UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 26

Re: More On The Gulf Breeze Copyright Issue

From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 22:16:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:17:39 -0500
Subject: Re: More On The Gulf Breeze Copyright Issue

>From: RGates8254@aol.com
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 21:50:32 -0400 (EDT)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: More on the Gulf Breeze copyright issue

>In a message dated 97-10-19 20:11:55 EDT, you write:

>>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
>>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:21:12 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>CC: mcashman@ix.netcom.com
>>Subject: Re: More On The Gulf Breeze Copyright Issue
>>issue

>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>>Subject: More On The Gulf Breeze Copyright Issue
>>>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:27:05 -0700

>>>On p 134 of the MUFON Symposium proceedings, 1988...

>>>"In early December, the National Enquirer contacted Duane Cook
>>>about buying rights for a one-time publication of the photos he
>>>had published. The Enquirer offered Duane several thousand
>>>dollars for these rights. Since Mr. X had indicated that Duane
>>>could have the photos, Duane accepted the offer."

>>The only thing this confirms is that Duane Cook KNEW, when no one
>>else did, that Ed Walters was "Mr. X."  For your information,
>>regardless of how you decide you want the law to be, ED WALTERS
>>owns the copyright, (registered at the LOC) for photos 1 through
>>19 on his first copyright registration.  So if Duane Cook "gave"
>>the photos to the ENQUIRER and if they used them "ONE TIME", then
>>it was with ED WALTERS NOT DUANE COOKS permission.

>>>I think there are two things clear from this about journalistic
>>>attitude toward copyright with regard to anonymous photos. 1)
>>>Cook believes that the Sentinel owns such photos and can legally
>>>sell rights pertaining to them, and 2) the Enquirer agrees, since
>>>they contacted Cook to make the deal.

>Having myself been in the journalistic/newspaper business several
>things come to mind. I have been seen many instances over the
>years of newspapers "publishing" unique photos that were later
>"officially copyrighted/registered" by the owner of said photos.
>Also many newspapers have people sign a publication release
>either limited or general  which allows them certain rights, and
>restricts the owner on his use for a certain period of time, i.e.
>so the photos don't show up in the competition newspaper the same
>day.

You are absolutely 100% correct.  A work can be registered at the
LOC at any time.  ALso, you are talking about permission to use a
work as part of an exclusive license.

>As long as Ed Walters doesn't pursue the issue in court, the
>whole thing is a mute point.

Why would Walters pursue the issue in court?  He owns the
copyright to ALL photos from 1 through 19 on his January 12, 1988
copyright registrations. Ed Walters allowed Cook to allow the
Enquirer to use the photos.  Thats the point.  When no one else
was supposed to know who Mr. X was, Duane Cook did. Cook also
slipped up when he put the first photo in the newspaper. (Nov 19,
1987) He wrote that the photos he printed in the Sentinel were
taken IN THE FRONT YARD of "Mr. X's" house, and the only way he
could know that was if he knew AT THE TIME he printed the photos,
that Ed Walters took them.

>>The ENQUIRER contacted Cook because he knew how to contact Walters.

>>>Note that these are not the Believer Bill or Jane photos - Cook
>>>actually has a contact with regard to these photos, unlike the
>>>situation with Bill or Jane where total anonymity is the case.
>>>Yet Cook still accepts the offer. This would tend to substantiate
>>>that he would believe he would have the right to assign copyright
>>>to Ed.

>>Cook cant "assign" anything to anybody.  He doesnt own any of the
>>photos nor does he own the copyright.  No matter how hard you
>>wish Dorothy, it aint gonna happen.

>>BB

>I can tell you haven't been to involved in the journalistic/publishing
>side of life.  This sort of thing happens  in the publishing industry.
>For example if I submit an article and photos to newspaper X or
>magazine Y, and I sign a contract/release at or before the time of
>publication THAT  PUBLICATION CAN LEGALLY CLAIM COPYRIGHT even though
>the photos were MINE and the article came from my head.  AGAIN IT ALL
>DEPENDS ON WHAT SORT OF RELEASE/CONTRACT WAS SIGNED BETWEEN ED
>AND THE NEWSPAPER.

Right again. THAT'S CALLED A TRANSFER AGREEMENT. Where you or
your authorized agent sign a contract legalling tranferring YOUR
copyright (and all of its exclusive rights) to the publisher.
HOWEVER, Ed Walters DID NOT relinquish his copyright tohis
photographs. When Duane Cook allowed the Enquirer to use the
photos, he did so with Ed Walters permission.

>Another example is Oped pieces of letters to the editor.  In theory
>once published they can be covered under the publications copyright
>umbrella unless the author otherwise specifies.
>Absolutely right again.  Just like the Bill and Jane photos.

>Over the years, again depending on the release/contract that was
>signed, if the author/owner say wanted to include that story and
>photos as part of a book, he would have to request permission
>from the magazine originally submitted to.

Absolutley true...if the author relinquishes his/her copyright.


BB


Search for other documents from or mentioning: c549597 | rgates8254 | mcashman

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com