Frakson

Addresses new and interesting links to other sites (not listed on the Genii website) that merit attention.
Andrew Martin Portala
Posts: 324
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Toledo,Ohio
Contact:

Frakson

Postby Andrew Martin Portala » March 10th, 2014, 10:08 am


User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 24882
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Richard Kaufman » March 10th, 2014, 12:38 pm

Great film, but could the Huntley Archives make more of a visual mess out of it with their multiple watermarks all over the place?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

John Signa
Posts: 296
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Frakson

Postby John Signa » March 10th, 2014, 2:32 pm

Intentionally messy as their intention is to sell you a clean copy.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 24882
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Richard Kaufman » March 10th, 2014, 3:58 pm

It's a public domain film.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Andrew Pinard
Posts: 362
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Andrew Pinard » March 10th, 2014, 9:16 pm

I may be off base here, but, although the original film might be public domain, doesn't any reproduction of it in a different media create a new copyright for the individual that created the transfer?

For example, Steve Burton made some lovely reproduction reprints from public domain books. In the process he cleaned them up a bit, but by reproducing them, he now owns the rights to his "print". No one can scan one of his volumes and then reprint the book as their own as they do not have access to the originals...

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 1801
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Chris Aguilar » March 10th, 2014, 9:35 pm

Andrew Pinard wrote:I may be off base here, but, although the original film might be public domain, doesn't any reproduction of it in a different media create a new copyright for the individual that created the transfer?

For example, Steve Burton made some lovely reproduction reprints from public domain books. In the process he cleaned them up a bit, but by reproducing them, he now owns the rights to his "print". No one can scan one of his volumes and then reprint the book as their own as they do not have access to the originals...

Perhaps relevant.

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg ... _Copyright

User avatar
Andrew Pinard
Posts: 362
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Andrew Pinard » March 10th, 2014, 9:52 pm

I stand corrected. Although...

How does this apply in the case of the Statue of David, which the Italian government claims control over its likeness?

Perhaps more to the point: I have a hard time believing that someone could just scan The Notebooks of John Northern Hilliard from Richard's edition and sell their scans without compensation... As someone who did the painstaking and laborious process of realizing those historical documents for the reproduction I can tell you the final product is much more than the originals. I suppose someone could reproduce the content ("the words"), but then the specific copyright to the designed pages should belong to the producer. My point is about the specific likeness. If someone owned a very rare edition of a public-domain book (say the only copy) and they reproduced it in facsimile, they would own the copyright to that facsimile.

In the example cited by Project Gutenberg, they could reproduce the content of Hilliard's Notebooks legally (retypeset), but I don't believe they would have the right to the original expression (the facsimile) of that content.

I still could be wrong and likely am...

But I don't want to be...

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 1801
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Chris Aguilar » March 10th, 2014, 10:09 pm

Andrew Pinard wrote:
...
My point is about the specific likeness. If someone owned a very rare edition of a public-domain book (say the only copy) and they reproduced it in facsimile, they would own the copyright to that facsimile

...

I doubt that, as it seems clear that such mechanical reproduction (sweat of brow) doesn't seem to meet the standard of authorship.

Someone could still make money based off a superior quality re-printing (binding, nice paper, enhanced layout, etc.)

User avatar
Andrew Pinard
Posts: 362
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Andrew Pinard » March 10th, 2014, 10:19 pm

And yet, the owner of a fine work of art in public domain has the right to license use of the image to photographers to reproduce in a calendar? I am definitely interested in the designation of authorship when it comes to images or likeness... More work to do, I guess...

Thanks for the edumacation.... I guess I am off to sell the ebook version of the Hilliard Notebooks (minus the frontmatter work which is still in copyright)... ;O)

User avatar
Chas Nigh
Posts: 184
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 10:45 pm
Location: California

Re: Frakson

Postby Chas Nigh » March 10th, 2014, 10:23 pm

I always wondered where Carazini got his smoke from mouth routine. I saw him at Bimbo's 365 Club years ago.

