Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I ask, because I have seen some album page designs that would really look great to house my collection. They are no longer available because the company is defunct. However, I can recreate them electronically. I would also like to be able to share them with others who have the same collecting interests.
Any thoughts?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
No, copyright does not necessarily die with the individual or company that initially owned it. There may be documents that transfer ownership to heirs, creditors, etc. That doesn't mean that it remains in effect either, just that death isn't NECESSARILY final in the realm of copyright
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
03:31:47pm
While the term of a copyright for written works is a bit complicated, I recall in one of the Deegam reports, Doug mentioning something about his work being protected for the length of his life +70 years.
There also is a longer term depending on the date when something was written or published.
If someone feels that they may be getting into a problem area, I suggest researching it or seeing an attorney.
Login to Like
this post
When in doubt, if you didn't write it, take the picture, draw it, film it, etc., presume that it is copyrighted and you don't own the rights to it.
Login to Like
this post
I'm going to go a bit contrarian from the consensus here. I think if it were I, I'd just try to research extensively what might have happened to the company or creator of the album designs. (I'm drawing a blank on the artist's name, but is it that artist whose work is sometimes used as the frontispiece or title page for some albums? -- Or is it an entire album layout?)
Anyway, if you can't track anyone down, maybe share them with a few friends first and see what happens. (I'm assuming this is not for money?) Then see where you go from there.
I think the stamp world is pretty atypical in this regard. So often an idea or product or idea lives and dies with its creator. I know I've tried to track down a couple of products in the past (one album, one specialized catalog), and it looks like it (or the business) just died when the developer did.
For what it's worth. Just a different take.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Yes, I agree with that. First presume that a copyright exists, and then do due diligence to ascertain who is the copyright owner. What you find is from what you make the decision of what to do with the material. As long as you can document (keep your records) of what you did to try to find the copyright owner, then you generally won't have anything to worry about should you receive a "cease and desist" letter. Unless you're selling the material, you shouldn't have to worry about getting subpoenaed into court for a lawsuit filed against you.
Login to Like
this post
The term for this type of copyright problem is know as "orphan works" (see further down for the interesting issue of absent/incorrect copyright notice). Unfortunately, just as copyright laws vary from country to country, likewise the solution (or lack of) also varies from country to country. However, in general, there is always the requirement of "due diligence".
The US Copyright Office actually just issued the 2015 Orphan Works Report regarding legislative recommendations for addressing this problem. I hope nobody in the US busted a gut laughing after reading "legislative". It is the typically long report (200+ total pages), but you can look at pages 105-106 for the conclusion.
Some legislation has already passed regarding orphan works in the UK.
*********************
Another topic that some may not be aware of and which you may find interesting is regarding absent or incorrect copyright notices on works published prior to 1989:
Errors in Copyright Notice (scroll down to 3rd Step)
US Copyright Office Interpretation
Don't get me wrong, my purpose is not to give anybody the green light. But if any copyright owner is going to get nit-picky about you making some non-commercial printouts for your album pages, you have the right to get nit-picky back at them.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Ahhhhhhhh.....sanity is back....and there is a God....may the force be with you....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
A good case in point to add to what Chris said is the old Scott International pages, commonly referred to as the "Brown Specialty Pages". Scott discontinued those pages a long time ago. However, the rights to print those pages was purchased from Scott by Subway Stamp Shop. Subway still holds the rights to them.
Just because they are old, doesn't necessarily mean that someone doesn't have the rights to them.
Login to Like
this post
That a company has closed its doors does not mean that no one bought the copyright to their products.
I know of one company whose assets were auctioned-off by a court-appointed liquidator. The owner bought his wife some over-sized sunglasses, and sent her in there to buy the company name (one of the assets), which he promptly used to (re)open the company.
I am not sure that 'fair use' applies; you are not quoting a part of a work in a critical or academic review; you are just copying the work to the same end for which it was created in the first place.
If the work were decorative floor tiles, for example, there is little question that using that design to tile your kitchen floor would not be 'fair use'.
I would make (and document) an effort to locate the copyright owner and, if I failed, I would print the pages, and mount my stamps. I am less sure about distributing the resulting product to others.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
"That a company has closed its doors does not mean that no one bought the copyright to their products."
True. Some ancient trademarks like Studebaker, Packard and Hudson are owned by legacy companies who vigorously protect them and earn money on royalties to this day. Hudson property is owned by Fiat-Chrysler today. Last I looked, Studebaker & Packard was owned by AMF Corp. They charge use royalties for things like model cars, posters and such.
On the other hand, the toy company Topper went belly up and nobody protected their property. A smart operator realized this, and trademarked the "Johnny Lightning" line of miniature cars. His first issues were nostalgic releases of the company's original 1968 cars. That was a start of a very profitable venture!
The ones that bother me, are the folks who find old postcards or photographs and watermark them with their own trademark. It's not theirs, they just happened to right click on it off the Internet.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:00:55pm
Trademarks and Copyrights are distinctly different creatures; Trademark Law and Copyright Law (and the third intellectual property usually associated with them, Patent Law) are comparable only in limited areas, and one should not be confused with the other.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:52:17pm
" ... one should not be confused with the other. ..."
Boy, I'll say, .....
A trade mark is a symbol, which can be a design, a word or phrase that has been legally registered by the owner, that identifies a product and attests to its authenticity.
A copyright is the legal right to use some published work and acquire the benefits derived from the words, art, music et cetera, usually possessed by the creator unless license is granted.
A patent is usually a document given to the person who invents some different process or gadget, that includes a new medications, but not a cooking recipes, which allows the patent owner the right to prevent someone else from using the thing patented.
The three together are an essay question used to befuddle aspiring solicitors.
Login to Like
this post
Is there any reason this discussion does not name the company or albumin question? It would be far easier to get to the nub of the matter knowing the album and the particular elements of the page the OP would like to copy. Are we talking about copying the page border only or actual stamp layouts?
Login to Like
this post
02:23:13pm
@HungaryForStamps
In law school aspiring lawyers are taught to look for the unlikeliest series of events which could lead to legal complications, often called the "worst case scenario." While often these events are so improbable that little or no risk is assessed, the fact that it is possible means we are obligated to caution our clients appropriately. I can envision such a series of events should an identifiable person name titles and provide descriptors, and ultimately a legacy copyright holder discovers this discussion and decides to take action; highly improbable, but the risk is there.
Login to Like
this post
Bobby, purposefully not naming the album for fear the copyright holder might get wind implies an underhanded motive in the first place. Certainly every attempt to inform a potential copyright holder should be made beforehand. Only a profit motive would prevent an honest disclosure.
Login to Like
this post
HungaryForStamps: The obligation to make a reasonable effort to locate the copyright holder before you use their work does not come with an obligation to leave footprints so that they can more easily come after you after you have used their work.
Cheers,
Login to Like
this post
06:26:17am
Lewis
There was no such motive intended and I apologize if such insinuation was an unintentional consequence of my post. In fact, I can categorically state that the originator of this thread is far too ethical to harbor such motive; his integrity is above reproach.
Bobby
Login to Like
this post
Whatever. Sorry to continue to harp on this point. Feel free to ignore. I understand the points made. OP US completely honest but somehow fears repercussions should his actions not be honest. 
The conversation would be greatly improved by knowing the album in question. Barring that, knowing what elements of the page are desirable, whether its layout or border would help. If no shenanigans are planned then there is no reason not to state these facts. Fear of someone with legal rights to the design coming after you should be enough to deter the action in the first place. That said, if the copying is for personal use only, there is nothing to fear. I can't see a scenario in which an honest person would not divulge their innocent potential personal use.
Login to Like
this post
I know that there are a number of old publications that are now considered public domain, because the copyright has expired. However, if a company is no longer in business, does the copyright expire with it? I suppose that if a company is bought out, then the copyright would be transferred. But if a company truly ceases to exist, would the copyright then not be in force? Who would there be to claim an infringement?
I ask, because I have seen some album page designs that would really look great to house my collection. They are no longer available because the company is defunct. However, I can recreate them electronically. I would also like to be able to share them with others who have the same collecting interests.
Any thoughts?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Publication Copyright
No, copyright does not necessarily die with the individual or company that initially owned it. There may be documents that transfer ownership to heirs, creditors, etc. That doesn't mean that it remains in effect either, just that death isn't NECESSARILY final in the realm of copyright
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
10 Aug 2015
03:31:47pm
re: Publication Copyright
While the term of a copyright for written works is a bit complicated, I recall in one of the Deegam reports, Doug mentioning something about his work being protected for the length of his life +70 years.
There also is a longer term depending on the date when something was written or published.
If someone feels that they may be getting into a problem area, I suggest researching it or seeing an attorney.
Login to Like
this post
04:22:27pm
re: Publication Copyright
When in doubt, if you didn't write it, take the picture, draw it, film it, etc., presume that it is copyrighted and you don't own the rights to it.
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
I'm going to go a bit contrarian from the consensus here. I think if it were I, I'd just try to research extensively what might have happened to the company or creator of the album designs. (I'm drawing a blank on the artist's name, but is it that artist whose work is sometimes used as the frontispiece or title page for some albums? -- Or is it an entire album layout?)
Anyway, if you can't track anyone down, maybe share them with a few friends first and see what happens. (I'm assuming this is not for money?) Then see where you go from there.
I think the stamp world is pretty atypical in this regard. So often an idea or product or idea lives and dies with its creator. I know I've tried to track down a couple of products in the past (one album, one specialized catalog), and it looks like it (or the business) just died when the developer did.
For what it's worth. Just a different take.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:54:53pm
re: Publication Copyright
Yes, I agree with that. First presume that a copyright exists, and then do due diligence to ascertain who is the copyright owner. What you find is from what you make the decision of what to do with the material. As long as you can document (keep your records) of what you did to try to find the copyright owner, then you generally won't have anything to worry about should you receive a "cease and desist" letter. Unless you're selling the material, you shouldn't have to worry about getting subpoenaed into court for a lawsuit filed against you.
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
The term for this type of copyright problem is know as "orphan works" (see further down for the interesting issue of absent/incorrect copyright notice). Unfortunately, just as copyright laws vary from country to country, likewise the solution (or lack of) also varies from country to country. However, in general, there is always the requirement of "due diligence".
The US Copyright Office actually just issued the 2015 Orphan Works Report regarding legislative recommendations for addressing this problem. I hope nobody in the US busted a gut laughing after reading "legislative". It is the typically long report (200+ total pages), but you can look at pages 105-106 for the conclusion.
Some legislation has already passed regarding orphan works in the UK.
*********************
Another topic that some may not be aware of and which you may find interesting is regarding absent or incorrect copyright notices on works published prior to 1989:
Errors in Copyright Notice (scroll down to 3rd Step)
US Copyright Office Interpretation
Don't get me wrong, my purpose is not to give anybody the green light. But if any copyright owner is going to get nit-picky about you making some non-commercial printouts for your album pages, you have the right to get nit-picky back at them.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Publication Copyright
Ahhhhhhhh.....sanity is back....and there is a God....may the force be with you....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
10:13:31am
re: Publication Copyright
A good case in point to add to what Chris said is the old Scott International pages, commonly referred to as the "Brown Specialty Pages". Scott discontinued those pages a long time ago. However, the rights to print those pages was purchased from Scott by Subway Stamp Shop. Subway still holds the rights to them.
Just because they are old, doesn't necessarily mean that someone doesn't have the rights to them.
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
That a company has closed its doors does not mean that no one bought the copyright to their products.
I know of one company whose assets were auctioned-off by a court-appointed liquidator. The owner bought his wife some over-sized sunglasses, and sent her in there to buy the company name (one of the assets), which he promptly used to (re)open the company.
I am not sure that 'fair use' applies; you are not quoting a part of a work in a critical or academic review; you are just copying the work to the same end for which it was created in the first place.
