Q: Art stamps on the Internet ??

To all of you who have noticed the triplicate posting. I have no idea what
is causing it. In the past, I have often RECEIVED messages in duplicate,
triplicate and more, but today is the second time that my outgoing messages
are duplicated and triplicate. I hope that this will not continue.

Tony

"A.E. Gelat" wrote in message
...
Yes, Victor, I agree. After looking at all those distorted figures that
you sent, I wonder why anybody would pay even cent for them. I am now
bracing myself for an avalanche of criticism from Mette, yourself and
others.

Tony

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------






----== 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
=----



----== 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 =----

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:39:37 -0400, wrote:

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.

This is almost like saying:

(Please, nobody take offense here - just a very poignant
statement.)

"If a swastika on a web site is made available to a computer in
Israel, then the swastika was a published item in Israel."

Eh? That's TOTALLY ABSURD.

(Return to normalcy now.)

In Mette's case, if the server was in the US, then US publication
rights apply - correct? Who's the Danish publisher? The Danish
ISP?

Once again - ABSURD.

So, I take it - that every computer that has anything questionable
has
to get permission from EVERY country in order to post their stuff
to
the world, otherwise attempt to limit what they post?

Bah, humbug... There are 1000s of site out there like Mette's
then.
Maybe not with art, but in the same EXACT BOAT.

sarcasm mode on

Comments, please, about the publishing "effect" above - let me know
if
I have to contact everyone in the world in order to "publish" my web
site.

/sarcasm mode off

See above for details...

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



Tracy, I think you are confusing the question of whether and where an
image is published on the internet with the question of whether such a
publication is legal. Only if it is illegal would you need to consider
what you might need to do about it. In a case where it would be legal
in some countries but not in others, there is a grey area and this is
one of the questions currently being considered by WIPO (see my
earlier post). To prove my point that the location of the server is
irrelevant to the question of where an internet posting is published,
consider the situation where someone downloads images of child
pornography onto their computer. They would be in trouble in most
countries of the world and it would be no defence for them to claim
that the server was in Timbuctoo or wherever.

Douglas

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"loepp" wrote in message
...
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

The law is the law, but...

Let's say that I order you a portrait of myself and I pay you for
the
result. You paint a portrait where I can be recognized (I know that
you can
:-)

- Question No. 1. I publish it on a web site because I have the
copyright on
my own image, on any support. How is this compatible with your
copyright?

- Question No. 2. Because it's my painting, I can burn it or I can
change
it. Let's say that I change it by putting the missing hair on its
previous
place and I make myself look younger. Which of both artists ;-) has
the
copyright now?

- Question No. 3, and the last one. I scan a stamp from my
collection, and I
make some changes (just to mention that already in the scanning
process some
dust was recorded and some distortions were done). Who has the
copyright?

--
Victor Manta

This shows just how dangerous it is to try and make general statements
or claims about copyright law and why I said in my first posting on
this thread that there is NO universal answer to such matters. It is
GENERALLY true that the copyright in a commissioned work will be
vested in the person who commissioned it, and that is the likely
answer to Victor's Q1. In such a case the artist retains certain
"moral rights" one of which is the "right of integrity" which means
that he can take action if his work is treated in a derogatory manner
and published. Victor's proposed treatment in his Q2 is unlikely to
fall foul of this but it would very much depend on the facts of the
case; the copyright ownership would not change, see Q1. His Q3 has
already been answered in this thread; I do not think that such
treatment can affect the question of OWNERSHIP but it might well
constitute an INFRINGEMENT of copyright if that were vested in someone
else.

Douglas

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:10:51 -0500, "A.E. Gelat"
wrote:

To all of you who have noticed the triplicate posting. I have no idea what
is causing it. In the past, I have often RECEIVED messages in duplicate,
triplicate and more, but today is the second time that my outgoing messages
are duplicated and triplicate. I hope that this will not continue.

Tony -

Even the explanations are duplicate / oops / triplicate! :^)

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:18:36 +0000 (UTC), "Douglas Myall"
wrote:

Tracy, I think you are confusing the question of whether and where an
image is published on the internet with the question of whether such a
publication is legal. Only if it is illegal would you need to consider
what you might need to do about it. In a case where it would be legal
in some countries but not in others, there is a grey area and this is
one of the questions currently being considered by WIPO (see my
earlier post). To prove my point that the location of the server is
irrelevant to the question of where an internet posting is published,
consider the situation where someone downloads images of child
pornography onto their computer. They would be in trouble in most
countries of the world and it would be no defence for them to claim
that the server was in Timbuctoo or wherever.

