From: Ted Viens <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 23:13:56 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 02:14:40 -0500 Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper' From: firstname.lastname@example.org [Barbara Becker] Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:52:27 -0500 To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper' --- I dun snipped so much here my new fangled scissors broke.--- >****BB Your physical analysis can be wrong. Law, at least this >copyright law, is very specific. And it VERY specifically says >that if Ed Walters owns the copyright to the B&J photos, AND he >does not have a transfer agreement, which he doesnt, the he MUST >BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER. I truly wished that BB had more to pin her argument on than this copyright straw dog... Even a brief reference to the two investigators championed by Kevin Randle for dismissing GB in his latest book would be some distraction from this harping on the copyright code. Some comfort was found when BB broke briefly from this topic and gave requested info on an unrelated subject to another hard working subscriber. This freed me from dismissing her as some vocal delusional paranoid. Without doubt, BB has properly related the letter of the copyright law as explained by her attorney. This attorney should be fired for not explaining to BB that any law is reflected in both its language and its common practice and that the widespread practice of any law takes precedence over its exact wording. There ain't no copyright police, no copyright mounties, no copyright cavalry sweeping down from the ridges to right the falsities of the errant filer. The justice department needs to be strongly induced before it will even cast an eye towards the copyright office. Copyrights as with patents, are enforced in the civil courts. In practice, anyone can make any claims on any copyright application and as long as this is not challenge in court by some other aggrieved private party, it will stand as legally binding. As long as the "real" photographers never challenge him in court, EW can declare himself the photographer even if he had never seen the camera, the negative nor a print of the image. Sure, technically this may be illegal, but the copyright office doesn't give a damn... Bye... Ted..
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp