Good morning everyone.
I’m sorry to take so long to reply – but I’m usually not on the computer after about 2:30 in the afternoon.
I was not planning on re-visiting this issue, but there are a couple of questions that have been posed that I feel I should reply to. And I have a couple of questions and points to make.
--------------------------------------------
Roger:
You seem to feel that just because you own one of the only two known Fyre-Drop ‘black background’ globes that you can control the image. Not true. You own a globe. That’s it. You do not have a legal position to control the reproduction of that image.
You do however; automatically hold a copyright to any photos you take personally of your globe (or any photos you personally take of anybody else’s globe/sign/etc.). But you still only hold the copyright to the actual photo – not the art used to create the original lens – or the art used to create the reproduction lenses. If you send that photo to anyone, you loose control on how, or where, it might end up. After it is out of your possession, no one can tell who took the image unless you mark the photo itself. Professional photographers will generally put a mark on one of the lower corners to show ownership. This can be done electronically also.
To answer your question on where I obtained my reference material:
I used the image from the ‘pink’ book (page 40) for the proportions. I also used a picture that was sent to me of one of the original globes for clear reference on the lettering and ‘rays’. I am including the reference photo here for all to see.
I am not going to reveal who sent me the image as they don’t need to be crucified on this site. Just let me say that the person who sent me the image held the copyright to the photo since they took it personally. And they sent it to me to use as I saw fit.
And before anybody has a cow – the image in the ‘pink’ book is copyrighted to Benjamin and Henderson.
I did not reproduce the actual photograph from the book. I used the image for visual reference on the proportions of the artwork. Therefore, no copyright infringement. If I had reproduced the actual photograph from the book as a poster or whatever and offered the resulting item for sale, then I would have been infringing on their copyright.
I also did not reproduce the photo that was sent to me (but I was given permission to use it as I saw fit), so there is no infringement on that person’s copyright of their photo.
--------------------------------------------
I want to make this perfectly clear. If you take a photo of something, you ‘own’ the copyright to the photo only. Not the item or logo in the photo - just the resulting photographic image. Twenty people can take a shot of the same logo/item and they will all hold an automatic copyright to their photo(s). None of them will hold a copyright to the logo in the photo.So to answer Mac’s question on whether or not I infringed on Roger’s copyrights. No, I did not since Roger has no copyright standing on the actual logo itself.
--------------------------------------------
Scootdog:
Once you create/borrow the artwork for the Powerine Bearcat decal and ‘publish’ it (produce an item for sale or show it on a web site as being for sale) you WILL have copyrighted the image to yourself. Copyright rights are automatic. Unless the image is currently under a copyright in which case, you will/would be infringing on the holder’s rights to the image.
And I will ask you again.
It's my understanding that the Bearcat image(s) you are attempting to recreate
are under copyright and you are negotiating with the holder for the rights to reproduce them. Is this correct or is my information wrong?
If it's correct - what's the difference between them and me? The people you are dealing with didn't create the original artwork, they have just retained the rights to it through inheritance law.
--------------------------------------------
I want to reiterate that all the historical images produced by Mike Slama and Pogo are
AUTOMATICALLY registered to them as soon as they ‘publish’ the image for sale. Therefore taking that image out of the ‘Public Domain’.
Just because they have not chosen to pursue legal remedies for any infringement is a moot point. They still hold the current copyrights to those images providing there were no current claims on the art. And I know Mike and Lance do their own research on copyright before they produce any new lenses. Therefore, I am confident that they are conduction business in a professional and legal manner.
--------------------------------------------
Finally, I’d like to address the question that was posed by Roger regarding his wanting to (possibly) make a couple of custom decals for a personal project.
I wouldn’t have any problem with that. Fifty of you guys can go ahead and make a couple of decals each for your own use and I won’t care. But if one person decides to make 100 decals and offer them for sale using my copyrighted image – then we got problems.
--------------------------------------------
This will be my last reply to this posting.
I feel that I have stated my position and have answered those questions that were still outstanding. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone can choose to spend there money where they see fit.
I do find it curious though, the major complaint that has been posted is about the Fyre-Drop image. And that lens has been available for months now and has not sold out. It seems if it
is as desirable as it appears from the postings here – it would have been snapped up by now.
That seems like a lot of complaining about something that wouldn’t exist for the average collector if I hadn’t stepped up to the plate and made some for the hobby.
Thank you all for your input on this issue.
Jim Treadway