Q: Art stamps on the Internet ??

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:35:38 -0500, "A.E. Gelat"
wrote:

Picasso has been gone for less than 70 years. If I had a Picasso for sale,
(which I DO NOT), and posted a photo of it on the internet, or on eBay,
would that be a violation of these crazy rules?

Tony


Tony:

The rules for SELLING are different.

Besides, if you were selling a Picasso,
you should sell it privately to me for $50.00
just to keep the authorities out of the deal.

38*)

Blair (TC)

"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"amesh" wrote in message
k...
skrev i en meddelelse
...

So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she
could
continue in the "educational" mode she was before this
brou-ha-ha?

Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?

snip
But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject I
would be
"chased" under Danish law, no matter where the server is
located.
snip

Mette

On which base? For example a tourist's obligation is to observe
the
rules of
the country where s/he is (and a more concrete example is that
the
punishment for example for drugs is different in The Netherlands
when
compared to Singapore).
--
Victor Manta

On the basis that the internet is worldwide. Most governments
treat
websites available in their countries as published within their
jurisdiction.
snip
Douglas

I can't follow you, Douglas.

That the Internet is worldwide is a fact.

Because "Most governments treat websites available in their
countries as
published within their jurisdiction", how does this contradict the
idea that
Mette's full site wouldn't be prosecuted if the server were in USA
(and
where her stamps images would be treated under the "fair use"
doctrine).

--
Victor Manta


Because, as Mette has already said, it does not matter where the
server is. If the images are made available to a computer in Denmark
they are published in Denmark.

Douglas

I understand this like follows: if the images are made available to a
server, found anywhere on the Terra, by a Dane, then this Dane person is
guilty because the laws from Denmark forbid it, even if it's permitted
elsewhere.

Therefore, if it's so, then (just for example) if the abortion is forbidden
in England and an English women makes an abortion in (let's say) Denmark,
because there it is legit, then she could/should be punished in England when
she returns. And maybe all English persons who know about what she did even
have the obligation to denounce her, and will be rewarded for this patriotic
act. This just for showing the totalitarian direction that such things can
take...

--
Victor Manta

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romania by Stamps: http://www.marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/communism/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:31:11 +0200, "Victor Manta"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

You could always start an off-shore web site that has a lot of hoops
to jump through before the web host is discovered.

Just a thought...

In the USA it would be "fair use", so not absolutely necessary to go
off-shore.

Now how about our images from Spanish Africa (not from SNA), Tracy? What
if
the designers of those stamps are still alive (or some photographs)? ;-)

Ahhh... Exactly my point in my reply to Douglas about Mette's
situation. How absurd would it be for anyone to come after you for
the SNA stuff? Hmmm?

snip

Tracy,

Please don't try to escape your moral responsibilities. ;-)

You made many of scans, as acknowledged on the Spanish Africa site, so we
can count only on Blair to set us free (or, at least, to bring us something
to eat, and to show us from time to time our stockbooks, full of SNA
stamps).

--
Victor Manta

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish North Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victor,
I hate to be the barer of bad news but selling a painting and it's copyright
are separate. Artists retain copyright on art they sell (yes, 70 years after
they die). Permission to reproduce it in print must be obtained from the artist
and it is merely professional courtesy that the new owner be notified. I
actually own all copyrights to portraits of the people I paint But it would be
highly unprofessional to reproduce them without it being a collaborative effort
or understood by all as in; use in my portfolio, website, advertising, etc. If
someone wishes to make photos of their portrait to distribute among family or
whatever, there is no chance that I would say no. In fact I can supply said
reproductions as photo prints are a big expense each year.
TL

Victor Manta wrote:

"A.E. Gelat" wrote in message
...
Picasso has been gone for less than 70 years. If I had a Picasso for
sale, (which I DO NOT), and posted a photo of it on the internet, or on
eBay, would that be a violation of these crazy rules?

Tony

Tony,

If you are the owner of the work, then you can do with it and with its
images what you want, like publishing them on the Web. This, IMHO, is
perfectly legit, because:

- the artist sold you all rights on it
- if you can't do what you want with your property then you aren't an owner
anymore.

Now let's extrapolate the idea a bit. If you are the owner of an engraving,
one that was copied by the artist 100 times, and whose other 99 pieces were
sold by him to 99 different people, have you still the same right on your
engraving as for only one painting, as above? I would say yes, you do,
because it's your copy, and it is different from others (maybe it has a
number, like 12/100, and anyway there are variations in the reproduction
process).

And now the last, larger step. You are the owner of a stamp that was printed
10 million times. It's your copy, you paid for it with your money, and it is
also surely a bit different from all others. Have you the same rights as
above? You know my answer...

--
Victor Manta

"loepp" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Victor,
I hate to be the barer of bad news but selling a painting and it's
copyright
are separate. Artists retain copyright on art they sell (yes, 70 years
after
they die). Permission to reproduce it in print must be obtained from the
artist
and it is merely professional courtesy that the new owner be notified. I
actually own all copyrights to portraits of the people I paint But it
would be
highly unprofessional to reproduce them without it being a collaborative
effort
or understood by all as in; use in my portfolio, website, advertising,
etc. If
someone wishes to make photos of their portrait to distribute among family
or
whatever, there is no chance that I would say no. In fact I can supply
said
reproductions as photo prints are a big expense each year.
TL

You are absolutely correct on this Tom. This applies also in Europe. But,
after the artist's death within the 70-year limit, his artistic estate is
administered by copyright organisations, in Denmark Copy-Dan. I own an
original painting by a Danish artist who died in 1972, inherited from my
parents. If I want to sell it on the Internet, I can only describe it and
invite potential buyers to ask for a private photograph. I don't want to
sell it, because I like it ;-)

Mette



Victor Manta wrote:

"A.E. Gelat" wrote in message
...
Picasso has been gone for less than 70 years. If I had a Picasso for
sale, (which I DO NOT), and posted a photo of it on the internet, or on
eBay, would that be a violation of these crazy rules?

Tony

Tony,

If you are the owner of the work, then you can do with it and with its
images what you want, like publishing them on the Web. This, IMHO, is
perfectly legit, because:

- the artist sold you all rights on it
- if you can't do what you want with your property then you aren't an
owner
anymore.

Now let's extrapolate the idea a bit. If you are the owner of an
engraving,
one that was copied by the artist 100 times, and whose other 99 pieces
were
sold by him to 99 different people, have you still the same right on your
engraving as for only one painting, as above? I would say yes, you do,
because it's your copy, and it is different from others (maybe it has a
number, like 12/100, and anyway there are variations in the reproduction
process).

And now the last, larger step. You are the owner of a stamp that was
printed
10 million times. It's your copy, you paid for it with your money, and it
is
also surely a bit different from all others. Have you the same rights as
above? You know my answer...

--
Victor Manta

Blair, as I said, I do not own a Picasso, but should I find or inherit one,
you can get it for $50.

Tony


"TC" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:35:38 -0500, "A.E. Gelat"

wrote:

Picasso has been gone for less than 70 years. If I had a Picasso for
sale,
(which I DO NOT), and posted a photo of it on the internet, or on eBay,
would that be a violation of these crazy rules?

Tony


Tony:

The rules for SELLING are different.

Besides, if you were selling a Picasso,
you should sell it privately to me for $50.00
just to keep the authorities out of the deal.

38*)

Blair (TC)






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"TC" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:39:37 -0400, wrote:

- snip -

Tracy:

The best situation for Mette would be if YOU (a US citizen)
were to put the withdrawn pages up on YOUR website in the USA.

Thus it would be covered by US law and the fair use policy.

Then anyone including Mette, myself, Victor or any of us
could LINK to your page. It would NOT be resident on our websites.

Good idea, Blair. But I wouldn't want to ask anyone to do that. Being the
publisher the responsibility to observe law is mine, and I would hate to
impose that on anyone else, no matter how helpful other people are. There
are other ways to solve this problem, and it will be solved, thanks to the
interference of officious civil servants. So far anyone needing to see the
withdrawn pages are welcome to contact me by email, and the pages will be
mailed to them off list for personal use on their own computer, which is NOT
violating the copyright legislation.

