Things You Need To Know

[Cathbad]

I can behave like such a know-it-all sometimes!! (read: "usually")

Having worked from a publishing company in the 80s (publishing psychology-based books based on Jung and Isabel Briggs-Meyers - including the manual for the MBTI) I thought I knew all there was to know about copyrighting. And turns out I did - based on the 1980s.

Hey, did anyone know laws like that change?

I should have. But in my arrogance, I didn't heck to see if it had.

It had.

So, I felt rather insulted when Amazon contacted me and told me that I had violated a copyright for a book (older reprint of a Conan-Doyle's Dr. Challenger story), and I went straight to denial, and looked up the copyright law to "prove" I was right.

How embarrassing.

They had threatened to close my account if I "continued" to publish copyrighted materials. Fortunately, they only required an email stating my contrition, which I sent.

I then familiarized myself with copyright law, again - which led me to taking down all the Challenger stories I had published (even though one was probably okay, I took it down, anyway).

Nothing else I've published seems in violation, but I'm keeping my eyes open.

I need an Assistant who will kick me in the arse when I get that arrogant.

I'm keeping my eyes open for other things I should know, too.

 

[Caledfwlch]

This has shocked me! Arthur Conan Doyle is STILL in Copyright?

Just been reading this - the Copyright issues of the Conan Doyle estate are incredible and numerous, and a sad tale of greed and vicious family infighting.
Copyrights

Are his works still in Copyright in the UK? I am not sure, but I "don't think" we have had Copyright Legislation Updates that are as Ruthless and perhaps Greedy as the Copyright Extension Legislation in the United States.

The mad thing about the mess, is that it seems the alleged proper/lawful holders of the Doyle Copyright, a Company called Conan Doyle Literary Estates have no family relationship to Doyle, they are just people who say they have been involved with his work since the 1950's, thus never met the man, since he died 20+ years before they got involved. Whilst another "Company" the "Conan Doyle Estate Ltd" which the website I linked sneers at and angrily derides as "Copyright Trolls" is run/owned by Conan Doyles actual Descendants. It seems crazy that some individuals who never even met the creator of a Creative Work can hold copyright and make profit almost in perpetuity, whilst the family, the actual descendants get nothing.
It makes you wonder if the families case has merit - that page also bitterly complains that whenever they licence, Sherlock Holmes for example, like they did to Warner Brothers for the 2 recent films, the family pop up, and the likes of Warner Brothers make out of court settlements, rather than going to court - makes you wonder.
It's the clear bitterness and anger etc of the people running the Literary Estate Company that gets me - they did not create any of this work, they never even knew or met the creator, yet they bitterly rant about his actual family profiting from his work, and deride them as "Copyright Trolls" etc.

Copyright Law is totally messed up the world over it seems.

And judging by the Litigation Crazed and Crazy Ass people involved in owning and counter claiming ownership of the Doyle Estate, I suspect you have had a VERY lucky escape, and perhaps had your bottom saved from a very nasty burning by Amazon.

 

[Caledfwlch]

Just to add, been reading this article too:
Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Never Ending Copyright Dispute

It seems, that amongst all the other craziness, the Copyright Holders are deeply unhappy that most of Sherlock Holmes for example are in Public Domain in many Nations, and then came up with the craziest claim of all, which they were taken to court by a US Author over, and the Copyright holders lost They claimed that because a couple of Holmes stories written after 1923 are still in Copyright, then that invalidated the Public Domain status of ALL the stories, its incredible just how greed driven people can be, and the mad fantasies they construct to try and feed that hunger with Gold.
It would be like the Estates of Gerry Davis & Dr Kit Pedlar (the creators of the Cybermen in Dr Who) claiming they own Copyright on the whole of Doctor Who, purely because they own the copyright on a small part of it.

I don't know if things have changed, if New Doctor Who has a similar setup, or whether it was down to Copyright Law, in the 60's, 70's etc or if it was simply something to do with the Contracts the BBC used as standard for Script Writers, but certainly, in Classic Doctor Who the BBC own the actual broadcast stories, but the Creators/Script Writers own elements of them, such as an Alien or Baddie they created for the Story.
So Gerry & Dr Kit's estates own a specific concept of the Cybermen - Human Cyborgs, with "handles" sticking out of their helmets, originating from the Planet Mondas, once Earth's twin, and who colonised the Planet Telos, where they built and hid their Suspended Animation Tombs, once they realised they were going to lose the Galactic Cyber War against Humanity and its Allies.

