Licensed items

"barefoot" wrote in message
oups.com...
and i never said all TTM autographs are fake or secretarial...i even
put a nice annecdote about matt kenseth taking a sharpie from my wife
so he could sign his mail..

I've gotten every NASCAR driver by mail except for Rusty Wallace. He sends
the SASE back empty and tosses the item you send in the trash.

Although sometimes you are crude and mean-spirited, your last
statement reminds me of Simon Cowell; you just say what a lot of
people may think?! LOL

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:18:21 -0800, "yankeefan"
wrote:

Congrats on your sucess rate! Care to give a few
suggestions/pointers to those of us who aren't doing so well these days ?
I'm fairly new at this hobby,started about a year ago.Think my
success rate is somewhere around 25-30 %. Any suggestions to improve this
would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Some of the things I do could be considered unscrupulous. But I can give
you a couple of tips that are safe.

1) Never send more than one item.
2) If you're sending out of your home country, always put the postage of
the foreign country on your SASE. Don't use IRCs or leave the envelope
blank.
3) Send your letter right to their house if you are able to find the home
address.

Barefoot would never be able to get any autographs by mail because he writes
like a 3rd grader. He could always tell them his name is Mikey and he is 8
years old. Then they would probably overlook his near illiteracy and send
him an autograph.

I will not go back but your exact quote was "most ttm are secretarial
anyway". anyone want to go back? I'll pay pal you 5 bucks for the
person that shows Barefoot is a liar.


On 16 Mar 2006 22:27:37 -0800, "barefoot"
wrote:

and i never said all TTM autographs are fake or secretarial...i even
put a nice annecdote about matt kenseth taking a sharpie from my wife
so he could sign his mail..

i did say MOST...not EVERY...in fact i still believe that 95% + are
secretarial, fake, preprinted, autopenned, whatever...but, and i also
said this...it's because MORE people send to the bigger stars that they
know who they are, not the fact that a selcet few on this group take
their collections so seriously that they write to smaller, lesser known
people who would be perfectly happy to get the captain of a gun ship in
pirates of the carribbean 3.
mike

LOL You just said before you never said that... you backpeddle, you
lie so much you don't remember the things you said. And we already
proved you wrong on this one. A couple others posted their stats and
we already verified it's OPPOSITE what you say; that less than 5
percent (more like 1-2%) is secretarial. Why do you keep arguing when
everyone already proved otherwise. Gee friggin' whiz; once in a while
admit your wrong and maybe you won't get so much damned flack.

On 17 Mar 2006 10:30:07 -0800, "barefoot"
wrote:

i did say MOST...not EVERY...in fact i still believe that 95% + are
secretarial, fake, preprinted, autopenned, whatever...but, and i also
said this...it's because MORE people send to the bigger stars that they
know who they are, not the fact that a selcet few on this group take
their collections so seriously that they write to smaller, lesser known
people who would be perfectly happy to get the captain of a gun ship in
pirates of the carribbean 3.
mike

That's really mature. LOL

On 17 Mar 2006 12:48:51 -0800, "barefoot"
wrote:

you haven't proved ****...you haven't put quotes from where i
backpeddled...because i don't. i don't need to admit i'm wrong...you
do...i don't backpeddle EVER...i haven't yet...no one has proved a god
damned thing...show me where you've proved anything EVER....this is why
you are a moron...this is why you are stupid...enjoy your idiot
traits...loser

The nice thing about getting authentic autographs by mail is that the
celebrity is signing them in their lounge chair at home and not rushing the
signature. A lot of that **** you're getting in person while they are on
the run trying to get the hell away from you (squiggly lines and illegible
scrawls), is a joke and I wouldn't have one of them in my collection.


"barefoot" wrote in message
oups.com...
i did say MOST...not EVERY...in fact i still believe that 95% + are
secretarial, fake, preprinted, autopenned, whatever...but, and i also
said this...it's because MORE people send to the bigger stars that they
know who they are, not the fact that a selcet few on this group take
their collections so seriously that they write to smaller, lesser known
people who would be perfectly happy to get the captain of a gun ship in
pirates of the carribbean 3.
mike

barefoot wrote:

once an item is signed, it's a piece of memorabilia, and the
licensed/unlicensed thing goes out the window...because the liscensing
is an individual thing.
...
the person signing is basically giving you
permission to use it in any way you want to at that point.

mike

An actor does not own the copyright for a show or movie they work in.
There for they can not legally waive copyright to said image. The
copyright belongs to the person or group that paid them for their work
and the images belong to that person or group. They may waive copyright
to their own image being used, such as when they sign on to do a show
or other type of work. They sign contracts that allow the production
company to use their image (usually for compensation).

The copyright still belongs to the person who paid for the work.
A film still belongs to the production company because they paid for
the work the image represents.

You may receive written permission either freely or for compensation to
use the images but usually under contract and usually under limits of
what you can do with said images. That is to protect the franchise
owner that the value of their property does not get diluted by others
profiting.

If you create the image, and not by making an exact copy of an existing
image. You have the right to distribute your work, and the copyright
belongs to you. But the characters may still belong to another person
and the copyrights for the characters trancends your right to profit
from your image.

Usually the infringment is to small to warrant action. Action usually
is brought when someone makes profit from a franchise or person and
threatens to harm the franchise or person through financial
(compensation) or personal (image) loss.

That is what leads to the grey area. The fact that infringments are not
dealt with on a more consistant basis.

At one time I heard that some threatened websites for posting images of
that person. Anyone know how that turned out?



--

An actor does not own the copyright for a show or movie they work in.
There for they can not legally waive copyright to said image. The
copyright belongs to the person or group that paid them for their work
and the images belong to that person or group. They may waive copyright
to their own image being used, such as when they sign on to do a show
or other type of work. They sign contracts that allow the production
company to use their image (usually for compensation).

Exactly

The copyright still belongs to the person who paid for the work.
A film still belongs to the production company because they paid for
the work the image represents.

Yep.

You may receive written permission either freely or for compensation to
use the images but usually under contract and usually under limits of
what you can do with said images. That is to protect the franchise
owner that the value of their property does not get diluted by others
profiting.

Unlikely anyone here would "get permission". It is usually in regards
to promotion of movies or the celeb or whatever. You have to be
basically an entity like a magazine, news show, etc. If the movie is
past the point of being promoted, the idea to get permission is even
lessened. DEFINATELY you will not get permission to make copies to
get signed and put on Ebay or sell elsewhere. That was the whole
point of this fiasco of a post in the first place. Barefoot said he
had permission.

If you create the image, and not by making an exact copy of an existing
image. You have the right to distribute your work, and the copyright
belongs to you. But the characters may still belong to another person
and the copyrights for the characters trancends your right to profit
from your image.

So are you saying if I create a drawing of Yoda and distribute it it's
ok? But if I sell it, I can't because Yoda is a copyrighted character
of Lucasfilm and even though it's my drawing and interpretation, the
idea of Yoda isn't mine and is trumped by the original owner? Makes
sense to me. By the way, if you search paintings and Star wars,
you'll see oil paintings for sale. Also copyright violation then.
One company NOT to cross is Lucasfilm. One email to them yields FAST
action. You can get a cease and desist order in about two hours.
Trust me, I've spoken with website owners who had to shut down. I've
had friends who got letters... and I've spoken directly with the lady
in the dept. She actually signed an index card for me and so did
Howard Roffman... Also, this goes hand in hand why some people SUE
artists for stealing song lyrics etc. They claim they were the
original person with the idea and that trumps the version others came
up with later. Oftentimes, cases are lost because they don't have
copyright and it's difficult to prove they were "first".

Let's make it clear though with this that if you take an image from
any film and photoshop it and change it and distribute it, it's NOT
YOUR WORK. You altered an original work and that's all. This is a
problem before when a friend photoshopped stuff almost beyond
recognition and thought it's HIS work. Same goes for people here...
thinking it's there's because they artistically did something to it.
It will tell you in the copyright disclaimer do not "alter".

Usually the infringment is to small to warrant action. Action usually
is brought when someone makes profit from a franchise or person and
threatens to harm the franchise or person through financial
(compensation) or personal (image) loss.

THIS is where the argument got heated. I said this exact thing. My
argument was that our little screen caps which we get signed for our
personal collections is unlikely to be prosecuted as no harm is really
done to the company. I understand they CAN prosecute, but it costs
money to do so and what is gained for them? However, someone like
Barefoot who is selling unlicensed photos on Ebay and elsewhere is
most likely to be prosecuted because they are actually TAKING money
from the company...they're profiting off images the company has rights
to. I know companies think "If anyone is to make money off it, it's
us". Also, they worry about reputation. So someone unscrupulous
selling or who has a shady background or anything like that would not
be good to be associated with. That's why you have to ask permission
too... this is all common sense.

That is what leads to the grey area. The fact that infringments are not
dealt with on a more consistant basis.

And that's why people keep doing it. So here we wait to see who will
be the first one to get prosecuted and who will be the "example".
They may not be interested now, but some day, some lawyer will sit
there bored and want a challenge or someone will walk into his office
****ed about something they saw on Ebay and THAT person who is on Ebay
doing it will be the 'example". I suggest it won't be us little
screen cap violators. It'll be the ones who list photos for sale etc.
That's the whole argument in a nutshell answered. So no more need to
go over this. I suggest we sit here and "wait". Time will tell and I
am not concerned...but others should be. Of note, I had 6 different
emails; messages out to film companies regarding this. Your point is
proven they don't care...only two responded. One was a lawyer saying
I could PAY for an answer and the other I posted here. The canned
response was basically a reiteration of the clauses on a DVD etc.

At one time I heard that some threatened websites for posting images of
that person. Anyone know how that turned out?

Have no clue about that. I have gotten two separate emails last week
though, for me to remove their signatures off my website. I complied
immediately. Unfortunately for me, the image was an 11 signature
multi-signed item. The two signatures were part of that so all those
came down. Both emailers agreed to sign for me further; they didn't
want their signatures on the net (one said it was their "business"
signature). The other just wanted to be asked permission first. I
apologized, removed them and they were very nice. It's all about
being kind... and respecting each other.

I can not and will not make opinions based on what Barefoot does or
does not do; because I just can not bear to try and read his posts. The
formatting (lack there of) just gives me a headache.

I won't say that he does not have permission or license, and really it
doesn't matter a hill of beans what I think or what he responds.

What one does is his or her buisness as long as it does not hurt the
hobby. When it hurts the hobby. It becomes our buisness. Then we should
be obligated to take action to protect the hobby.


--