Thank you, Richsrd Gaskin. On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, 03:26 Richard Gaskin via use-livecode, < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the mention, Jeff. Without your adding that here I would > have missed Richmond's reference; he's among a small number of members I > generally don't read anymore (so much to learn, so little signal in a > noisy world...) > > FWIW I agree with what you wrote, and felt it was important enough to > quote it in whole below. Thank you for taking the time to write that. > > > Richmond's original comment about me was: > > Richard Gaskin will probably now come after me with the castrating > > irons.? > > How you arrive at your legal and ethical choices is entirely up to you. > Unless it involves my work it doesn't affect me. Knock yourself out. > > > For the other readers here, I don't mind sharing a personal opinion on > copyright law: > > > There are some details of US copyright statutes I don't much care for, > particularly the control one giant American corporation has held over US > copyright expiration ("Steamboat Willy", I'm looking at you). > > But overall I not only do my best to conform to US and applicable > international copyright law per the terms of the contracts I sign, I > wholeheartedly celebrate it. > > IMO the Berne Convention, which lies at the heart of most copyright law > among signatory nations, exemplifies a profound wisdom we all benefit > from, esp the readers here, since most of us earn our living from > intellectual property. > > It holds that at the very moment of the creation of any original > creative work, the creator of that work has sole authority over it. > > Let that sink in. Savor it. It's wonderfully delicious. > > It recognizes that creative effort is a uniquely valuable human > activity, and maintains as a matter of international legal guidance the > sanctity of the act of creation. > > Man, if nations could agree on anything else so beautifully principled > our Spaceship Earth might be a paradise. :) > > I love it so much that when I come across old works I'm interested in > that appear to be abandoned, I try to reach the creator or current > rights holder to see what can be done to re-use it. > > It's the least I can do. If I am to embrace the excitingly bold spirit > of the Berne Convention, I'm obliged to not only enjoy its fruits but to > also honor its responsibilities. > > It is not for me to assume control of any other creator's work. > > In honoring copyright, I'm creating of a world where copyright is honored. > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Fourth World Systems > > > > Jeff Reynolds wrote: > > > Richmond, > > > > And I’ll be right there with Richard. > > > > Just because it’s not being supported does not remove copyrights. You > know that’s a stupid argument. Maybe fine with your own morals but it’s not > how copyright works. As a content creator for over 4 decades of my > professional life I really hate that attitude of self justification. Fine > for your own use but if you want to redistribute it then get the rights. > Not for profit label has nothing to do with the rights involved. > > > > I have experience working in and with media companies and licensing > others’ materials and having others licensing ours. We were told all the > time by management and legal to not respond to requests to license unless > management was interested in the proposal and they would handle that. I > thought it pretty strange that a denial letter could cause any issues and > may have just been paranoia or don’t waste your time but those were the > instructions. > > > > Getting an odd bob out out of relicensing an old project involves > figuring out who you are getting in bed with and if you even want to get > into bed with them in the first place, time to come to an agreement, > research out the original projects licensing (media projects are rife with > licensed media that at times are not transferable or require additional > permission and/or payments), create and agree on a contract, deliver the > goods, then make sure everything is being done as contracted. That’s not > simple and all the steps cost time and money and usually folks are not > willing to pay much for the rights to cover these costs, let alone a profit. > > > > I’ve done this process a couple of times with old projects and it was > way more work than I thought it would be and that was with a very good > relationship with the rights holder (I built the original product for them) > and in good rights situations. One was easy and owner was happy with a > handshake on the deal until I had a product to sell and then we would pen a > contract. I totally trusted him he would honor the handshake (and I’m still > absolutely sure he would have, very good chap), but a year and a half later > he ended up having to sell the rights, so our handshake of course was no > longer good. He was transparent about all this and I just did the hand > shake as it would have been a good chunk of change with lawyer to pen the > rights contract and I didn’t have a publisher onboard yet. So even in the > best of situations things can go sideways on these kinds of things and life > is not as simple as you think it is Richmond. > > > > I was approached by an old employer about resurrecting an old commercial > cdrom project. I knew the rights had changed hands a couple of times, so my > first question was who has the rights now and have you secured them? His > response was well it’s abandoned and one of the publishers that were > distributing the product to the education market (that wanted to partner > with him on this deal) thought they could do it under their publishing > agreement. Again I questioned did they have a full rights deal or just a > publishing contract (I knew from the original days on the project we had > very specific publishing contracts with different channels like Apple, > media distributor and some educational publishers and they were rabid about > retaining the work’s rights). Response was they feel confident they could > stretch it legally. He then tried to say well we could construe this to be > in then public domain as most paid for with public/private partnership > money from NSF and EPA grants. I had to laugh in his face as they had made > sure that even with this public money the company had complete rights to > everything. I said I’d be happy to talk to him (and spend my own time) > about it once he can put through the lawyers. He did and planning abruptly > stopped. > > > > The real killer usually is that media licensed in the original work was > not contracted for sub licensing, transfer, or reuse or requires new > payments. Sounds like something most would plan for to allow better life > for their products, but I was amazed how many times this was not done or, > at times, even thought of. > > > > Sorry I’ve been around this tree too many times. > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode