>>>From: Marcie Greer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Second, this is a sterling example of the flaw in the ridiculous length of copyright duration. Catherine Channer died in 1949 and Ruth Bean Publications is sitting on her work, making it unavailable to those Miss Channer devoted her time and talents to during her lifetime! <<<
It's my understanding that Miss Channer's mat, or a photograph of it, are all that survived her death--NOT a pricking. Anne Buck developed a pattern from a photograph of the mat, Bean published Buck's pricking and a picture of Buck's piece--NOT the original mat. I don't know if Bean commissioned the piece or the designer offered it to Bean. I also don't know how much change there was from the original mat and the developed design, but we assume Bean was legal in all this. Either the mat was changed enough, or it was late enough, to not violate Channer's estate's copyright. The copyright we are in danger of infringing is Bean's/Buck's pricking. As I understand it, if someone got a photo of the original mat and developed their own pricking, that would be legal. If they reproduced Bean's/Buck's pricking, they would be in violation of Bean's copyright. Robin P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.pittsburghlace.8m.com - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
