Bless you Michael D. Porter. It's amazing what a little knowledge can do
when cast upon a murky subject.
>The
>question of what Ken has done applies to so-called "fair use" provisions
>of the statutes. One of the provisions of fair use (there are four
>principal ones) is whether or not the use can reasonably be seen as
>harmful to the copyright holder's economic interest. The fact that the
>item is still for sale does not indicate that there is harm to the
>original holder of copyright (for instance, Ted Schumacher may lose a
>little income through slightly fewer hardcopy sales through his
>organization, but, unless Ted Schumacher owns the rights to that
>property, Ted couldn't assert, for example, that simple availability of
>the hardcopy creates a violation of copyright law.
>
>Another important consideration in terms of applying the fair use tests
>is whether the intention of the use of the material is for profit or
>non-profit purposes. Someone who cites from copyrighted material for
>educational purposes obviously comes closer to the model of the fair use
>intent than someone who has duplicated the material with the intent of
>selling the duplication as if it were the original.
>
>Much earlier, likely, copyright could often be what anyone says it
>was--that is part of the reason why the law was amended in 1976. Now, I
>believe, one must apply either the copyright symbol or the word
>copyright to the work, the name of the copyright holder, and the date of
>copyright, and, if one wants protection under the Buenos Aires
>Agreement, one must also include the words, "All Rights Reserved."
>
>Moreover, under the more recent law, one can't assert, indefinitely, a
>copyright without registering it. Once registered, the copyright can
>actively be defended legally, but, since there is a filing fee, most
>copyrighted material is never registered, and, I think, can't be
>defended legally after five years without registration.
>
>For a brief look at current copyright law, particularly as it applies to
>electronic information, go to:
>
>http://www.benedict.com/
>
>
>I'm no lawyer, but I would think that information provided by the
>Triumph Competitions Department was done to promote the racing hobby,
>and to promote Triumphs in that hobby, rather than to profit from the
>sale of the competition booklets, and that, originally, the cost of the
>booklets covered production costs, but provided no profit. Now, however,
>originals of these issues are getting scarce, so the price has gone up
>to enable a profit for resellers, or because the item is a
>collectible--rather than to assure a profit for the copyright holder.
>
>Also, the copyright law indicates that the holder of the copyright is
>the one to make claims of copyright infringement. In the case of the
>competition guides, Kastner and others wrote and illustrated the guides,
>but the guide itelf was not published by Kastner, et al, but by the
>Triumph Competitions Department. If a copyright was filed on the
>material, it would have had to have been assigned to the latest owners
>of extant Triumph assets, since the original corporate body is gone. So,
>likely, BMW would have to note the copyright infringement, show proof
>that they legally owned the rights, contact the courts and Ken Bertschy
>and issue him a cease and desist order, and prosecute for damages if he
>failed to comply, all of which are unlikely.
>
>A general reading of the statute would suggest that, if copyright is not
>stated, and date of copyright or name of copyright holder do not appear
>anywhere in the document, it can safely be presumed, twenty-odd years
>after issuance, to be without copyright, and is therefore in the public
>domain. And, given the purpose of the competitions departments at
>Triumph, racing was important promotion for them, and providing everyone
>the best information available at the time (therefore helping Triumph
>owners and Standard-Triumph in the process) would have been in the
>spirit and intent of the competitions department.
>
>If Triumph were only in the business of selling books, I would say that
>someone might likely complain to Ken about copyright infringement.
>
>Oddly enough, no one seems to have asked Kas Kastner about the guides
>and copyrights, and as the author of many, he would probably know
>whether the material was protected, or not.
>
>Cheers.
|