If the work were decorative floor tiles, for example, there is little question that using that design to tile your kitchen floor would not be 'fair use'.
I would make (and document) an effort to locate the copyright owner and, if I failed, I would print the pages, and mount my stamps. I am less sure about distributing the resulting product to others.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
"That a company has closed its doors does not mean that no one bought the copyright to their products."
True. Some ancient trademarks like Studebaker, Packard and Hudson are owned by legacy companies who vigorously protect them and earn money on royalties to this day. Hudson property is owned by Fiat-Chrysler today. Last I looked, Studebaker & Packard was owned by AMF Corp. They charge use royalties for things like model cars, posters and such.
On the other hand, the toy company Topper went belly up and nobody protected their property. A smart operator realized this, and trademarked the "Johnny Lightning" line of miniature cars. His first issues were nostalgic releases of the company's original 1968 cars. That was a start of a very profitable venture!
The ones that bother me, are the folks who find old postcards or photographs and watermark them with their own trademark. It's not theirs, they just happened to right click on it off the Internet.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
11 Aug 2015
11:00:55pm
re: Publication Copyright
Trademarks and Copyrights are distinctly different creatures; Trademark Law and Copyright Law (and the third intellectual property usually associated with them, Patent Law) are comparable only in limited areas, and one should not be confused with the other.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
12 Aug 2015
08:52:17pm
re: Publication Copyright
" ... one should not be confused with the other. ..."
Boy, I'll say, .....
A trade mark is a symbol, which can be a design, a word or phrase that has been legally registered by the owner, that identifies a product and attests to its authenticity.
A copyright is the legal right to use some published work and acquire the benefits derived from the words, art, music et cetera, usually possessed by the creator unless license is granted.
A patent is usually a document given to the person who invents some different process or gadget, that includes a new medications, but not a cooking recipes, which allows the patent owner the right to prevent someone else from using the thing patented.
The three together are an essay question used to befuddle aspiring solicitors.
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
Is there any reason this discussion does not name the company or albumin question? It would be far easier to get to the nub of the matter knowing the album and the particular elements of the page the OP would like to copy. Are we talking about copying the page border only or actual stamp layouts?
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
14 Aug 2015
02:23:13pm
re: Publication Copyright
@HungaryForStamps
In law school aspiring lawyers are taught to look for the unlikeliest series of events which could lead to legal complications, often called the "worst case scenario." While often these events are so improbable that little or no risk is assessed, the fact that it is possible means we are obligated to caution our clients appropriately. I can envision such a series of events should an identifiable person name titles and provide descriptors, and ultimately a legacy copyright holder discovers this discussion and decides to take action; highly improbable, but the risk is there.
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
Bobby, purposefully not naming the album for fear the copyright holder might get wind implies an underhanded motive in the first place. Certainly every attempt to inform a potential copyright holder should be made beforehand. Only a profit motive would prevent an honest disclosure.
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
HungaryForStamps: The obligation to make a reasonable effort to locate the copyright holder before you use their work does not come with an obligation to leave footprints so that they can more easily come after you after you have used their work.
Cheers,
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
15 Aug 2015
06:26:17am
re: Publication Copyright
Lewis
There was no such motive intended and I apologize if such insinuation was an unintentional consequence of my post. In fact, I can categorically state that the originator of this thread is far too ethical to harbor such motive; his integrity is above reproach.
Bobby
Login to Like
this post
re: Publication Copyright
Whatever. Sorry to continue to harp on this point. Feel free to ignore. I understand the points made. OP US completely honest but somehow fears repercussions should his actions not be honest.
The conversation would be greatly improved by knowing the album in question. Barring that, knowing what elements of the page are desirable, whether its layout or border would help. If no shenanigans are planned then there is no reason not to state these facts. Fear of someone with legal rights to the design coming after you should be enough to deter the action in the first place. That said, if the copying is for personal use only, there is nothing to fear. I can't see a scenario in which an honest person would not divulge their innocent potential personal use.
Login to Like
this post