A very old principle in English common law is that those who sleep on their
rights lose them. A competitor who sleeps on a market is undeserving of a
Court's sympathy. A copyright holder who is no longer publishing or
licensing the work forfeits his claims. The Constitution provides that
inventors and artists should be stimulated to invent and publish and
patents and copyrights are provided for that. But inventors who keep their
inventions locked up and publishers who hoarde a market are out of synch
with this. It's like taxes, if a deduction can be taken that is arguably
valid, take it. If the IRS can audit and disallow it later, OK. But that
would be about 0.01% of the time.
Anybody can put a copyright notice on his work. Chrysler didn't on a lot
of their parts manuals, e.g., my 55-56 parts manual. Nowadays, a notice
isn't required. But in order to sue, the copyright owner has to file a
form with the Copyright Office and file two best copies in the Library of
Congress. If done right, that then becomes a registered copyright.
If we're talking a few copies, no profit, obsolete books; then just do it.
But if you want to be squeky clean, then the up-and-up way is to write the
copyright owner, describe your intended activity, and ask for written
permission. It usually comes as easy as that.
Richard Main, attorney-at-law
At 6:44 PM -0400 6/13/98, Lars Larson 56 Plymouth wrote:
>Dont really know the history behind the discussion but apparently someone
>wants to copy and distribute a parts manual????
>Virtually anything I have that has been published (made and printed for sale
>or distribution) says COPYRIGHT. Further, original works do not need to be
>registered to be copyrighted but it is best they are, such as songs and even a
>painting.
>As an artist I get trade publications that hammer at us the importance of not
>using copyrighted materials, just as I did when I was teaching at local
>community college. When I used portions of manufacturers manuals I wrote to
>them and usually received permission for publication for educational purposes
>if I gave appropriate credit to the source.
>If we have an attorney on the line, he may be able to give us FACTUAL
>information as to renewal of that copyright (of the parts manual).
>So much of the posts on the problem are just guessing, and only add to the
>confusion, such as the 'problem' of neg/pos ground conversion and 6/12v too.
>Even those articles I quoted from OCW and Cars and Parts cant agree.
>With a legal issue as copyright guesswork is not enough.
>Whoever is wanting to 'do' this good deed of copying had better cover his
>butt....
>Rotsa Ruck
>Lars
>(a major difference in copying once for personal use vs. making multiples and
>distributing them)
>And yes Chrysler did tighten up on its logos and the name Mopar, even to
>aftermarket repro makers. Of course we all know of the attempt by a foreign
>company to copyright the US66 logo, an American archive in itself....several
>court cases have resulted and none have recognized the Dutch firm that has
>attempted to sieze RT66 as its own.
>Note that in original pieces of art I am working on, I use original (old) maps
>of the
>40's thru 50's rather than copies, likewise post cards.
>When I go to MinniPrint or whatever, employees there will not copy any
>originals, such as aforesaid maps. I wanted to make a 30 x 36" copy
>enlargement for a rough and had to do it myself.
>Believe the Chrysler logo flap was covered a year or 2 ago in the WPC Bulletin
>or Plymouth Club Bulletin.
>Larz again of course
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network