Q: Art stamps on the Internet ??

"amesh" wrote in message
k...
"Douglas Myall" skrev i en meddelelse
...

- snip -

My advice to Mette, for what it is worth, is that so long as she
reproduces only stamp images as distinct from the original
paintings,
and so long as those images purporting to be mint and are in
colour
are `cancelled' in some way, e.g., by a line or arc in one corner,
and
so long as she makes it clear that she IS reproducing stamps that
are,
or were, on sale to the public, she should be free of interference
from bodies such as Copy-Dan.

Thanks for your advice Douglas. I have been discussing this with
Copy-Dan
for 2-3 years, and they insist that the copyright protection applies
to
*all* depictions -- also on stamps -- insofar the artist involved
was still
alive in 1935 or later. In other words, a rigid interpretation of
the
70-year protection.

They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files
listed,
or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a
formal
invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!

That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?

Mette

Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do. Does Copy-Dan
purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright? Do
they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate? Might I
expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
for this from Royal Mail?

Douglas

"Douglas Myall" skrev i en meddelelse
...

- snip -

Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do.

As said elsewhere in this thread I fear that I -- as an individual -- may
loose my case against a powerful and self-righteous bureaucracy.

Does Copy-Dan
purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright?

Yes. They have sent me a long -- but not complete -- list of artists
protected.

Do they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate?

Yes.

Might I
expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
for this from Royal Mail?

No, with a written permission from the copyright owner you are on the safe
side. But you would never receive an invoice from Copy-Dan. They would
notify their British sister organisation to take action for what happens in
England.

The problem is purely mine, since I displayed my personal collections
without any specific permission from any copyright owner, may it be the
issuing postal administration, or the artist, or the estate. I have
therefore removed files that were specifically mentioned in their invoice,
nothing more, nothing less.

All I can do now is to display my collections of artists and their works in
any context up to 1935, provided that the artist involved had passed away
prior to 1935. Next year the limit will be 1936, and so on. In the case of
for instance Alphons Mucha (Art Nouveau), he will be back online in 2009.

Mette

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:57:20 +0200, "amesh" wrote:

"Roger Smith" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"amesh" wrote in message
k...

- snip -

Roger,
You and I are on exactly the same level of thinking, and I am more than
tempted to bring this question before the court to have some of these
questions clarified. But I also fear that as an individual I am bound to
loose my case. Frankly, I cannot think of anyone who as an individual might
win a case against a powerful and self-righteous bureaucracy ;-)

I wonder how many others would be in the same position as you? It
seems that this gets to the point of absurdity, especially when it
comes to stamps.

If the artist (or estate, etc) has holdings on the painting and
doesn't want it shown in any form other than their original, then why
are there art stamps in the first place by "reputable" countries all
over the world?

These are on mail, if used by the consumer and are noticed by the
general public as they pass through the mail system. Are they going
to limit that as well?

Sheesh... Darn absurd, I say.

=======================
Tracy Barber
-----------------------
adirondack-pc
-----------------------
"Freebie Stamp Project"
=======================

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:00:06 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall"
wrote:


"amesh" wrote in message
. dk...
"Douglas Myall" skrev i en meddelelse
...

- snip -

My advice to Mette, for what it is worth, is that so long as she
reproduces only stamp images as distinct from the original
paintings,
and so long as those images purporting to be mint and are in
colour
are `cancelled' in some way, e.g., by a line or arc in one corner,
and
so long as she makes it clear that she IS reproducing stamps that
are,
or were, on sale to the public, she should be free of interference
from bodies such as Copy-Dan.

Thanks for your advice Douglas. I have been discussing this with
Copy-Dan
for 2-3 years, and they insist that the copyright protection applies
to
*all* depictions -- also on stamps -- insofar the artist involved
was still
alive in 1935 or later. In other words, a rigid interpretation of
the
70-year protection.

They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files
listed,
or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a
formal
invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!

That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?

Mette

Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do. Does Copy-Dan
purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright? Do
they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate? Might I
expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
for this from Royal Mail?

I'd LOVE to see that ONE. Heh! (Go get 'em Douglas!)

