To all who think everything written can be COPYRIGHTED

Create a Post
BUDDY

BUDDY

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Founding Member
Joined
Nov 23, 1997
Posts
11,973
Loc
Mandeville, LA USA
Business
retired
In another thread there was a frankenthread of a topic about Tagging guns and it went to the fact that all written material was the property of the author and as such was automatically copyrighted. This has one true aspect Copyrights start immediately upon the completion of the work and not when they are REGISTERED with the COPYRIGHT AGENCY.

But in the same link given to prove the above was true is also a comment about what can be Copyrighted ( noteing that not every written work can or will be)
It reads;
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

Please pay aprticular attention to the last two bullets of this segment.

Also note that Many major Companys ( like DELL) discontinue services that may in any way allow the real copyrightable material to be included for fear of missing them and being supceptable to Law suits.

But I think this clearly states that not all written material is copyrightable and I also know haveing filed for CopyRights on my own that the Agency you file with is meremly a regitry and not a prosicuteable agency but can have the Federal prosicuttors office defend their registrations if the registant id=s indegent and unable to litigate.

But I am no Privacy Acy lawyer nor do I belive any one here is so check with a lawyer .
BUDDY
 
Duh

BUDDY said:
But I am no Privacy Acy lawyer nor do I belive any one here is ....
BUDDY
Click to expand...

Obviously.

What is not equally obvious is the purpose of this thread. Why would you initiate conversation with a group of people who are obviously unqualified to comment on the chosen topic?

For once I'm totally stumped.
 
I initiated it to give some input about the fact that some things aren't able to be copyrighted and IMO the one being discussed is listed among those that this link says aren't.

But unlike You MrObvious, I don't think everything is OBVIOUS to me or most others with out some professional interpetation and then from a specialist since it maynot be Obvious to even ALL lawyers.

However It was fairly OBVIOUS that the person makeing the claim and giveing the link not only hadn't consulted a specailist but I don't think read the entire link they furnished.

So I thought I'd advise others to do both in an effort to help those who wanted my input.But if you have better advise please give all OBVIOUS additions or improvements.
BUDDY
 
Lets be honest in the copyright arena there are many grey areas, or things that can be pushed into the grey to help one and hurt another. By reading whatever words are here most likely will just confuse most of us even more. So go to someone who knows. Remember do what you do best and pay someone for the rest=less headaches and mistakes.


PL
 
What affects us more directly is not what is copyrightable, but what people THINK is copyrightable.

Example: Someone brings in an antique wedding veil to be framed. The framer is proud of the results, and photographs the finished piece to put in an idea book on the counter. Customer sees the photo and claims that they "own the rights to that veil", and want the photo removed from the idea book.*


Who owns the copyright(s)?

If the veil is an antique, the design of the veil is probably public domain.
The makers of the molding in the frame probably have a copyright on their molding design.
The framer can rightly claim "ownership" of the design of the entire piece, but probably doesn't really care.
The customer, while being the owner of the actual objects, probably does not have any copyright priviledges at all.

The only thing that is certain is that the PHOTO of the frame is copyrightable by the photographer.

Still... If the photographer tries to sell the photo to a stock company, the stock company will probably ask for a property release from the framer, or molding designer, or both.

If the framer wants to use the photo in mass produced advertising, they may want to check with the molding source, for permission. (even though, technically, it is not needed, by advertising clauses) If the framer is not the photographer, they will want permission from the photograper.

Very little of this has to do with actual copyright law, but with the perception of it. "Permission from the photographer" might be as simple as the photographer saying, "sure, use that in your ad." Requiring no lawyer or paperwork, or actual copyrighting.

*no matter who "owns the copyright" of the veil in the photo, if the customer really doesn't want the picture of their physical property in the idea book, then take it out of the book. They can't force you, but why tick them off for no good reason? Sometimes, you can come to an agreement, such as, "How about if I add a label to it, naming you as the owner?"

Most "copyright " issues really boil down to this sort of verbal negotiation.
 
Hanna Is what you just said ( i'm not sure if that either.LOL) the same or at least very close to ,"Also note that Many major Companys ( like DELL) discontinue services that may in any way allow the real copyrightable material to be included for fear of missing them and being supceptable to Law suits."

The key phrase being "that may in any way allow real Copyrightable material tobe included and missed."( paraphraseing) biggest thig is May and Missed if it is.So they just refuse to deal with the worry an ddiscontinue the entire poosibility of a error.

But I think if you have just a normal understanding and read the Privacy Act( which was contained in the link Dermot and others gave) you will agree that a lot of things just aren't able to be copy righted.

And IMO simple written conversation on a forum like this is one of them.
BUDDY
 
copyright

I am going to copyright my DNA. This way no one can use my DNA in a court of law. Because part of the DNA extraction & testing process is to copy it.

homey.gif
 
MrObvious said:
Obviously.

What is not equally obvious is the purpose of this thread. Why would you initiate conversation with a group of people who are obviously unqualified to comment on the chosen topic?

For once I'm totally stumped.
Click to expand...

Well don't worry, hopefully the feeling will pass.

Since you are new and have only 10 posts, I think, it is obvious to all of us why you missed the obvious reason for Buddy's post.

Over the years, the issue of copyright has been hashed by framers both here on TG and in all of our industry trade publications. And just as in all areas of law, it is an evolving set of regulations taking aim at a moving target.

Oh, and one thing I have learned the hard way regarding people here on TG and framers overall - be very carefull making blanket statements such as calling us a "group of people who are obviously unqualified to comment on the chosen topic".

HA ! Are you serious?

You might try getting to know more of us. Maybe at the trade show or at a PPFA meeting, or better yet - I, rather all of us, request that fill out your profile information with all the usual contact information. Especially those which are not so obvious.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top