So called "copyright" pictures - Page 7

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Mike came to the UK for something I was attending and passed
the same offer on to us: make copies on video (DVDs hadn't been
invented back then), give them to your friends to watch if you
like, but you can't sell them and you can't make any form of
profit on them.



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
snipped-for-privacy@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) writes:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, the key point is "not make profit."  From the comments of his
I've seen, and his reaction to Rombaldi's efforts, he's fine with
people selling them at a price that will  recoup their costs.

What frustrates me is that Mike won't allow people to tack on a royalty
for him, and he won't take contributions.  Geez, he deserves the money!
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D.       Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science       FAX   -- (505) 646-1002
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Hell, even the Casio watch company is till paying royalties
to use the "Happy Birthday" music some of their fancy
watches...


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have noticed that restaurants avoid using that song now when the staff
presents a birthday desert.




Re: So called "copyright" pictures
(Richard Henry) writes:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's done in the sandbox, I presume...

ObSniglet:  Farrelphobia: the fear of being approached by waiters
singing "Happy Birthday"

--
/~\   snipped-for-privacy@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
           snipped-for-privacy@kltpzyxm.invalid "Charlie Gibbs" writes:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

...by Wilson, Kepple, and Betty.

Damn your eyes!  I've now got STS (of their "theme tune").

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                           snipped-for-privacy@dsl.co.uk
    "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would.  Yet we are
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Yes.  The lady that wrote it wanted every kid to have a song for his
birthday--but she wants to be paid for commercial usage.

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics    /"\   ASCII ribbon campaign
snipped-for-privacy@psu.edu  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700      \ /   against HTML mail
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
As I understand it, the royalty figures for "Happy Birthday" run
into six figures every year...

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

 >>
 >>
 >> >> There are lots of things about the current copyright law I'm not happy
 >> >> with, starting with the ridiculously long term...
 >>
 >> >He he, I think the movie industry is still paying license fees for using
 >> >the song "Happy Birthday".  I just saw it in a credit this weekend.
 >>
 >> Yes.  The lady that wrote it wanted every kid to have a song for his
 >> birthday--but she wants to be paid for commercial usage.
 >>
 Charles> As I understand it, the royalty figures for "Happy Birthday"
 Charles> run into six figures every year...


The civil legal system is often primarily about intimidation:
the party which can least afford the resources to get up the
better lawyer to argue most convincingly (and longest) wins.
But most people just back down they threatened by a company
that seemes like it has more resources to spend on the matter.
They reach a settlement that will cost the loser less money
than they would have spent on the case they could have won.

For example, they just pay a license/royalty fee, because
going to court and winning would be more expensive.

Happy Birthday seems like it might be such a case, because of
two facts.  First, the melody of the song ("Good Morning To You")
is definitely in the public domain.  The copyright lawsuits are
about only the words. However, secondly, recent evidence has been
found that the words are also in the public domain, because they
were published without copyright notice, predating the claimed
publication on which the copyright is pupatively based,
back when that's how the law worked).

Re: So called "copyright" pictures


  snipped-for-privacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy)  in alt.folklore.computers
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Much the same for patents.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ok, that's fine. The band plays the copyright free music, the punters
sing the song.  A bit like it used to be when I was a kid:  for a few
years Sullivan's music was out of copyright, Gilbert's words weren't.
The Beeb played the overtures, and some arrangements of the music,  I
sang along at home.  This was a little  before those four guys from
Liverpool.  IIRC, the only recording of G & S whilst "in" copyright
was one of the Mikado, on 78s. :(

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I've got a few neurones partially firing telling me that the copyright
of "Happy Birthday" was up for sale for a six figure sum when it was
nearly time expired. What happened, did the 20 year extension arrive
in the nick of time, or was it retrospectively applied, or do I need a
new set of memory chips?

Regards,

David P.  


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you need new chips.  Last I heard, the ladies who wrote it are
still alive.  

