On the copyright issue of a "fallen flag" logo, I suggest you read the
Mainline Commentary by Robert Hundman in the June 2003 issue of Mainline
Modeler. Bob discusses UP's requirements for logo licensing, which he calls
the "Atilla the Hun school of public relations." UP is being quite
unreasonable in their efforts to defend both UP and other roads which merged
into UP, requiring percentages of gross revenue or the price of a marketed
item. BNSF and other roads are watching UP to see how successful Uncle Pete
is in maintaining their logos.
My suggestion is that someone contact BNSF and tell them exactly what you plan
to do with a 1941 CB&Q calendar, point out that there is no commercial profit
to this plan, and ask for permission to distribute it. Once permission is
given, there would be no risk of defending an effort in court, which would be
far more effort and expense that it's worth.
- John Manion
Denver, CO
> For what it's worth, Stadivari never copyrighted any of his instruments. The
> calendars, however, are copyrighted. But I would think that the railroad
> would have much better things to do than go chasing after somebody for
> distributing one of their paper advertisements among the general public.
> -Val
>
> William Barber wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|