posted 01-12-2006 07:38 AM            

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.

posted 01-12-2006 09:11 AM            

In my business I have to operate with lots of contracts as a persons word is easily twisted in court. In fact my company ensures that I not only follow the laws of the land but also a strict ethics code that addresses most of what we covered here. Jim I know you said you were done posting but will you commit to not using images posted on oldgas for your copyright library? I understand if you find them in an original photo but will you refrain from using any images that are posted on oldgas?

As far as the bearcat goes I have not answered your questions with good reason. Know this, when I spoke to the artist's family about reproducing the artwork there was no discussion of how much royalty but instead how can they buy one for their office.

posted 01-12-2006 02:20 PM            

I am the custodian of a very rare globe lens... just the single lens.

I would share a picture of it with T-way in a heartbeat cuz: 1) he's likely only to make a limited run in order to ensure the value of his repops versus the diminished value of mass production, 2) his LIMITED run would by no means reduce the value of the rare ORIGINAL, 3)his copyright would protect us both from devalued mass production, 4) I need a single lens as a place holder until I can find/afford an original, and 5) I truely doubt he would ever mount the cost or energy to pursue me legally if I chose to make a handful of tinkets/trash/decals to use personally or share/trade/sell with friends.

What I've learned (valuable) he is that if I did ever commercially (for volume and profit) produce/reproduce copyrightable stuff, I sure as heck better check for ownership.

Lastly, let me say that I dont always root for the "underdog" because all to often they deserve to be where they are. However, I abore wrongful and overzealous pursecution. To characterize T-way as a 'bad apple', or to imply that he is a thief is a shameful act.

And for a balanced record, consider that just because your postcount on this topic may be high, doesnt mean that 'most here at oldgas.com think what you (T-way) has done is wrong'. The majority of members were publically silent on this matter.

posted 01-12-2006 02:30 PM            

"I abore wrongful and overzealous pursecution. To characterize T-way as a 'bad apple', or to imply that he is a thief is a shameful act".

posted 01-12-2006 02:36 PM            

As for where the Fyre Drop image came from.
It didn't come from this site.

I don't know the particulars of the lawsuit and I don't care to. The courts will decide who is right or wrong. Its easy for us to say what we would or wouldn't do, or what someone else should or shouldn't do. Fact is if we're not the parties in the lawsuit we don't have enough information to make that judgement.

Copyright and trademark infringment are serious issues. A great deal of money is spent on legal fees protecting those images.

posted 01-12-2006 03:06 PM            

One Vital piece of information is missing, Why did Jim Copyright these images? If you knew Why, and Why he is now forced to defend those copyrights, you would have a different perspective, and almost certainly, a radically different opinion regarding this subject. Jim is only responding to events forced upon him, he didn't initiate them. As a matter of law he can't come out and expalin Why, but I Guarantee it has nothing to do with Profits or Control. While he has taken the high road and remained silent regarding the earlier related events, others have not, and have subsequently forced this subject on a jury of his peers, who are judging him based on unfounded Rumors and Innuendo.

I second Hubba's observation of this earlier posted statement.
"I abore wrongful and overzealous pursecution. To characterize T-way as a 'bad apple', or to imply that he is a thief is a shameful act".

------------------

Good Luck on the Hunt
Lance / The Pogo Man

EDITED FOR SPELLING ONLY, CONTENT REMAINS THE SAME.

posted 01-12-2006 03:38 PM            

I think there's enough information and opinion here for everyone who reads it to draw their own personal conclusions.

I think it's a good time for this thread to end, and not to escalate any further.

Come one guys, let's just leave this particular thread as it lies...

posted 01-12-2006 04:06 PM            

Larry,
We all know that because of the ongoing litigation that niether Jim nor the other parties can speak freely about the lawsuit.
Some were condemning Jim strictly because he filed the lawsuit. That is unfair. Those people likely don't know all of the underlying reasons for the suit. I am concerned at how events like this and other lawsuits will affect ALL AREAS OF THE HOBBY, not just my area of the hobby. As more people make all or part of their living from the peroliana hobby/business these disputes will become more commonplace. Seth's post following yours hit the nail on the head. Here it is in case you missed it.

"I corresponded with T-Way this morning and while I'm not choosing sides nor assigning blame in his pending suit with his former partners, I do not think it is his intention to lay claim to a bunch of images just to hold them hostage. Rather, I believe this is an issue of an agreement gone bad between parties and the copyrights have ended up being T-Way's defense. Both sides of this equation are good people who I hope can work out their differences without much harm done. My last post also, Seth Robbins"