I don't know about the 1941 calendar, but the 1965
calender hanging in my offfice is NOT copyrighted. And
by the way, just because something is a "commissioned
work of art" does not mean it is copyrighted. In order
to prevail in an infringment suit on a work created
before the effective date of the present copyright
law, the work must be registered.
John D. Mitchell, Jr.
--- Val Nelson <super-chief-val@c...> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|