OK, but there is a broad separation between the scenarios. :^) One
is deemed appropriate and the other not so appropriate.

So, according to some, I could post some art stamps on my US site and
to others, I can't.

What gives? So, Mette couldn't view the art stamps on my web site in
the US on her computer in Denmark because of Copy-Dan? Who will
police that? The U.S.? "Fair use" does apply over here.

Yeah, maybe I'm getting a wee bit convoluted here.

We could always try it and see if the Copy-Dan cousins come out of the
woodwork!

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

Victor, Q1, it really depends on the agreement under which the work is
commissioned, but unless there is some specific written agreement it probably
defaults to what would be some sort of usual understanding. In advertising,
court room art, and a myriad of applications there are seldom written and
signed forms pertaining to copyright. The default agreements in advertising, I
don't know, but I assume it varies depending on the application and use. The
courtroom art one is too long to type out and I'm tired from travel. The
portrait one is based on mutual respect for one's image and the artist's
interpretation of that image. It is said that Graham Sutherland was
commissioned to paint Churchill and Churchill put his foot through it. Mutual
respect seems not to have been the case there. I guess after you pay, an artist
probably isn't too worried about the painting's survival (but lawsuits could
arise). Douglas seems to have answered things in many ways.
My point about stamps and their images is that I feel that the philatelic
world exists in many well established forms and unwritten rules and
understandings have existed before the likes of copy-dan started policing the
philatelic world. US great american artists, poets, inventors, etc. were
honored in a series of 1940. Does someone really care if the images of these
highly honored individuals are used in a fair-use manner for what would
essentially be perpetuating their fame? I guess contemporary prima donnas do.
Where mutual respect and understanding fail, courts help settle disagreements
and decide laws. Lawyers are on the front lines of interpretation of law, a
very noble endeavor. Cases such as Mette's are interesting and should be
debated and tried.
TL

Victor Manta wrote:

"loepp" wrote in message
...
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

The law is the law, but...

Let's say that I order you a portrait of myself and I pay you for the
result. You paint a portrait where I can be recognized (I know that you can
:-)

- Question No. 1. I publish it on a web site because I have the copyright on
my own image, on any support. How is this compatible with your copyright?

- Question No. 2. Because it's my painting, I can burn it or I can change
it. Let's say that I change it by putting the missing hair on its previous
place and I make myself look younger. Which of both artists ;-) has the
copyright now?

- Question No. 3, and the last one. I scan a stamp from my collection, and I
make some changes (just to mention that already in the scanning process some
dust was recorded and some distortions were done). Who has the copyright?

--
Victor Manta

amesh wrote:
I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in public
on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the artist's
estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect the estate's
(or the still living artist's) legal rights.

I have followed this thread with interest and I particularly like the
advice to "let 'em sue". Of course it *is* easier to make such a
suggestion if you are a few thousand kms from the address on the letter.

I know you have received many practical approaches to this problem but
it crosses my mind that, if asked, at least some of the artists
concerned might be only too happy to give permission to have their works
featured on your pages.

Who knows, maybe those artists will have additional information and/or
correspondence that they could contribute to your pages.

Just a thought.

All the best,
Bob Watson

"Bob Watson" skrev i en meddelelse
.. .
amesh wrote:

- snip -

I have followed this thread with interest and I particularly like the
advice to "let 'em sue". Of course it *is* easier to make such a
suggestion if you are a few thousand kms from the address on the letter.

I know you have received many practical approaches to this problem but it
crosses my mind that, if asked, at least some of the artists concerned
might be only too happy to give permission to have their works featured on
your pages.

Who knows, maybe those artists will have additional information and/or
correspondence that they could contribute to your pages.

Thanks for your input, Bob :-)

So far the problem is solved, simply by uploading the files and images
involved to a password-protected and closed network, where they are only
accessible to members of the network.

I will, though, consider your idea with regard to later re-publishing to the
general public.

All the best
Mette

"amesh" wrote in message
k...
This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
public on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
artist's estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect
the estate's (or the still living artist's) legal rights.
long snip for brevity

It was an interesting an passionate debate, in a surely one of the longest
threads in the last months. Now the time came for some conclusions, at least
for me, BTW a person who is directly interested by the results.