=======================
Tracy Barber
-----------------------
adirondack-pc
-----------------------
"Freebie Stamp Project"
=======================

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:00:06 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall"
wrote:

They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files
listed,
or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a
formal
invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!

That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?

Mette

Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do. Does Copy-Dan
purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright? Do
they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate? Might I
expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
for this from Royal Mail?

Mette's position...

This sounds like some far-reaching type of scam. A loophole for
collecting money from some company that has made itself up for that
purpose. It's only purpose is to police something they may not be
able to enforce but attempt to scare people into paying? I wonder
about that...

Is there a Better Business Bureau type of thing in Denmark? Are they
listed? How are their ratings? Are they legit? Any other complaints
from the public?

Sheesh, Mette - for the $ they request, you could probably build a
lawsuit against them, for less. :^)

I'm of the mind of what Douglas just mentioned. Are ALL of the
"estates" represented by COPY-DAN or are they simply intimidating you?

We've had and still have "protection schemes" by gangs / Mafia. It's
as old as time itself, it seems...

=======================
Tracy Barber
-----------------------
adirondack-pc
-----------------------
"Freebie Stamp Project"
=======================

skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:57:20 +0200, "amesh" wrote:

"Roger Smith" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"amesh" wrote in message
k...

- snip -

Roger,
You and I are on exactly the same level of thinking, and I am more than
tempted to bring this question before the court to have some of these
questions clarified. But I also fear that as an individual I am bound to
loose my case. Frankly, I cannot think of anyone who as an individual
might
win a case against a powerful and self-righteous bureaucracy ;-)

I wonder how many others would be in the same position as you? It
seems that this gets to the point of absurdity, especially when it
comes to stamps.

Ha! All collectors who have the temerity to display their modern stamps on
the internet without the artist's or estate's written permission are at
stake. We are talking about artists who were still around in 1935 or later.
Picasso died in 1973, so his estate can claim royalties up to 2043!! Yes,
it is absurd -- I would even say surrealist theatre.


If the artist (or estate, etc) has holdings on the painting and
doesn't want it shown in any form other than their original, then why
are there art stamps in the first place by "reputable" countries all
over the world?

That's a good question, but might be answered by the simple term "greed".
If they can sell a copyright to a given work for the purpose of a national
stamp issuing entity to issue a stamp, that's money in the piggy bank. And
then they can claim more royalties, when collectors show their legailly
acquired material on the internet, provided that the artist was still alive
in 1935 or later.


These are on mail, if used by the consumer and are noticed by the
general public as they pass through the mail system. Are they going
to limit that as well?

They cannot. But they can prevent such items be scanned and shown to the
grand public on the Internet. "Safe" artists are only those who died prior
to 1935. I remember a joint issue (Germany/Belgium) of Rubens-stamps for
Christmas last year. Those are safe enough, since Rubens has been gone for
a while ;-)


Sheesh... Darn absurd, I say.

Yes ...

Mette

Unbelievable. If ever I've seen a case that deserves to go "all the way
to the Supreme Court," then this is it. I wonder what "Copy-Dan" would
do if the web site were hosted "off shore." No doubt the long arm of
the law would still be effective, although porn producers certainly
seem to operate freely by using second and third parties.

We all know that web sites are ephemeral creatures. To have them die a
"natural" death is one thing, but to have them murdered? Have you
sought legal advice, Mette?

Other questions arise:

-- How about the myriad books that include images of stamps?

-- How about stamp exhibitions?

-- How about photographs that include stamps within the image?

-- How about motion pictures that include stamps?

-- How about illustrated listings of stamps for sale or auction?

-- How about illustrated listings of covers? Often, the stamp itself
makes up a tiny proportion of a cover's value, but without the stamp
the cover would be worthless.

I would like to know more about "Copy-Dan". I smell a corporation,
which under law has the rights of an individual but, this case, the
morals of a tomcat.

Bob

skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:00:06 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall"
wrote:

They have sent me a plain ultimatum: "Remove the images and files
listed,
or pay 4,500 DKK (vat 25% included) per month to Copy-Dan for our
permission, given on behalf of the estate". And they did include a
formal
invoice, well specified over some 10-12 pages!

