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

Re: Period Shooting - armguards

Expand Messages
  • rmhowe
    I m sending this a day later - I ve been thinking about how to post the article to the net. I don t have a website. I did attend a couple of copyright seminars
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm sending this a day later - I've been thinking about how
      to post the article to the net. I don't have a website.
      I did attend a couple of copyright seminars a few years
      ago. However, Mickey Mouse, championed by one of our North
      Carolina senators (Coble) got another twenty years added
      on to copyrights last year. The tree got Sony Bono who
      was also in on this.

      As I understood it, previously, stuff prior to 1979 had
      75 years of copyright. Mickey was born in 1928. Disney
      got another twenty years. The problem is I'm not sure of
      the status of something printed in 1922. Last year I would
      have felt pretty safe. Now I need someone to tell me.
      Or else someone else post it. A lawsuit from a still operating
      Society is something I don't need.

      I know that current authors since 1979 get life plus 50 years.
      Or at least they did. I think they were pushing for 75.

      If this sounds a bit safety oriented it is. But then again I
      managed to convince someone to reprint the Mastermyr Find
      last year and this year I've provided original articles on
      early chests to be reprinted by someone else. 1907/12 I feel
      safe on.

      Who knows what the cut-off date is for the first of the century?
      Cite me an up-to-date webpage I can look at.

      Magnus
      xxxxxxxxx
      Jonathan T Getty wrote:
      >
      > A few questions about this bracer, Magnus...
      >
      > First, is there a more modern citation for a picture of this
      bracer?
      > UCSB didn't exist until 1950-something, so no 1920's journals in
      the
      > library. (it's been 78 years, can you post it to the list?)

      I'm a disabled craftsman, working from home.
      I don't have a scanner set up to copy, and I don't have the
      necessary experience in office skills. If I did I'd have a whopper
      of a website, but I don't have html training either.

      I don't recall seeing as good an offside view or a flat view as
      this particular one has. It's a line drawing in either event
      so I couldn't tell you more than the design shape.

      Basically square with coves cut at the corners.
      Design on the half facing in toward the user's body, with a
      beaded rim around the outside, or at least a lined groove
      around the edge. Actually, perhaps the design was worn out,
      like a modern military badge, and the smooth side in - unless
      you need to remind someone who they are fighting for -this-
      season.

      You could try interlibrary loan. I did give a complete citation,
      which is more than I get frequently. I absolutely love looking
      for something for years that sounded like a book, but was an
      article in a collection of articles in a book with an odd name.
      Festshrift for Otto Schwartz on his 50th Birthday (made up).
      I generally eventually find the complete citation by reading
      bibliographies in -some new to me- book.

      > Was the bracer tooled or stamped in a single pressing? Most of
      > my leather carving is of the cut, bevel, background ilk, so it
      > sounds like fun reproduction. Any idea if this bracer design
      > was mass-produced (standard issue sort of thing) or a one-off?
      >
      > Jon/Todde

      It's late enough in period that they knew about movable type so
      I wouldn't discount it. Certainly bookstamps were known and
      medieval pottery stamps, and say for example - Fruit and wine
      presses. People knew no doubt how to use a lever and block
      printing was already known. Henry VIII's reign was rather late.
      Using this hypothesis you could fairly easily design a press.
      It wouldn't have to be screwed.

      The use of matrices and patrices to make stamped sheet metal
      dress and helmet accessories was well known. They were generally
      thickly cast tiles of copper alloy - the metal sheet was placed
      across them and a layer of lead was put atop and hammered to
      impress the foil onto/into the design. This is a technique
      going at least back to the Greeks - the Scythian and Thracian
      treasures were made frequently this way, so were the Valsgarde
      pre-Viking Age helmet plaques.

      The idea of using impression stamps for leather is not original
      with me. I learned it from one of a couple of Encyclopedias of
      Crafting or some such title, currently buried behind a bunch of
      stuff.

      One of the guys on the Authenticity list cited a horn bracer
      found on the Mary Rose, along with eleven leather bracers.
      I looked and have:
      Margaret Rule's _Mary Rose_
      Alexander McKee's _How We Found the Mary Rose_
      The Mary Rose travelling _Exhibition Catalog_
      The two _National Geographic_ Articles
      One from _Discover Magazine_
      One from _Popular Mechanics_ on the raising only.
      What's in Bradbury's _The English Medieval Archer_
      Thomas Hardy's _History of the Longbow_, with a chapter on the
      Mary Rose, recently updated again I understand.

