I don't know anything about copyright law and I am certainly not a
lawyer, but I think, in the case of an old calendar, that the line is
somewhat gray concerning copyright of such items. Since BNSF's
predecessor gave the calendar away in the first place and never
expected any direct compensation, I certainly don't see any reason why
it can't be posted now without anyone's approval. No monetary gain is
being requested and the original intent of the calendar distribution by
the Q was for it to be displayed for the purpose of advertisement. Just
because it is not 1941, doesn't mean it can't continue to be displayed
on a home wall. Posting it on the internet, today, is just another way
of displaying it (as originally intended) on an electronic wall that
hadn't been thought of in 1941.
The only reason the calendar has value today is because some
individual decided to save it. Certainly, neither Q nor BN or BNSF had
any part in preserving it and should have no claim or control on any
gain that might be there today. Indeed, if Q had any undistributed 1941
calendars left in 1942, they most likely destroyed them (darn). The
decedents of Stadivarius have no claim on profits made from the sale
of one of his violins today; I think the calendar falls in the same
category. I know Pat Haitte and I am sure he has more important things
to take care of than making decisions on the non profit use of old
predecessor issued calendars.
Bill Barber
On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 12:42 PM, BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 20:51:47 -0600
From: <metcalf@a...>
Subject: Re: Posting of calendar art
A 1941 CBQ calendar is a work-for-hire commissioned by the CBQ.
Presumably
the copy right on it won't expire until 2031. Everything first
published in
the United States of America prior to 1922 is in the public domain.
Some
works subsequent to 1922 have entered the public domain but you'd have
to
check with the Copyright Office on a case-by-case basis. The proper
course
would be to contact patrick.hiatte@b... and secure written
permission
from an authorized person at the BNSF. Under current law you need
written
permission from the creator to reproduce anything.
Physical possession and/or ownership of a copy does NOT give you
the
right to reproduce copies, even if you don't financially gain from such
distribution.
This is analogous to buying a Stephen King paperback and then
publishing
your own edition, whether or not you charge. Giving it away is not a
loophole because you are then depriving the owner of the right to
profit
from distributing it to the potential audience.
As for eBay there are numerous violations on there, probably a
multitude
of violation each day.
Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO
|