Old Scale models articles

[StephenLawson]

Greetings all; What Dan is refering to is
". . .The regulations of the Berne Convention are incorporated into the World Trade Organization's TRIPS agreement (1995), thus giving the Berne Convention effectively near-global application. The 2002 WIPO Copyright Treaty enacted greater restrictions on the use of technology to copy works in the nations that ratified it. . ."

". . ."Poor man's copyright" A widely circulated strategy to avoid the cost of copyright registration is referred to as the "poor man's copyright." It proposes that the creator send the work to himself in a sealed envelope by registered mail, using the postmark to establish the date. This technique has not been recognized in any published opinions of the United States courts. The United States Copyright Office makes clear that the technique is no substitute for actual registration. The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office discusses the technique but does not recommend its use. . ."

". . .The scope of copyright limitations and exceptions became a subject of significant controversy within various nations in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely due to the impact of digital technology, and the enactment of anti-circumvention rules in response to the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Defenders of copyright exemptions fear that digital rights management technology will massively reduce the scope of important exceptions. Their opponents believe that if existing exemptions are allowed to continue, they will necessarily allow huge amounts of private copying or piracy — if consumers can make a copy of a CD for their car, they can give MP3 files to everyone. The development of "permissive" DRM, such as that employed by iTunes, has not ended these debates. Limitations and exceptions are also the subject of significant regulation by international treaties. . . "

In other words the treaties have not been successful in dealing with new technology copies. Current exemptions exist. Artist beware.

[Tom W.]

This story fits in with the discussion.

I contacted a European collector, asking if I could get a copy of one of his WWI photos to use in the book I'm currently writing. I'd seen the photo in a European book.

He told me that the contract he'd signed with the European publisher prohibited him from allowing any of his photos to appear in any other books except those put out by the publisher.

I asked how long this prohibition would last.

Forever.

So I contacted the publisher and asked if he could grant me permission to use one of the collector's period photos. He told me that none of the photos that appeared in his book could be reproduced anywhere again, ever.

Not only that, none of the actual objects (helmets, weapons, items of clothing, badges, medals, etc.) that appeared in the book could be photographed ever again by anybody. The publisher says he bought the rights to all photos of the items, forever. He also owns the rights to all scans of the photos of the items.

I found another copy of the period photo I wanted, and I'm going to use it in my book. The megalomaniacal European publisher can fantasize that he owns the rights to every copy of a photo that was taken 90 years ago, but the law is not on his side. Single copies of the photo are in the public domain. I checked.

As for the objects, if the collectors signed a contract that they would never again allow anybody to photograph their items, there's nothing anybody can do. That's their right.

However, I executed a drawing of one of the items. I changed it slightly so that it's not an exact duplicate of the photo, and the drawing is in black ink instead of in color.

I'm going to use it in my book. We'll see if the European publisher finds out and comes after me. There's nothing on the copyright page of his book that prohibits me from making a drawing based on a photo of a historical three-dimensional item depicted therein, and since I changed it somewhat, he can't claim that it's an image of the item.

I'm still shocked that people are so possessive.

[KlausKluge]

Hmmm, if i understand it right Hans,

if i and an american friend write a non profit article for a non profit Paper with Photos where in germany one said ,that is my Photo, I have the Negative, than the american is the good Guy and I´am as a German are the Criminal that stand with one foot in Prison.

[odybvig]

Why, KlausKluge, do you make you self more stupid than you realy are ?
The guy who took the photo has the copyright or them who buy or are given the rights, can claim copyright. A negative of a photo means nothing (legally)

You can not deny other to use a photo just because you have the same photo, unless you own the copyright, and you can deny use of your copy of the photo (copies done after you have bought it)


Olve

[Hans]

Klaus, it's a little bit polemic how you interpretate my remarks. I fully accept that collectors are careful with their collection, but there is no special "collectors version" of the copyright. Again, last try: No collector has any sort of 'Urheberrecht'. You only has the 'Nutzungsrecht' (that's what the US/GB copyright means) of your single print. That's all. If there are other prints or scans or whatever - you lose. That's it.

H

[KlausKluge]

Hmmm,

sorry aber ich denke mein Englisch ist einfach viel zu schlecht um in dieser Diskusion genau das ausdrücken zu können, was ich sagen möchte. Daher kommt es zu schnell zu Mißverständnisse. Also lasse ich es jetzt mir in Englisch die Zunge zu verbiegen.

Oder frei nach Nixon,

Ich weiss, das Du glaubst, Du verstehst, was Du denkst, ist das was ich
gesagt habe, aber ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Du begreift, dass das,
was Du gehört hast, nicht das ist, was ich meinte!

[mike celeskey]

Klaus,
Do you have a point????? If so, please get to it.
Mike

[StephenLawson]

He is sort of like a ladel stirring the pot of stew.

"Sorry, But I think my English is simply too bad around in these discussions. What I would like to say exactly and express - therefore it comes to quickly to misunderstandings. Therefore I bend the tongue now in English.

Or freely after Nixon

I know, believe that you understand, what you think what I said, but I am not certain whether you grasp, that that is not what you heard, is what I meant now in English."