      What's in these produced two or three further designs for
      bracers - none as good as the one in the article, generally
      small and indistinct views. I really wish the Mary Rose
      Trust would issue a much better book.

      I happened to look today because the other guy has information
      somewhere (like me) on the horn bracer, which appeared in NONE
      of the books. There were a number of leather items, like a
      jack, a shoe or two, a leather bottel, the big leather arrow
      spacer discs for a couple dozen.

      Apparently they may have been mass produced, as some were
      apparently from the Queen Mother's reign, at least they were said
      to have her pomegranite symbol on them. One of the small drawings
      had multiple round designs stamped across it in four or so
      rows, but did not look to me like it was impressed.
      Another seemed to be slightly familiar to the Dalton bracer
      and in my opinion could have been impressed. Of the eleven
      leather bracers I saw maybe three. Maybe because of condition,
      maybe because of duplication.

      Figure these were being mass manufactured and stored for use
      in multiple depots over the kingdom, and Henry's time was
      a fairly tempestuous one, as were the preceding reigns. Henry
      was fighting France for part of it. So, given the slim survivals
      of the stuff, I'd have to assume it was fairly likely.
      I mean they required things like six feathers from every goose
      in the kingdom, amassed many tens of thousands, possibly over
      a million arrows, in various store houses, every ship delivering
      wine to England also had to also import yew bow staves from Spain
      and Italy, large numbers of arrowheads were also produced.
      A competent archer might shoot ten per minute or more.
      Keeping them in supplies during a battle necessitated wagons
      full of arrows. Figure thousands of archers. A fantastic
      number of arrows raining on the enemy, and their maddened steeds.
      Eye slits were small for a very good reason.

      So you have what? You have a literal industry in various parts
      of the country producing enough stuff to shoot possibly hundreds
      of thousands of arrows in a medieval battle. No wonder the French
      never had much of a chance at Crecy, Potiers, and Agincourt.
      (Why they repeated the experience is beyond me.)
      I see no reason that armguards (and the Dalton one looks very
      standardized) to have standardized designs. Stamp it, cut around
      it, put on the straps.

      I used to make furniture. I needed large numbers of parts.
      I kept shelves full and I standardized how I made them.
      The tenons I cut, and I sometimes cut hundreds of tenons on
      stretchers and aprons a day, I could keep within 5 thousandths
      of an inch. I could have dry assembled my furniture and pegged
      it without the glue. And I cut several hours worth of time off
      each piece of my predecessor. You probably wouldn't believe
      how fast I could cut tenons and shoulders. Three sides of each
      tenon in twenty seconds, piled to cut the fourth side after
      I moved my jig/fence it slid on later.

      Why would medieval craftsmen be different? Their world was more
      regulated, but they sure as hell weren't stupid, and they likely
      got paid per piece - especially in the case of archery munitions.
      The bows were in boxes, just like modern guns are shipped and
      delivered, right from the storehouses.

      Their master craftmen's work is difficult for our master craftsmen
      to duplicate now. Winchester candlestand anyone? How about a
      magnificent silver ship nef for the table?

      Prior to Mary Rose there were only a couple of arrows that
      could be said to be medieval, and perhaps a bow or two.
      Mary Rose produced about two hundred bows, a couple thousand
      arrows, and attendant gear. Most of the horn string nocks didn't
      survive but a couple did, and the lighter shadow markings in
      the places where they were is there. One arrowhead - very
      rusted survived. So - a literal treasure trove.

      > > I do have the original article on the leather Henry VIII
      bracer.
      > > I've scaled it up to right size and at some point I may redo
      > > the design to reflect our Windmasters Hill Baronial Archery
      Corps,
      > > or the Atlantian archery groups in general, by carving the
      > > design into a linoleum block and using a large wood vise or a
      can
      > > press to impress it into the leather. Archers here are very
      active.
      > > - I got a lot of practice carving linoleum blocks when I was
      > > a teenage artist. I did dozens of the things - mostly animals.
      > >
      > > Dalton, O. M.: A Late Medieval Bracer in the British Museum;
      > > in the _Antiquaries Journal July, 1922, (Vol. II, No. 3)_
      > > reprint, pp. 208-10 with illustration. Archery.
    • Melanie Wilson Belgium
      In Europe the copyright is 100years. A company will only tend to sue on commercial grounds not just cause they feel like it , so if you sell copies og Book X
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In Europe the copyright is 100years. A company will only tend to sue on
        commercial grounds not just cause they feel like it , so if you sell copies
        og Book X you are more likely to be sued than if you do on or two copies for
        friends. Web law is even vaguer !

