Michael Gross wrote: Correct. Financial gain has never been part of the issue. If I republish a Harry Potter book, it's theft, whether or not I resell it for "financial gain." This point is

Mike Bauers wrote: Complicated? yes. Uncertainties? yes "guessing?" Nope. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705

Before Mike shuts this discussion down, allow a few comments from someone on the other side of the table: I own a pretty large collection of negatives, from which I make prints for sale. The

So I gather you may not post another's photo even for educational purposes with no intention of financial gain? Michael Gross La Canada, CA

Tony, A small point on your explanation. When I purchased Will Whittaker's SN negatives, I specifically asked for an assignment of copyright for those negatives I was buying, which he

In a message dated 6/7/2015 9:15:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time,STMFC@... writes: Bill and group, If your interested in the subject and want knowmore the book(s) to look at are the ARA or AAR code

I think at this point the matter should be dropped. This post shows that the topic has fallen to the level of guessing what might have happened in a case, and if so what that might mean…… Its

jim betz wrote: Only the book is copyrighted. All authors get permission for use of any images they use, if their publishers are paying attention. The permission to publish in a book is often

Gentlemen The following data link is from the Cornell University Law School on Copyright. This should help clarify this issue on Copyright in the public domain and get use back to the discussion of

Hi everyone, It seems as though this thread has gone "off the rails" discussing what those extra tracks on the left side of the image are, rather than focusing on the FAR more interesting and

Hi, I have just(?) a couple of questions: 1) If a photo is in a book - that is copyrighted - does that copyright only apply to the book or does it also apply to the photo? Isn't it

I'm a little uncomfortable about making photocopies of photos when the seller is still active but it's hard to know who's still active and some prints don't have any information on the back. Ed

Mike Bauers wrote: Right. If you know the photographer (or relatives thereof) you may be able to find out if copyright was transferred to anyone else. But if you have no knowledge of that

Hi Schuyler, Oops! Yes, I did mean tie, not fish! That's what I get for posting late at night... But: I'm not disagreeing that the use of TIE plates was a rarity on the DL&W at this time. I was

Please clarify this for me…….. If I own the negative, I may not own the copyright and thus it can not be posted in this group? [I have some of those] Best to ya, Mike Bauers Milwaukee, Wi

I found this site to be helpful and relatively brief: The Campus Guide to Copyright Compliance The Campus Guide to Copyright Compliance New Roles, Rules and Responsibilities

Interesting…….. But you don’t tell us what is currently public domain for images. Is this link what we need to refer to? https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Perhaps down

Dave Nelson wrote: I will illustrate one of my prior points, and touch on Dave's comment, with the story of Will Whittaker's freight car photos, of which he took a really large number. Late in his

Two more comments: There is a yahoogroup thatr Mike setup for discussing copyright issues… IIRC it is called Licen@.... Second comment is there is a whole lot of copyfraud going on… people

Claus Schlund wrote: The broad answer is that anything copyrighted later than 1922 MAY still be in copyright if copyrights were renewed. Anything created later than 1978 IS copyrighted,