<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
The Pittsburgh poster about which you speak was printed about the time
the 1200s were delivered. If there every was a copywrite on it, it
expired about 1961. Most of the individual pictures on it were copied
so many times I think one would have trouble proving that they were not
in the public domain today. Everyone of the pictures is in
the PTM library. I also have most. Bob Brown did. So
did Harry Bartley.
<p>I have questioned the other issue you brought up and I have no answer.
The old rules were that you had to place the copywrite notice on every
copy of your art that was released, and if one item got out there without
such a notice, you tossed away your rights. I purchased all of Frank
Goldsmith's negatives and prints upon his death by prior arrangement ...
the sale was spelled out in his will. I have the negatives.
I doubt that I could prove I have any strong legal rights because I couldn't
prove what he did before his death.
<p>I understand there is a copywrite infringement suit in process in England
at this time, brought by a major tramway museum against a major book publisher
(that churns out ten trolley picture books or more every year). The
museum (you add the name) bought many photo collections over the years
and claims they have the rights to control usage. There legal position
seems to be ... if you have a note from the deceased photographer giving
you rights to print his pictures in the book, so be it. Otherwise,
we are now the owners. How does this relate to us? I
think there many be similarities in copywrite laws to provide worldwide
protection. This brings up another issue, doesn't it.
<p>As I recall, there was another very significant point in copywrite law.
The object must be <i>copywritable</i>. I can write a book and take
out a copywrite it, but my protection extends only to my own work.
It protects my writing, my arrangement, my layout, but not information
or other people's efforts which have been incorporated. Information,
specifically, can not be protected. But remember that layout and
design can be copywrited. Therefore, map makers often incorporate
a series of trivial mistakes in their cartographic efforts, that, if repeated
in someone else's map, shows evidence that their initial work was copied.
<p>Simply filling out a copywrite application and mailing the pictures
along with it to the Library of Congress and then putting the required
copywrite symbol on the prints does not necessarily offer protection.
It does prove that you tried to get a jump on another individual.
It might intimidate someone else. <b>BUT YOU STILL ONLY WIN IN FEDERAL
COURT.</b><b></b>
<p>I personally look on this as a moral and ethical issue more than a legal
issue. If you bought all of Mortimer Hogwollow's negatives and you
want to protect your investment, in my mind, so be it.
<br><b></b>
<br><b></b>
<p>HRBran99@aol.com wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>In a message dated 06/28/2000 8:03:25 AM Eastern
Daylight Time,
<br>bob.dietrich@unisys.com writes:
<p><< I also have a PRCo poster from about 1940 introducing the PCC.
It contains
<br> photos of representative cars from the first horse car to the
latest low
<br> floor car. I was going to scan and use these photos referencing
the poster
<br> as a source. Is this right or wrong? >>
<p>This item was produced by the Pittsburgh Railways Co. and belonged to
them
<br>under the OLD copyright law. After 21 years it is on the open market.
I am
<br>still doubtful if any person, organization, museum, etc., can take
possession
<br>of such documents and claim them as their own under the law of copyright.
<br>There is a man in Cleveland, OH you works for Cleveland RTA. He obtained
<br>photos from the old Cleveland Transit System and now claims them as
his and
<br>places a copyright on them. Bear in mind that these photos were taken
by a
<br>photographer who was paid with taxpayers money, using a camera paid
for by
<br>taxpayers money, on film bought by taxpayers money, and developed using
<br>taxpayers money. I would not hesitate to use any of those "public"
photos at
<br>any time. I am sure a court would agree that some things cannot be
<br>re-copyrighted.
<p>Also, check the Library of Congress website for information concerning
<br>copyrights. This is right from the "horses mouth."
<p>HrB</blockquote>
</html>