        You should if worried make reasonable steps to contact the coptright holder,
        eg write & ask ! If they say yes no probs, if they say no you can't if they
        don't reply you can assume (fairly safely) you have tried to gain
        permission. And copy with full credit. If later you are asked to withdraw
        you must, generally the law will respect reasonable behgaviour particularly
        for acedemic use.

        Non of this holds any guarentee but is just the way I personally understand
        it works, to be sure you could contact a lawyer (ouch)

        Hope that helps

        Mel
      • Jonathan T Getty
        I actually ended up asking a lawyer because I had to call the Student Advocate here about a car repair shop that killed my engine (and the call is free, so why
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I actually ended up asking a lawyer because I had to call the Student
          Advocate here about a car repair shop that killed my engine (and the call
          is free, so why not :)

          Anyway, she says a 1922 copyright (unless extended by an act of Congress
          you don't know about) is expired, period. She also points out that Mickey
          (who's a bit of a special case anyway) was renewed before his copyright
          ran out, 2003 if Magnus has the right date. So in principle, if you
          posted a WWI-era article today, and congress extended the copyright later,
          your use would have occured while the copyright laxed.

          However, as Melanie pointed out, anybody can sue anyone for anything, but
          the web and the academic nature of the posting are natural protections.

          But thanks for the exensive post, Magnus... I learned more than I would
          have learned from the article, and I'll try to ILL it.

          Jon/Todde
        • Melanie Wilson Belgium
          ... you don t know about) is expired, period. If in the US, in the UK when they fell into line with Europe, expired copyrights, became copyrighted again
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            >Anyway, she says a 1922 copyright (unless extended by an act of Congress
            you don't know about) is expired, period.

            If in the US, in the UK when they fell into line with Europe, expired
            copyrights, became copyrighted again although I don't think retrospective
            action could be taken but new infrigment eg now was is not allowed, very
            complex.

            My sister know more than me her line exactly :) (BBC lawyer)

            >She also points out that Mickey
            (who's a bit of a special case anyway) was renewed before his copyright
            ran out, 2003 if Magnus has the right date. So in principle, if you
            posted a WWI-era article today, and congress extended the copyright later,
            your use would have occured while the copyright laxed.

            Yes but in European law your use after extension would possibily not be
            valid. Also if the article was a European one our copyright should overide
            any US law

            >However, as Melanie pointed out, anybody can sue anyone for anything, but
            the web and the academic nature of the posting are natural protections.

            Not natural but they make sueing not as commercially attractive :)

            Mel
          • Marc Carlson
            ... (Note: I m not a professional lawyer, so this has no legal standing. OTOH, I am an Interlibrary Loan Librarian, which means that this stuff keeps me
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At 08:48 PM 7/2/01 +0100, Mel wrote:
              >>If in the US, in the UK when they fell into line with Europe, expired
              >>copyrights, became copyrighted again although I don't think retrospective
              >>action could be taken but new infrigment eg now was is not allowed, very
              >>complex.

              (Note: I'm not a professional lawyer, so this has no legal standing. OTOH, I am
              an Interlibrary Loan Librarian, which means that this stuff keeps me employed :) )

              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 believe the UK and the US are signatories of even the most recent Berne and
              Vague, er, Hague, and the Universal Copy Conventions rules. Ultimately this
              means that if you copy without permission, you may be violating copyright,
              whether or not you intend to profit financially.

              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.
              The Berne convention recognizes neither of these as valid. However,
              neither British Law nor US Law would supercede either -- international
              violations are covered by the BC.

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

              Marc
            • Melanie Wilson Belgium
              I m not a lawyer & have no US law experiance at all, but here is my opinion.... ... previously uncopywritten material. The purpose was to keep things from
              Message 6 of 13 , 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
              • Marc Carlson
                ... That is the final *ahem* arbiter of such things. I don t know -- it doesn t sound like anything that English Common Law would support any more than it s
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 3, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 07:29 AM 7/3/01 +0100, Mel wrote:
                  >>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.

                  That is the final *ahem* arbiter of such things. I don't know -- it doesn't sound like
                  anything that English Common Law would support any more than it's American
                  descendant.

