Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4628Re: [medieval-leather] copyrights...

Expand Messages
  • Melanie Wilson Belgium
    Jul 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not a lawyer & have no US law experiance at all, but here is my
      opinion....

      >I'm pretty sure that when the copyrights aren't extended backwards over
      previously uncopywritten material. The purpose was to keep things from
      losing their protection, not to protect things previously unprotected.

      I'm pretty sure things that weren'y copyright came back into copyright as I
      remember being horrified at that :) But I'll try &b remember to check with
      my sister. Either way I'm not sure it has been tried in courst so it might
      not stand anyhow.

      >. Ultimately this
      means that if you copy without permission, you may be violating copyright,
      whether or not you intend to profit financially.

      Agreed the risk of action being taken though will still most likly be a
      commercial one rather than pure law based

      >The US has something called "fair use", and if I understood Mel correctly,
      most people in Britain won't sue if the copying is for non-profit reasons.

      Mainly because it isn't worth their while rather than any kind of "fair use"
      Say a book originally sold at 2s and is out of print & you copy it from a
      library for yourself. The very best you could argue that you had financily
      lost is 2s, (about 15 cents) so it isn't worth your while, however if you
      took the same book copied 10,000 and sold at $2 each, THEN it is much more
      attractive to sue. Econimies of scale & so one. Same as copying a record
      onto tape for your car was not pursued but CD copying en mass is . Both are
      EXACTLY the same in law, as I understand it, but it is the scale & intent
      that differs, if you wanted to sue the one copy man you would probaby get
      the cost of the tape, but it would cost far more to do so.

      >In short, if it was published before 1923, its in the public domain.

      ONLY in the US

      > If it was
      published from 1923 - 1964, and had no copyright notice or renewal, or
      before
      1978 with no copyright notice, it appears to be Public Domain (however, just
      to be safe -- don't mess with it).

      Not here, I'd cite the Ciba reviews which I'd love to copy for acedemic use
      for all, but should not under law (at least not for another 30 years, sorry
      guys)

      Mel
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic