woolard@uns-helios.nevada.edu (Mike Woolard) (07/19/89)
I have been a Nagel art fanatic for quite some time, and have had quite a time trying to obtain any *.gif's of his work. Will anyone on the net be so graciously kind to send some of their collection to me??? I would be 4ever thankful!!! woolard@uns-helios.nevada.edu
stratton@mrsvr.UUCP (Ninja Programmer) (07/21/89)
From article <710@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU>, by woolard@uns-helios.nevada.edu (Mike Woolard): > I have been a Nagel art fanatic for quite some time, and have > had quite a time trying to obtain any *.gif's of his work. Will anyone > on the net be so graciously kind to send some of their collection to me??? Me too!!! I have been collecting his art for about 3-4 years, even before he became "real" tm. popular. I would like to get some of those .gifs as well!!! GcS -- My address is stratton@mrsvr.uucp {uwvax, rutgers}uwmcsd1!mrsvr!stratton Thanx alot in advance Greg S.
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (07/22/89)
A couple of people write: > > I have been a Nagel art fanatic for quite some time, and have > > had quite a time trying to obtain any *.gif's of his work. Will anyone > > on the net be so graciously kind to send some of their collection to me??? > Me too!!! I have been collecting his art for about 3-4 years, > even before he became "real" tm. popular. I would like to > get some of those .gifs as well!!! Come on people, get real. Nagel's works are NOT public domain. They are protected by copyright. Copyright protection includes derivative works as in digitized versions. If you really love Nagel's work, buy some. It looks a lot better and is much easier to hang on your wall than a monitor. Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy ...they're fuckin' with me, subliminally.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/22/89)
Just because the guy is dead doesn't give you the right to violate his copyright. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "A char, a short int, and Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | an int bit-field were walking Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | through the forest..."
dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (07/27/89)
In article <5200@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Just because the guy is dead doesn't give you the right to violate his > copyright. As much as I respect others copyrights and intellectual property, I am quite sure that these posters of flames are just a little to holier-than-thou. Remember those cute line printer "posters" from the 70's? Snoopy -- copyright United Syndicate. Tweety -- copyright Warner Bros. Enterprise -- copyright Paramount Pictures. My guess is few of us in our lives haven't obtained or re-created then image of copyright material. And as long as it is for private use, not for resale or public display, it is permissable. As for this net being used as a trading forum, no. Go elsewhere. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
cab@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (CAB) (07/28/89)
Respectfully Dave, copyrights are a means of maintaining the value and ownership of creative property. Creating anything, especially something of significant value, takes a lot of effort. If a work someone else has created has value to you, and you want to own it, it is only fair that you compensate that person, unless he or she refuses to take your money or barter :-). Copyright law merely formalizes this contract, which continues to exist, even after the artist's death. as Peter sez: > In article <5200@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Just because the guy is dead doesn't give you the right to violate his > > copyright. > As much as I respect others copyrights and intellectual property, I am > quite sure that these posters of flames are just a little to holier-than-thou. > > Remember those cute line printer "posters" from the 70's? > > My guess is few of us in our lives haven't obtained or re-created then image > of copyright material. And as long as it is for private use, not for resale > or public display, it is permissable. The only place you err in your statement is where you redefine the fair use clause of copyright law. It is generally not permissible to take someone's work without compensation, even if it is for private use. -- -CAB- _____/ _ || _\___ lNYCl_ ______ __|) Standard disclaimer. == (0) (0)
dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (08/01/89)
In article <2685@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, cab@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (CAB) writes: > > The only place you err in your statement is where you redefine the fair use > clause of copyright law. It is generally not permissible to take someone's > work without compensation, even if it is for private use. Respectfully, I believe that private use is legitimate use. For example, taping movies from HBO on your VCR for private viewing is is acceptable. These are almost certainly are copyrighted materials and are used in whole. (This was a big court case several years ago and was ruled OK.) Taping a CD for my car is legititate use. Copying a poem for school at the copier in the *library* provided for just such use, is a legitimate use. For works of art, typically, the artist *sells* the piece and relinquishes rights to the work. That is, the buyer may display the work publically or whatever they wish to do with the work. A Picasso book will credit the owner of the work (private or museum, not Picasso or his heirs) when they publish a reproduction of the work. Permission of the owner is required not the artist, per se. Although I myself live by intellectual property and have the greatest respect for others who live similarly, the photocopy of Bloom County I have in my office for my private use and the scanned and enhanced image of Bill the Cat (accckk!) that I have on a Mac disk for my private use are my business. Is there anyone here with a definitive "correct" legal viewpoint rather than the rank amateurs, myself included, pontificating on this subject? Which types of work have "private use/fair use" protection? Which types of work transfer implicit copyrights to the owner, even if not protected? (Ie, most "art" is not copyrighted. How does one copyright a sculpture or and oil painting?) I am curious, opininated and but not a lawyer. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/02/89)