                  OTOH, for a long time, International Copyright was not recognized in this country, and
                  with the acceptence of the BC in 1988, many things that were in the Public Domain,
                  may have been taken out of it. However, under the United States Code, Section 17,
                  once something's in the Public Domain in the US, it tends to stay there. New copyright
                  laws (as a rule) have only protected newer materials, or changed events that could be
                  occuring in the future (for example, if two items were to fall from copyright protection within
                  a year of each other, and after the first one did, a law was passed extending the time
                  of protection, the second would benefit from the added time, the first would not)

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

                  There is also the difference between what the law says, and what people are allowing
                  to happen. For example, companies like "Deja.News" that archive and broadly
                  rebroadcast archives of old newsgroups are violating copyright (on this discussion
                  group, we have the option of making the archives closed), just like I would be if I started
                  publicly started presenting a videotape of some recent movie -- even if I were doing it
                  for free.

                  >>...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.

                  Which means that (under the old rules interpretation) that the owner could be construed as
                  abandoning copyright. Under the newer rules, that means that the one copier is probably
                  still stealing, even if he's just lucky enough that no one wants to prosecute. Running a
                  stoplight is still illegal, whether you strike a pedestrian or not.

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

                  That's correct. Generally, British books, in the US, that were published before 1923, are public domain
                  in the US - unless you go with a strict interpretation of the Millenium Act (and over-ride the US Code) then it's
                  1905. So, international materials printed between 1905 and 1923 are, well, fuzzy -- and will stay that way until
                  the courts fix it, or until 2017 when the two dates merge (isn't that one of the dates predicted for the end
                  of the world?)

                  >>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).

                  That just means that you shouldn't share it.

                  A really good example of a very frustrating work is: Baker, Oliver. Black Jacks and Leather Bottells, 1921.

                  In the US, it's in public domain, and I'd *love* to turn it into a web-site or an ebook, since it's so hard for people to find.
                  But no. Since the 'Net covers more than the borders of the US, I'd be happier if I knew some other things, like when he died,
                  and who currently owns those rights under the most conservative interpretation of things (since he used a number of private publishers, we can be pretty sure the rights stuck with the author).

                  Marc
                • Melanie Wilson Belgium
                  ... interpretation of things (since he used a number of private publishers, we can be pretty sure the rights stuck with the author). Isn t the Copyright
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 3, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >and who currently owns those rights under the most conservative
                    interpretation of things (since he used a number of private publishers, we
                    can be pretty sure the rights stuck with the author).

                    Isn't the Copyright database held at Texas University ?

                    I'd try there first.

                    Mel
                  • Marc Carlson
                    ... I think that s US copyright holders. Baker was one of you lot :) Marc
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 3, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Melanie Wilson Belgium wrote:
                      > Isn't the Copyright database held at Texas University ?
                      > I'd try there first.

                      I think that's US copyright holders. Baker was one of you lot :)

                      Marc
                    • Melanie Wilson Belgium
                      ... I thought it was supposed to be Worldwide, but I think it has a like to the UK version in any case ! I have the link at home in Blighty, so if no joy shout
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >I think that's US copyright holders. Baker was one of you lot :)

                        I thought it was supposed to be Worldwide, but I think it has a like to the
                        UK version in any case !

                        I have the link at home in Blighty, so if no joy shout in a week or so

                        Mel
                      • Marc Carlson
                        ... Not that I found, but that doesn t mean it s not there. ... I just mentioned it as an option, something I wanted to do at one time, not something that I
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 4, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Melanie Wilson Belgium wrote:
                          > I thought it was supposed to be Worldwide, but I think it has a like to the
                          > UK version in any case !

                          Not that I found, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

                          > I have the link at home in Blighty, so if no joy shout in a week or so

                          I just mentioned it as an option, something I wanted to do at one
                          time, not
                          something that I wanted to do this week :) Thanks though.

                          marc
                        • Marc Carlson
                          ... Not a problem. The next time it comes up as an option, I ll be sure to remind you :) Marc
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 4, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Melanie Wilson Belgium wrote:
                            > sorry but if I don't say you can be sure I'll forget

                            Not a problem. The next time it comes up as an option, I'll be
                            sure
                            to remind you :)

                            Marc
                          • Melanie Wilson Belgium
                            ... time, not something that I wanted to do this week :) Thanks though. sorry but if I don t say you can be sure I ll forget Mel
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jul 4, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >I just mentioned it as an option, something I wanted to do at one
                              time, not
                              something that I wanted to do this week :) Thanks though.

                              sorry but if I don't say you can be sure I'll forget

                              Mel
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.