Mette

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"Douglas Myall" wrote in message
...

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"amesh" wrote in message
k...
skrev i en meddelelse
...

So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she
could
continue in the "educational" mode she was before this
brou-ha-ha?

Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?

snip
But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject
I
would be
"chased" under Danish law, no matter where the server is
located.
snip

Mette

On which base? For example a tourist's obligation is to
observe
the
rules of
the country where s/he is (and a more concrete example is that
the
punishment for example for drugs is different in The
Netherlands
when
compared to Singapore).
--
Victor Manta

On the basis that the internet is worldwide. Most governments
treat
websites available in their countries as published within their
jurisdiction.
snip
Douglas

I can't follow you, Douglas.

That the Internet is worldwide is a fact.

Because "Most governments treat websites available in their
countries as
published within their jurisdiction", how does this contradict
the
idea that
Mette's full site wouldn't be prosecuted if the server were in
USA
(and
where her stamps images would be treated under the "fair use"
doctrine).

--
Victor Manta


Because, as Mette has already said, it does not matter where the
server is. If the images are made available to a computer in
Denmark
they are published in Denmark.

Douglas

I understand this like follows: if the images are made available to
a
server, found anywhere on the Terra, by a Dane, then this Dane
person is
guilty because the laws from Denmark forbid it, even if it's
permitted
elsewhere.

Therefore, if it's so, then (just for example) if the abortion is
forbidden
in England and an English women makes an abortion in (let's say)
Denmark,
because there it is legit, then she could/should be punished in
England when
she returns. And maybe all English persons who know about what she
did even
have the obligation to denounce her, and will be rewarded for this
patriotic
act. This just for showing the totalitarian direction that such
things can
take...

--
Victor Manta

Victor, that is not copyright law and it is not what I said. Your
first paragraph does, though, apply in some jurisdictions to
pornographic images, especially of children. Your second paragraph has
nothing at all to do with copyright.

Douglas

In article ,
Douglas Myall wrote:
}
}"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
} "Douglas Myall" wrote in message
} ...
}
} "Victor Manta" wrote in message
} ...
} "amesh" wrote in message
} k...
} skrev i en meddelelse
} ...
}
} So, if Mette had a web site over here in the US, then she could
} continue in the "educational" mode she was before this brou-ha-ha?
}
} Hmmmm... how much space do you need Mette?
}
} snip
} But it wouldn't be worth while, because as a Danish subject I would be
} "chased" under Danish law, no matter where the server is located.
} snip
}
} Mette
}
} On which base? For example a tourist's obligation is to observe the rules of
} the country where s/he is (and a more concrete example is that the
} punishment for example for drugs is different in The Netherlands when
} compared to Singapore).
} --
} Victor Manta
}
} On the basis that the internet is worldwide. Most governments treat
} websites available in their countries as published within their
} jurisdiction.
} snip
} Douglas
}
} I can't follow you, Douglas.
}
} That the Internet is worldwide is a fact.
}
} Because "Most governments treat websites available in their countries as
} published within their jurisdiction", how does this contradict the idea that
} Mette's full site wouldn't be prosecuted if the server were in USA (and
} where her stamps images would be treated under the "fair use" doctrine).
}
}Because, as Mette has already said, it does not matter where the
}server is. If the images are made available to a computer in Denmark
}they are published in Denmark.
}
}Douglas

And Mette lives in Denmark, and so in reach of Danish law.


--
= Eric Bustad, Norwegian bachelor programmer

"A.E. Gelat" wrote in message
...
Blair, as I said, I do not own a Picasso, but should I find or inherit
one, you can get it for $50.

Tony

Don't you ask too much, Tony?

http://www.values.ch/Countries/Spain...o/horrible.htm
--
Victor Manta

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://www.pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/
Romania by Stamps: http://www.marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/communism/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------