As the one who started this thread, I just wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with Richard in his attitude to copyright works. My own problem arose (long ago) when in Richard’s words, I tried to reach the creator (strictly speaking the copyright owner, as the work includes copyright material from different sources, collected and licensed by the publisher of the CD-ROM which I wanted to revive for new media). I made the mistake of mentioning copyright in my first attempt to communicate, and got a boilerplate reply which didn’t cover my case. I made quite big efforts to find an individual to correspond with, but failed. So, if I do the job now, it will be as a hobbyist and it will come under the “private study” rules, I suppose.
As an aside (OK, pretty OT), the history of copyright protection is quite fascinating. At one time, the USA was a major defaulter (see for example https://www.alcs.co.uk/news/charles-dickens-copyright-pioneer) Another area of interest, which if it weren’t so OT, I’d like to hear Richard’s views on, is the ongoing battle between the VPN-using community and the increasing number of streaming services. I guess most people here know what I’m talking about. Graham > On 24 Jan 2022, at 01:24, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > Thank you for the mention, Jeff. Without your adding that here I would have > missed Richmond's reference; he's among a small number of members I generally > don't read anymore (so much to learn, so little signal in a noisy world...) > > FWIW I agree with what you wrote, and felt it was important enough to quote > it in whole below. Thank you for taking the time to write that. > > > Richmond's original comment about me was: > > Richard Gaskin will probably now come after me with the castrating > > irons.? > > How you arrive at your legal and ethical choices is entirely up to you. > Unless it involves my work it doesn't affect me. Knock yourself out. > > > For the other readers here, I don't mind sharing a personal opinion on > copyright law: > > > There are some details of US copyright statutes I don't much care for, > particularly the control one giant American corporation has held over US > copyright expiration ("Steamboat Willy", I'm looking at you). > > But overall I not only do my best to conform to US and applicable > international copyright law per the terms of the contracts I sign, I > wholeheartedly celebrate it. > > IMO the Berne Convention, which lies at the heart of most copyright law among > signatory nations, exemplifies a profound wisdom we all benefit from, esp the > readers here, since most of us earn our living from intellectual property. > > It holds that at the very moment of the creation of any original creative > work, the creator of that work has sole authority over it. > > Let that sink in. Savor it. It's wonderfully delicious. > > It recognizes that creative effort is a uniquely valuable human activity, and > maintains as a matter of international legal guidance the sanctity of the act > of creation. > > Man, if nations could agree on anything else so beautifully principled our > Spaceship Earth might be a paradise. :) > > I love it so much that when I come across old works I'm interested in that > appear to be abandoned, I try to reach the creator or current rights holder > to see what can be done to re-use it. > > It's the least I can do. If I am to embrace the excitingly bold spirit of the > Berne Convention, I'm obliged to not only enjoy its fruits but to also honor > its responsibilities. > > It is not for me to assume control of any other creator's work. > > In honoring copyright, I'm creating of a world where copyright is honored. > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Fourth World Systems > > > > Jeff Reynolds wrote: > >> Richmond, >> And I’ll be right there with Richard. >> Just because it’s not being supported does not remove copyrights. You know >> that’s a stupid argument. Maybe fine with your own morals but it’s not how >> copyright works. As a content creator for over 4 decades of my professional >> life I really hate that attitude of self justification. Fine for your own >> use but if you want to redistribute it then get the rights. Not for profit >> label has nothing to do with the rights involved. >> I have experience working in and with media companies and licensing others’ >> materials and having others licensing ours. We were told all the time by >> management and legal to not respond to requests to license unless management >> was interested in the proposal and they would handle that. I thought it >> pretty strange that a denial letter could cause any issues and may have just >> been paranoia or don’t waste your time but those were the instructions. >> Getting an odd bob out out of relicensing an old project involves figuring >> out who you are getting in bed with and if you even want to get into bed >> with them in the first place, time to come to an agreement, research out the >> original projects licensing (media projects are rife with licensed media >> that at times are not transferable or require additional permission and/or >> payments), create and agree on a contract, deliver the goods, then make sure >> everything is being done as contracted. That’s not simple and all the steps >> cost time and money and usually folks are not willing to pay much for the >> rights to cover these costs, let alone a profit. >> I’ve done this process a couple of times with old projects and it was way >> more work than I thought it would be and that was with a very good >> relationship with the rights holder (I built the original product for them) >> and in good rights situations. One was easy and owner was happy with a >> handshake on the deal until I had a product to sell and then we would pen a >> contract. I totally trusted him he would honor the handshake (and I’m still >> absolutely sure he would have, very good chap), but a year and a half later >> he ended up having to sell the rights, so our handshake of course was no >> longer good. He was transparent about all this and I just did the hand shake >> as it would have been a good chunk of change with lawyer to pen the rights >> contract and I didn’t have a publisher onboard yet. So even in the best of >> situations things can go sideways on these kinds of things and life is not >> as simple as you think it is Richmond. >> I was approached by an old employer about resurrecting an old commercial >> cdrom project. I knew the rights had changed hands a couple of times, so my >> first question was who has the rights now and have you secured them? His >> response was well it’s abandoned and one of the publishers that were >> distributing the product to the education market (that wanted to partner >> with him on this deal) thought they could do it under their publishing >> agreement. Again I questioned did they have a full rights deal or just a >> publishing contract (I knew from the original days on the project we had >> very specific publishing contracts with different channels like Apple, media >> distributor and some educational publishers and they were rabid about >> retaining the work’s rights). Response was they feel confident they could >> stretch it legally. He then tried to say well we could construe this to be >> in then public domain as most paid for with public/private partnership money >> from NSF and EPA grants. I had to laugh in his face as they had made sure >> that even with this public money the company had complete rights to >> everything. I said I’d be happy to talk to him (and spend my own time) about >> it once he can put through the lawyers. He did and planning abruptly stopped. >> The real killer usually is that media licensed in the original work was not >> contracted for sub licensing, transfer, or reuse or requires new payments. >> Sounds like something most would plan for to allow better life for their >> products, but I was amazed how many times this was not done or, at times, >> even thought of. >> Sorry I’ve been around this tree too many times. > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