This means that their Estates could License the Cybermen to a Film or TV Company, and we could have a cool big budget Cyberman movie, or a TV show that uses them, perhaps exploring the Cyber Wars or something. However, such a Film/TV Series would have to create a Design that does not resemble any that the BBC have used in making Doctor Who, unless they managed to get a separate licence from the BBC to do so. A Show/Movie based purely on the Davis/Pedlar Estates Licence would not for example be able to reference anything to do with "Pete's World" John Lumic, Cybus/Cybus Industries, the Cybus Industries Cyberman assault on Torchwood One at Canary Wharf and so on

It's why there are 2 full colour Dalek movies from the 1960's that had nothing to do with the BBC, and thus the Daleks were a different design to that seen on TV to that point. IIRC, Terry Nation, and then the Nation Estate have always been pains in the backside to the BBC over the Daleks.
The Daleks were very nearly not in New Doctor Who, as the Nation Estate were being extremely unreasonable and daft by demanding that they have "editorial control" or a serious amount of such control. If Terry Nation himself had still been alive, I could kind of understand such a demand, I would still think it unreasonable, but he was the Creator of their concept/who they are, how they act, though not of their look (I don't think its remotely fair that Nation owned the Image of the Daleks alongside the name and concept, as Raymond Cusick came up with the actual design, and he, nor his estate never received a penny beyond his weekly BBC employees Wage, though later on the Producers did manage to persuade the BBC to give him £100, when Nation and the nation estate have made millions! - Nation's physical description of the Daleks, in the script which he handed to Cusick to design literally amounted to "they have no legs & move like Ballet dancers in Long skirts - thats it!)

 

[Cathbad]

And judging by the Litigation Crazed and Crazy Ass people involved in owning and counter claiming ownership of the Doyle Estate, I suspect you have had a VERY lucky escape, and perhaps had your bottom saved from a very nasty burning by Amazon.

HAH! Litigate all they want - I'm what they call stone-cold broke!

 

[Alexa]

I did a research of Arthur Conan Doyle's name in Canadian database, just by curiosity. Guess who own some of those rights ? The banks ! Makes me real sick when those who do the real work get nothing and others just move forward and suck everything doing nothing.

 

[J Riff]

Yes, just as bad in 'music' biz, particularly here. Not worth trying really, butthen everything good, like say music or writing, that becomes hugely popular and profitable, ends up down the plug hole, and becomes no fun, even unpleasant so, like they allus say -'do it for the love.' ,,,, (
Remeber Fogarty being sued for 'stealing' his own tune?

 

[Caledfwlch]

Yes, just as bad in 'music' biz, particularly here. Not worth trying really, butthen everything good, like say music or writing, that becomes hugely popular and profitable, ends up down the plug hole, and becomes no fun, even unpleasant so, like they allus say -'do it for the love.' ,,,, (
Remeber Fogarty being sued for 'stealing' his own tune?

The worst thing I have heard about the music industry, anywhere as those awful "Intent to treat" or "Intent to Contract" or whatever legalese rubbish they are called. An A&R person sees a band, the band is really good, but the style or genre of its music is not what their Label is into at the moment, or doesnt think it will sell so much at the moment, but, proving they really are heartless monsters, they get the band to sign a letter stating effectively that they wont see other labels people whilst this particular company sorts out contracts, and unaware bands basically get trapped, sometimes for years by these letters - the Company doesn't want them, so it refuses to move to the signing contracts stage, but they cannot go and sign up with any other label, and are stuck, unable to get a contract with the label that has trapped them, and thus are pretty much unable to make any money from their music until the offer to talk about contracts they signed runs out. It's astonishing the things are even legal.
imagine if a Company could for example, trap qualified plumbers, or Architects with these sorts of letters, so the plumber or architect will essentially be prohibited from making a living out of their skills and qualifications, and will have to just go work in Tesco's or something till the notice to treat runs out, there would be a huge outcry, but apparantly its fine to do it to musicians!