Randall Young wrote:
>
> I don't know if it's the same, but I was once told by someone who should
> know (person attending law school, majoring in intellectual property
> issues) that in the US, this effectively means the copyright is whatever
> the author says it is. Since no copyright was claimed in the work, the
> copyright holder would have to contact you and notify you that you were in
> violation.
>
> Seems _most_ unlikely at this late date <g> but "In an infinite universe,
> all things are possible."
That may have been a defensible position in the older law (not sure),
but not everyone is aware that copyright law was amended in 1976. The
question of what Ken has done applies to so-called "fair use" provisions
of the statutes. One of the provisions of fair use (there are four
principal ones) is whether or not the use can reasonably be seen as
harmful to the copyright holder's economic interest. The fact that the
item is still for sale does not indicate that there is harm to the
original holder of copyright (for instance, Ted Schumacher may lose a
little income through slightly fewer hardcopy sales through his
organization, but, unless Ted Schumacher owns the rights to that
property, Ted couldn't assert, for example, that simple availability of
the hardcopy creates a violation of copyright law.
Another important consideration in terms of applying the fair use tests
is whether the intention of the use of the material is for profit or
non-profit purposes. Someone who cites from copyrighted material for
educational purposes obviously comes closer to the model of the fair use
intent than someone who has duplicated the material with the intent of
selling the duplication as if it were the original.
Much earlier, likely, copyright could often be what anyone says it
was--that is part of the reason why the law was amended in 1976. Now, I
believe, one must apply either the copyright symbol or the word
copyright to the work, the name of the copyright holder, and the date of
copyright, and, if one wants protection under the Buenos Aires
Agreement, one must also include the words, "All Rights Reserved."
Moreover, under the more recent law, one can't assert, indefinitely, a
copyright without registering it. Once registered, the copyright can
actively be defended legally, but, since there is a filing fee, most
copyrighted material is never registered, and, I think, can't be
defended legally after five years without registration.
For a brief look at current copyright law, particularly as it applies to
electronic information, go to:
http://www.benedict.com/
I'm no lawyer, but I would think that information provided by the
Triumph Competitions Department was done to promote the racing hobby,
and to promote Triumphs in that hobby, rather than to profit from the
sale of the competition booklets, and that, originally, the cost of the
booklets covered production costs, but provided no profit. Now, however,
originals of these issues are getting scarce, so the price has gone up
to enable a profit for resellers, or because the item is a
collectible--rather than to assure a profit for the copyright holder.
Also, the copyright law indicates that the holder of the copyright is
the one to make claims of copyright infringement. In the case of the
competition guides, Kastner and others wrote and illustrated the guides,
but the guide itelf was not published by Kastner, et al, but by the
Triumph Competitions Department. If a copyright was filed on the
material, it would have had to have been assigned to the latest owners
of extant Triumph assets, since the original corporate body is gone. So,
likely, BMW would have to note the copyright infringement, show proof
that they legally owned the rights, contact the courts and Ken Bertschy
and issue him a cease and desist order, and prosecute for damages if he
failed to comply, all of which are unlikely.
A general reading of the statute would suggest that, if copyright is not
stated, and date of copyright or name of copyright holder do not appear
anywhere in the document, it can safely be presumed, twenty-odd years
after issuance, to be without copyright, and is therefore in the public
domain. And, given the purpose of the competitions departments at
Triumph, racing was important promotion for them, and providing everyone
the best information available at the time (therefore helping Triumph
owners and Standard-Triumph in the process) would have been in the
spirit and intent of the competitions department.
If Triumph were only in the business of selling books, I would say that
someone might likely complain to Ken about copyright infringement.
Oddly enough, no one seems to have asked Kas Kastner about the guides
and copyrights, and as the author of many, he would probably know
whether the material was protected, or not.
Cheers.
|