>In article <2685@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, cab@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (CAB) writes: >> >> The only place you err in your statement is where you redefine the fair use >> clause of copyright law. It is generally not permissible to take someone's >> work without compensation, even if it is for private use. > >Respectfully, I believe that private use is legitimate use. For example, >taping movies from HBO on your VCR for private viewing is is acceptable. >These are almost certainly are copyrighted materials and are used in whole. >(This was a big court case several years ago and was ruled OK.) >Taping a CD for my car is legititate use. Copying a poem for school at the >copier in the *library* provided for just such use, is a legitimate use. YES these things are covered by what is known as "Fair use" FAIR USE A rule permitting the use of a copyrighted work, without permission of the copyright owner, when done for private and non-commercial reasons. Fair use rulings are decided on a case by case basis and depend upon a number of factors: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit, educational purposes the nature of the copyrighted work the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work > >For works of art, typically, the artist *sells* the piece and relinquishes >rights to the work. That is, the buyer may display the work publically or >whatever they wish to do with the work. A Picasso book will credit the >owner of the work (private or museum, not Picasso or his heirs) when they >publish a reproduction of the work. Permission of the owner is required >not the artist, per se. WRONG -- copyright law quite clearly states that mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright. > >Although I myself live by intellectual property and have the greatest >respect for others who live similarly, the photocopy of Bloom County >I have in my office for my private use and the scanned and enhanced image >of Bill the Cat (accckk!) that I have on a Mac disk for my private use >are my business. YES -- these are clearly covered by "fair use" as it is private, non-commercial, and does not affect the market value of those works or potential derivatives of those works. > >Is there anyone here with a definitive "correct" legal viewpoint rather than >the rank amateurs, myself included, pontificating on this subject? >Which types of work have "private use/fair use" protection? Which types >of work transfer implicit copyrights to the owner, even if not protected? >(Ie, most "art" is not copyrighted. How does one copyright a sculpture or >and oil painting?) COPYRIGHT Protection exists for "original works of authorship" (and this is very broadly defined) when they become fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation does not need to be directly perceptible (computer code), so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories (and define these very broadly) (1) literary works; (2) musical works; including any accompanying words (3) dramatic works, including music (4) pantomimes and choreographic (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings This means that when the sculptor steps back from his work and says "ah, finished" at that moment his work is copyrighted. Copyrights generally last for 50 years. > >I am curious, opininated and but not a lawyer. I am also not a lawyer, just an interested lay person. It does seem to me that sending scanned images of artwork still covered by copyrights around the net is a clear violation of copyright law because (a) it is not for private use and (b) it could impact the market value of such works. > >-- >David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. >micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu > >"The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll People who want more info on Copyright law or a bibliography email me directly arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu --Edward Shelton, Project Manager ARCH Development Corp. The University of Chicago 1101 E. 58th Street Walker 213 Chicago, IL 60637
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (08/03/89)
In article <817@micropen>, dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) writes: > In article <2685@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, cab@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (CAB) writes: > > > > The only place you err in your statement is where you redefine the fair use > > clause of copyright law. It is generally not permissible to take someone's > > work without compensation, even if it is for private use. > > Respectfully, I believe that private use is legitimate use. For example, > taping movies from HBO on your VCR for private viewing is is acceptable. > These are almost certainly are copyrighted materials and are used in whole. > (This was a big court case several years ago and was ruled OK.) > Taping a CD for my car is legititate use. Copying a poem for school at the > copier in the *library* provided for just such use, is a legitimate use. Whoa. Hold on. I think your examples are getting a little bit out of the picture. When you tape a CD for use in your car, that is covered by the concept of fair use ONLY if you own the CD. You have already purchased the right to use that CD and taping it for use in your car is excercising that right. When you tape a movie off HBO you have already paid for the right to view the movie. Now if you give either tape to a friend that is not fair use but is instead called piracy. Just because it is for the private use of your friend doesn't make any difference. Getting back to Nagels, if I buy "The Book" and digitize some of the art work in it that falls under fair use. If I distribute those images, I have violated the copyright law. > David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. > micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy
stratton@mrsvr.UUCP (Ninja Programmer) (08/04/89)
Will the guy who wanted the Nagels, Please E-mail mail me, and
we can talk, I may be able to help you.