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 1801
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Chris Aguilar » March 10th, 2014, 10:44 pm

Andrew Pinard wrote:
Thanks for the edumacation.... I guess I am off to sell the ebook version of the Hilliard Notebooks (minus the frontmatter work which is still in copyright)... ;O)

It sort of seems (though I could easily be wrong) that the Hilliard material in question was unpublished until Richard published his compilation. It's possible that the specific collation of the material could trigger a valid copyright on that specific compilation. Though the individual bits would still be public domain.

Interestingly, if the material had stayed unpublished,copyright might have persisted a bit longer.

http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html

But even then, with Hilliard dying more than 70 years ago, the material would still likely be in the public domain.

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 1801
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Chris Aguilar » March 10th, 2014, 11:02 pm

For those interested in the public domain aspects of "sweat of brow", compilations, etc. there are two very important (primarily in the U.S.) legal rulings that you might want to check out.

Feist v. Rural

And

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/bridgeman.htm

and... another interesting case (UK,U.S) that I recently came across...

User avatar
Andrew Pinard
Posts: 362
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:13 am
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Andrew Pinard » March 10th, 2014, 11:31 pm

But wait, I thought copyright was copyright regardless of whether the material was published or not. As of 1975, every new work of art was considered to be under copyright protection regardless of registration or publishing status. Just because a work in not in print does not mean it loses its copyright protection...

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 1801
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Chris Aguilar » March 10th, 2014, 11:38 pm

Andrew Pinard wrote: Just because a work in not in print does not mean it loses its copyright protection...


Well yes, in certain circumstances, an unpublished work can certainly move into the public domain. Unpublished works, that weren't published/registered before 1978 fall into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author.

Again, per this.

Under the 1909 Copyright Act, works that were neither published nor registered did not enjoy statutory protection, although they were protected under common law in perpetuity as long as they remained unpublished and unregistered.

But under section 303 of the 1976 Copyright Act, works that were created but neither published nor registered in the Copyright Office before Jan. 1, 1978, lost their common law protection and acquired a statutory term of protection that was the life of the author plus 50 years, amended in 1998 to life plus 70 years.


http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html

I think the graph below makes for a clearer understanding of how it breaks down.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5100
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Frakson

Postby Bill Mullins » March 11th, 2014, 12:57 am

Andrew Pinard wrote:And yet, the owner of a fine work of art in public domain has the right to license use of the image to photographers to reproduce in a calendar?


Just because a museum claims reproduction rights to a famous 19th century painting doesn't mean that they actually own those rights.

And just because Italy claims rights to the David statue doesn't mean you'd be violating any laws in the U.S. if you reproduced it here. (doing so in Italy, where you'd be in the jurisdiction of Italy's laws, may be another matter) I believe that Australia has a law that restricts what you can do with photos of Ayers Rock, driven by Aboriginal claims that it is a sacred place to them. Again, that law doesn't apply here (but unfortunately, to get a photo of the rock, you have to go to Australia, and thus be subject to their laws.)

Having said all that, the answer to just about any interesting copyright question is "It depends", which is what lawyers tell laypeople. It is legalese for "The real answer will cost you $400 per hour."

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8065
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 29th, 2015, 11:36 am

Bill Mullins wrote:..."The real answer will cost you $400 per hour."


For preparing the memorandum or actually bringing a case to court to test your interpretation?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5100
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Frakson

Postby Bill Mullins » January 29th, 2015, 1:19 pm

All of the above. Plus research. Actual time in court @ $600 per.

And just answering this question runs up an invoice of $36. Look for a bill in your mail.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 24882
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Frakson

Postby Richard Kaufman » January 29th, 2015, 10:52 pm

You don't get to suddenly own a copyright on a public domain item just because you've scanned it, no matter what you've done to it. Just cleaning up some dirt doesn't do it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine


Return to “Link Watch”