That leaves me no choice other than removing the files, does it?

Mette

Or defending a legal suit, which you may not wish to do. Does Copy-Dan
purport to act on behalf of all artists whose work is in copyright? Do
they, specifically, claim to act for Arnold Machin's estate? Might I
expect to receive an invoice from them for my reproductions of Machin
stamps on my Handbook CD although I already have written permission
for this from Royal Mail?

Mette's position...

This sounds like some far-reaching type of scam. A loophole for
collecting money from some company that has made itself up for that
purpose. It's only purpose is to police something they may not be
able to enforce but attempt to scare people into paying? I wonder
about that...

It's *their* interpretation of the law that counts, not mine, believe you
me!


Is there a Better Business Bureau type of thing in Denmark? Are they
listed? How are their ratings? Are they legit? Any other complaints
from the public?

No.


Sheesh, Mette - for the $ they request, you could probably build a
lawsuit against them, for less. :^)

Lawsuits in this country tends to last for years, and might in the end ruin
you, because an individual won't win a case against bureaucracy. There are
plenty of recent examples of that here (not philatelic, though). Not only
have you lost your money and time, but will also be liable to pay the
counterpart's costs.


I'm of the mind of what Douglas just mentioned. Are ALL of the
"estates" represented by COPY-DAN or are they simply intimidating you?

No, they are not intimidating me. They are deadly serious. Yes, through
their sister-organisations throughout the world they represent ALL estates
and ALL living artists. If they go into a US website, and find art stamps
displayed from, say, Denmark, they will ask their US network to take action
on their behalf. And so on for all countries.


We've had and still have "protection schemes" by gangs / Mafia. It's
as old as time itself, it seems...

It seems to work so, just under another "brand".

But, as said already, it is only the 20th century art that is affected,
which means from Art Deco and onwards. Impressionism and farther back is not
covered, since the artists of that movement all died prior to 1935. Next
year the limit will be 1936, and so on.

Mette

I wrote the following before seeing Mette's first post of today,
Sunday, June 12:

I have recently encountered a problem which has to do either with a
money grab or copyright or perhaps both. I would like to purchase a
photograph from a "public" archive in Northern Ireland. copyrighte us
iwbed bt the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland, Ulster
Folk & Transport Museum. The image would be used as a collateral item
in the philatelic exhibit I am working on for Vanpex 2005 and it would
eventually end up being displayed on a web site.

The archive would charge me 7GBP for an electronic image, 25GBP for
one-time use of the image in the exhibit, and 108GBP to use it on a web
site. The only price break for educational, non-commercial use is
half-price for the reproduction of the image, if it will be used in
"Educational Textbooks" or "Scholarly Publications." The best-case
scenario, then, is that I would have to pay US $247.41 for use of this
image.

This is certainly not standard international practice for archival
material. I recently purchased an image from the national archives in
Canada and had to pay about $20 in total for a hi-res image supplied on
CD Rom. The curator I dealt with understood that the image would be on
public display.

I have an image of a painting on one of my web pages that I scanned
from a book jacket. The original image is a painting in the Canadian
War Museum. The museum web page states that permission to reproduce
images of items in its collection must be obtained prior to use. I
tried to obtain that permission, but I was told that the person in
charge of that department was on holidays, and would get back to me.
That person never "got back to me" and I have been using the image
ever since.

Since I have been publishing on the internet, coming up on 10 years
now, it has been my understanding that copyrighted images may be used
freely if the intent of their use is educational and non-commercial. It
seems that my understanding may, sadly, be incorrect.

Bob

I just found a Government of Canada web site, at
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/pro...egime/10_e.cfm,
that explains the workings of Copy-Dan and other similar organizations
in Scandinavia. I would say that Mette's case is bows-and-arrows
against the lightning. Big Brother isn't just watching, he's picking
our pockets and destroying our freedom of expression. I would never
argue against any law that protect's artistic and intellectual
property. But Copy-Dan's long reach is bureaucracy gone mad.

Bob