Re: copyright

From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Feb 18 2008 - 16:03:21 PST

does your city have 'volunteer lawyers for the arts' like nyc??
if not - i could put a call into them for you
you could call but i am not sure they help people outside nyc
anyway let me know if you want the info
they have been amazing for me in the past


On Feb 18, 2008 6:42 PM, Jim Carlile <email suppressed> wrote:

> Hi Gene,
> I'm not an attorney, but as I remember back then, the blanket copyright of
> the entire issue would apply to everything in it. So the dispute-- if any--
> would be between the publisher and the individual artist, to hash out who
> had copyright. The artist would have had to file first, I think, if they'd
> wanted to claim ownership-- but don't quote me on that. This may not apply
> to commercial ads.
> An interesting thing about the Berkeley Barb, and I wonder if Lipton knows
> this. Apparently, the LC has only one or two copies of the paper, with an
> uncataloged microfilm somewhere of others. What this indicates to me is that
> the 'Barb never sent in their issues to the Copyright Office, which means
> that most of them (all?) are in the Public Domain, per the pre-78 mandatory
> deposit requirement.
> So unless somebody actually formally registered them later on-- which
> after 1978 was allowed for some years-- they are indeed in the PD. But for
> that time until they *were *registered--if so-- they were in PD, because
> they never deposited copies in the 60's.
> The fact that there's some LC microfilm of the 'Barb only indicates to me
> that whoever copied it also copyrighted their film and deposited it-- that's
> why the LC has it (University Microfilms?) But that's only the film, not the
> hard copies.
> More speculation-- I suspect Lipton, being a smart guy, personally
> copyrighted all of his stuff at the time. He probably also owns his own
> Super 8 Filmaker material.
> But Kunkin definitely did right-- it looks like all of his Freep issues
> are in the LC.
> When it comes to those 60's posters-- somebody, anybody, could have filed
> their own copyrights on it, to claim legal ownership if nobody else had.
> This is a big problem with old materials that most people were too cool to
> care about, except the shady businessmen later on. In my experience tracing
> things, this happens all the time.
> It's kind of like these sharks that claim domain names for profit-- it's
> amazing who ends up falsely owning things you never thought anyone wanted.
> In a message dated 2/18/2008 6:41:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> email suppressed writes:
> Jim, this is fantastic. Thanks so much. This list is a truly invaluable
> asset because of the generosity of the people who constitute it.
> A final question: if Kunkin and/or New Way Enterprises does hold the
> copyright, what does that mean? I intend to get releases for film stills and
> certain ads, but what about graphics (illustrations or ads) that are not
> signed by anyone and have no copyright C on them? For example, I want to put
> the logo for my columns -- a kind of surrealist eyeball -- on the front page
> of the book. It was not copyrighted by the designer and his name was never
> attached to it. Does that mean Kunkin can grant me permission to reprint it?
> Another case would be full-page rock concert ads like John
> VanHammersveld's famous Jimi Hendrix poster that was printed as an ad for
> the concert. Everyone knows he drew it, but the ad itself is not copyrighted
> by him in the Free Press, unlike Ron Cobb who copyrighted each of his
> cartoons.
> ------------------------------
> Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL
> Living.<>
> __________________________________________________________________ For
> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

cari machet
AIM carismachet
Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.