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

snipped-for-privacy@XYarius.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:29:24 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, rickman

Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Mildred J. Hill b.1859 d.1916, Patty Smith Hill b.1868 d.1946
Don't believe everything you hear!
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis     Calgary, Alberta, Canada

snipped-for-privacy@CSi.com     (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
snipped-for-privacy@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) writes:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's not quite accurate -- it wasn't originally written for birthday
celebrations, for example. The Urban Legends Reference Pages have an
article on it: <http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm .

--

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Gimme a break.

This would be like the guy that built my house trying to hold a copyright
over the size of the rooms.  I paid him to build a house with rooms of these
sizes.  Just like I pay a photographer to take photographs of my wedding,
and guess what - I even told him who I wanted in the pictures.

Perhaps there is something so special about what a photographer does that
makes their paid work fundamentally more valuable than other peoples?

And you cant tell me that a photographer making only a grand for an
afternoons work is going to send him to the poorhouse if he doesn't screw
you on prints of photos you paid him to make.

If he wants to do original and creative things that are copyrighted he
should do them on his own time.  He didn't 'invent' wedding photography just
for me.  He followed an professional trade like any other professional,
using a formula he didn't invent.

It's bad law and deceptive practice by the photographic industry.

Ralph



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Well, the grand he charged you is just sticking in the knife...
the money for copying pictures is the "twisting" of the knife.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...enjoy your wedding...


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Houses are manufactured goods, and again copyright doesn't apply.
Presumably because there's no R&D cost so they don't need monopoly
protection.

House plans can be and are copyrighted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What they share with other copyrighted art forms is that their art is
hard to produce the original but cheap to duplicate.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You paid him to take photos and supply you with prints.

$1000 for an afternoon sounds like a lot, but if all he does is
weddings he probably gets at most one job a week, probably less.  And
he'll take a couple of days developing the negatives, deciding what to
print, enlarging, cropping.  Film, chemicals, and good photo equipment
take a bite too.  If that's his only job he may not in the poorhouse
but he's not shopping for Boxsters either.

Sorry if you don't think you got your money's worth.  That doesn't
mean copyright doesn't apply.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The standard for creativity in copyright material is low.  Even phone
books are copyrighted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It couldn't possibly be a consumer failing to inform himself
about standard practice in copyrighted art forms?

In practice, if you do figure out how to bypass the copy protection,
it's not that likely he'd catch up with you if the photos are just
going to sit on someone's nicknack shelf... but if he does be
prepared to pay up pretty handsomely.

-- Patrick


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
these

Yes, there is something special that they do.  That's why you hired him.

<snip miserly comments>

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And that's fine because that is an agreement, of sorts, that
you both have something to bring to the final CD but neither
of you can produce a finished, saleable product without the
assistance of the other. That is moral and equitable.

However let's say I'm rich and generous and pay my hired
sound man $10,000 for his days work because I want to
make a really good quality CD for my white haired old
mother to listen to - is it still fair and equitable that the sound
man owns the coryright?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I very much doubt many photographers quote a fixed price
for a wedding which will leave them out of pocket if additional
prints are not ordered.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's not really about the photographers, my concern is about
bad law.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But I didn't tell the letter writer what to write, I didn't pay him
any
kind of fee to write a letter to me.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Porsche paid all the development costs for that car and,
morally, have a right to a return. If a photographer phones
me up one day and says he wants to come along to my
wedding - at no cost to me - and take photographs which
he will own the copyright of then that is morally OK too,
but if I pay him to be there then, morally, copyright should
rest with me.

Mike Harding


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you don't think that's equitable, then you shouldn't agree
to that.  Put in the contract that for your $10,000 you get the
copyright.  Is that so hard?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But -- I didn't "pay the photographer to be there".  I agreed
to buy a minimum set of prints, he agreed to take the pictures
and sell the prints.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Someone in DAYTON,
                                  at               Ohio is selling USED
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You're missing the point: I am saying that copyright law
(in this respect) is morally indefensible. Agreements are
nothing to do with it. Grant, do you genuinely believe a law
which dictates the above is a _good_ and _proper_ law?
In the example I give it clearly takes ownership from one
person and gives it to another.

Mike Harding


Site Timeline