GcS
--
My address is stratton@mrsvr.uucp
{uwvax, rutgers}uwmcsd1!mrsvr!stratton
Thanx alot in advance Greg S.sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (08/04/89)
In article <4780@tank.uchicago.edu> arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >I am also not a lawyer, just an interested lay person. It >does seem to me that sending scanned images of artwork still >covered by copyrights around the net is a clear violation >of copyright law because (a) it is not for private use and >(b) it could impact the market value of such works. a> maybe.... b> how??? "No. I won't buy that original Nagel, 'cuz I have a GIF version of it already." no way! The ownership of the GIF image will in no way lower the sales or market value of the original. All it can accomplish is to make the Artist more well-known. This could INCREASE the value of the paintings. I know... I may be ignorant but: I never heard of Nagel until I saw some of the drawings ported to IFF images on my Amiga. Now I do know about Nagel. Looks like a positive influence to me, not a negative one. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Beware of quantum ducks: Quark, Quark.
arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/06/89)
(regarding my comment that sending GIF versions of Nagel's paintings could negatively affect their market value) > >a> maybe.... > >b> how??? "No. I won't buy that original Nagel, 'cuz I have a GIF version of it >already." no way! The ownership of the GIF image will in no way lower the >sales or market value of the original. All it can accomplish is to make the >Artist more well-known. This could INCREASE the value of the paintings. PLEASE UNDERSTAND -- it is not a question of increasing or decreasing the value of the painting -- it is a question of decreasing the value of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY which includes ANY derivative works. In other words, the owners of the Nagel copyrights might decide to come out with a library of GIF format Nagels. This is their right -- to produce any derivative works from works which they hold the copyright to... By making GIF copies freely available over the net, the value of the derivative works is decreased (that is, it would become harder for the copyright owners to sell GIF format Nagels) and thus the value of the overal INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (not the painting per se) is decreased. If you really want to distribute GIF copies of Nagel paintings, contact the copyright owner and request permission for the rights to ELECTRONIC versions of Nagels work. You will probably be asked to pay a royalty. > Edward Shelton arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu > > > >--
td@alice.UUCP (Tom Duff) (08/07/89)
micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu says: > Respectfully, I believe that private use [of copies of copyright works] > is legitimate use. I say: People who believe this dreamer deserves anything that happens to them. The law is not nearly as simple (or stupid) as he would have you believe. There is no protection in copyright law for `private use.' `Fair use', which is protected, is not private use. Of his examples, only one is currently protected (copying TV broadcasts off-air for later viewing.) (This is a result of the Disney/Paramount vs. Betamax case.) None of the other instances he cites are permissible without the permission of the copyright owner.
neil@calvin.ksu.ksu.edu (Neil Erdwien) (08/17/89)
A comment on the copyright questions. I recently purchased a Nagel calendar. On the back is the following notice: Any removal of any of the artwork contained in this calendar and mounting of same onto or within any foreign material constitutes an infringement of copyright under Federal Law and will be vigorously prosecuted. It looks to me like they don't want people framing and hanging the posters after the calendar is used. It certainly seems to me that if I buy a print (as part of a calendar) I can frame it if I desire.
stratton@mrsvr.UUCP (Greg Stratton) (08/18/89)
From article <3099@deimos.cis.ksu.edu>, by neil@calvin.ksu.ksu.edu (Neil Erdwien): > A comment on the copyright questions. I recently purchased a Nagel > calendar. On the back is the following notice: > > It looks to me like they don't want people framing and hanging the posters > after the calendar is used. It certainly seems to me that if I buy a print > (as part of a calendar) I can frame it if I desire. You are absolutely correct. You can do anything you want with thoose prints, except copy them and give/sell them. If you want to frame them and put them on your wall. Go right ahead, and pray that the sue you. You will get a nice settlement, and be setup for life. GcS
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (08/18/89)
In article <3099@deimos.cis.ksu.edu>, neil@calvin.ksu.ksu.edu (Neil Erdwien) writes: > A comment on the copyright questions. I recently purchased a Nagel > calendar. On the back is the following notice: > > Any removal of any of the artwork contained in this calendar > and mounting of same onto or within any foreign material > constitutes an infringement of copyright under Federal Law > and will be vigorously prosecuted. > > It looks to me like they don't want people framing and hanging the posters > after the calendar is used. It certainly seems to me that if I buy a print > (as part of a calendar) I can frame it if I desire. Yes you can. When "The Art of Patrick Nagel" (the book) was released I noticed a lot of stores cutting the books apart, framing the pictures, and selling them individually. I guess that this "clause" in the copyright notice is an attempt to stop that sort of thing. If it came to a court battle I would assume the the lawyers would claim that selling the pieces of the calendar seperately constitutes a derivative work and is therefore a violation of the copyright. As far as home use goes you should be able to do whatever you want, except, of course, digitizing the images and sending them out over the net. :-) Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy