions must be clear or the arguments/discussions become worthless.

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.

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....

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.

I'd like to see this happen

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in news:aWkwe.9495$GH6.283 @newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

Amen.

Patriarch

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."

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 bastards ... 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.

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.

You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong word. I'll bet OE won't complain if you write that you routed a "rabbit" in a board, either.

R, Tom Q.

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?

R, Tom Q.

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 d******ds who doesn't have anything to add but correcting typos and spelling.

Nonetheless, feel free to go f*ck your perfect self at whim.

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.

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.

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?