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.
(just a convenient link ... definitely NOT a Molly Ivins fan, by any
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
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
The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to
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. It appears the left is trying to disallow Christians and
believers in God from exercising their religious freedom or expression
(except if you wish to express positive things about Islam, the left
still permits that!) If you consider a crucufix placed in a bottle of
urine fine art, then yes, "right" leaning politicians are (and should
be) hostile to funding it. Also, can you imagine the uproar if an
"artist" put the Koran in a jar of urine. He would be lambasted by the
left for not being "sensitive." Yet when one objects to paying with
public funds for "art" that displays an anti-Christian messages, that
person is labeled a Neanderthal.
The double standard is sickening!
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
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 'Piss Koran' as about
a 'Piss Christ'. What I find repugnant are the bigots who feel
differently about one than about the other.
A long time ago, I used to get a kick out of various government
agencies demanding an oath of loyalty or a statement of lack of support
for the goals of various Communist organizations in order to provide
college loans, etc. I presume they still do. The idea that a determined
Communist, bent on the overthrow of the U.S., would actually lie on
taking such an oath seemed beyond the people who set up the
requirement. I always figured anyone in a too great rush to sign such
oaths might be worth investigating.
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".
Charlie Self (in
| 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."
DeSoto, Iowa USA
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?
It's not ignored, like 'legal tender' it simply does not mean what
many people think it means. 'Ex post facto' and retroactive, for
example, are not the same same thing.
It _may_ be that the copyrights, once relenquished as described,
were NOT restored in 1977 or whenever the law was changed to conform
to the Berne Conventions. I dunno about that.
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 :-).
*MOST* laws are 'ridiculous' with regard to _some_ of the situations to which
they apply. :)
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.
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 :-).
"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.
Without being overly facietious: it would reuqire "an Act of Congress" *grin*
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.
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
_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
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.
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.
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.
USA Enactment of...
More stuff on ethics and protection of authors
Economic Right vs. Moral rights...
Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law
(and perhaps most of the rest of the world)
And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...
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.
n : the conditions under which you can use material that is copyrighted
by someone else without paying royalties
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.