I have to say I haven't really followed this thread, but I find it amusing. I
love a good bar stool lawyering discussion. Newspaper/magazine articles are
regularly copied and pasted into several yahoo groups I belong to and I have
yet to see anyone state they were served papers for copyright infringement or
asked to stop their postings. I'm not saying it's right but it would seem the
level of concern is far less than what is being thrown around here. And here's
what I found about the subject. There's a possibility that the copyright is
already up on this unless they renewed it for this specific work.
Created and published, or registered before 1978:
This is governed by statutory section 17 USC 304. Under the law in effect
before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published or
on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In
either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date
it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright
was eligible for a second renewal term of an additional 28 years. If no
application was filed for renewal, the work would enter the public domain after
the initial 28 year term.
The current copyright law has extended the renewal term from 28 to 67 years for
copyrights that existed as of January 1, 1978, making these works eligible for
a total term of protection of 95 years. There is no longer a need to make the
renewal filing in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the
full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue to making a renewal registration
during the 28th year of the original term.
In other words, if a work was published between 1923 to 1963, the copyright
owner was required to have applied for a renewal term with the Copyright
office. If they did not, the copyright expired and the work entered into the
public domain. If they did apply for renewal, these works will have a 95 year
copyright term and hence will enter into the public domain no sooner that 2018
(95 years from 1923). If the work was published between 1964 to 1977, there is
no need to file for a renewal, and these works will automatically have a 95
year term.
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/duration.html
Dan
In the "FWIW" department, RA/PR/S-B has been very friendly with
railroad Historical Societies. What I would do if I were part of the
BRHS is to send them a nice letter, asking them if they (BRHS) could
publish reprints of articles and photographs - though nothing
specific is in the works, we'd like to be able to lay the groundwork
for using such as the need arises. What happened in our case was a
letter (similar to that to which Randy alludes) that provided us
permission plus the correct citation when used. It's not a
get-out-of-jail-free card, but in the case of RA articles, it is nice
to have, and for all I know, given some of the use, the BRHS already has such.
Having said that, I recognize that this list (and the files therein)
do not reflect the BRHS & vice-versa. I would hate *their* (RA)
"good deeds" to end up being punished by indiscriminate use. OTOH, I
can't say I am not interested in the article and it's content. Often
times, a nicely worded letter actually works wonders with such
companies. And, they are happy to have the opportunity to help
(without real cost) and provide a free (via the citation) "ad" that
reconfirms the viability of the company long after many think it's
long gone. A mistake/unintended transgression in the right spirit
(esp. given the no financial gain or loss) likely won't be prosecuted
/ "punished". But, given the warnings and such, were it to happen
again, the issue would be much different, as it would be done
knowingly. And that isn't as easily forgiven.
At 12:07 PM 6/8/2009, you wrote:
>I didn't post the copyright information to start a war or make a
>personal attack on anyone.
>
>10 minutes of research on the internet and then believing what you
>read is legal regarding copyright usage will sooner or later get you
>inextricably mired down with copyright attorneys. I'm not a
>copyright attorney. But I employ one to handle our needs.
>
>Internet usage is a slippery slope. Fair Use most commonly pertains
>to certain, limited parts of an article reprinted in a review, not
>the entire article being reproduced. That is not Fair Use.
>
>The only people Railway Age might pursue would be Mark and Dave.
>Everyone else skates away.
>
>I only posted the information to illuminate the popular
>misconceptions about fair use and public domain. I did that because
>Railway Age/Progressive Railroading are very protective of their
>copyrighted material. The material they published is an asset of
>their corporation. To use it without permission is stealing, like it or not.
>
>So if you are offended by the rules, fine. Do whatever you want.
>
>If you are industrious, call Simmons-Boardman. Ask them about this
>specific article, its intended use and then ask them to send you a
>letter authorizing the use. Upload the letter to the list.
>
>Remember the U.P. licensing fiasco. If these guys think they can
>make a buck they will. They hire outside companies that do nothing
>but troll the internet using sophisticated search engines to look.
>Then they send a letter and an invoice.
>
>So who pays when everyone else skates away? Mark and Dave.
>
>Randy Danniel
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|