Just to mention that I feel a certain responsibility toward those who, like
Mette, followed my advice and encouragements and started to publish
philatelic pages.

Simplifying, I would categorize the expressed points of view in two groups:

1. Some of us (a minority, I have the impression) took a mixed but rather
"legalistic", so to say, position: if the law is against the publishing of
art stamps images (without the explicit approval of... etc.) in a country,
then its citizens have to abide to it worldwide, even if the local laws
don't prohibit it in other countries. That's why they put the highest
priority on the fight against these laws in their own country, and in the
meantime remove their pages from the Web.

2. Others took a moral stance: because this European law is absurd (goes to
far, don't protect what it should - even if its intentions are good, etc.),
then it is moral to circumvent it, by publishing pages with stamps images on
them in the places on the Web where this is permitted.

My position: I'm for both of these solutions, because both of them put the
pressure on the legislators and on the governments, and make advance the
cause of freedom (not of the freedom to steal but of the freedom to
inform - "fair use").

The first solution shows clearly to the too far going (European - in our
case) legislators that people strongly disagree with them (see what happened
to the proposed European constitution after people of France and The
Netherlands said No to it).

The second one reminds to the same legislators and rulers that there are
spaces of liberty in the world (Internet being one of them) that offer
competition to their extremist ideas, and that not only businesses and jobs
stay on risk of being moved elsewhere, but also hobbies.

--
Victor Manta

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:08:26 +0200, "Victor Manta"
wrote:

"amesh" wrote in message
. dk...
This is an ooold question, raised by me about 2-3 years ago, but here goes
again.

I have recently been contacted by the Danish Copyright Organisation
(Copy-Dan), who has notified me that according to European copyright
legislation it is not allowed to show stamps or philatelic material on the
Internet, insofar such stamps depict artworks by artists who were still
alive within the latest 70 years. Such material may only be shown in
public on condition that an explicit permission has been obtained from the
artist's estate, or if a substantial due is paid to Copy-Dan to protect
the estate's (or the still living artist's) legal rights.
long snip for brevity

It was an interesting an passionate debate, in a surely one of the longest
threads in the last months. Now the time came for some conclusions, at least
for me, BTW a person who is directly interested by the results.

Just to mention that I feel a certain responsibility toward those who, like
Mette, followed my advice and encouragements and started to publish
philatelic pages.

Simplifying, I would categorize the expressed points of view in two groups:

1. Some of us (a minority, I have the impression) took a mixed but rather
"legalistic", so to say, position: if the law is against the publishing of
art stamps images (without the explicit approval of... etc.) in a country,
then its citizens have to abide to it worldwide, even if the local laws
don't prohibit it in other countries. That's why they put the highest
priority on the fight against these laws in their own country, and in the
meantime remove their pages from the Web.

2. Others took a moral stance: because this European law is absurd (goes to
far, don't protect what it should - even if its intentions are good, etc.),
then it is moral to circumvent it, by publishing pages with stamps images on
them in the places on the Web where this is permitted.

My position: I'm for both of these solutions, because both of them put the
pressure on the legislators and on the governments, and make advance the
cause of freedom (not of the freedom to steal but of the freedom to
inform - "fair use").

The first solution shows clearly to the too far going (European - in our
case) legislators that people strongly disagree with them (see what happened
to the proposed European constitution after people of France and The
Netherlands said No to it).

The second one reminds to the same legislators and rulers that there are
spaces of liberty in the world (Internet being one of them) that offer
competition to their extremist ideas, and that not only businesses and jobs
stay on risk of being moved elsewhere, but also hobbies.

Good summary.

I can see if Mette had a cam continually on some paintings in the
specific museums / shows / etc where the "showings" were an event,
then this would be infringing on the artist.

The same applies to bootleg tapes / CDS etc. of concerts, except for
public domain freedom is given by specific musical artists, such as
the Grateful Dead.

Since, though, Mette is:

1) ONLY displaying a post office sanctioned (supposedly), miniature
copy (I'd say so, very little detail can be revealed) of said painting
/ artist work...

2) In the context of a hobby (although some may assume a "showing" /
museum stance)... herein lies part of the rub...

3) Not charging for said view of the items represented...

4) Not claiming they are her own works and giving those artistes their
due, although the organization of the web site is her own work...

5) Hopefully not advertising the web site to draw crowds in relation
to #2 above... other than mentioning new web pages here in passing,
but not on a regular basis...

6) Then this is a trivial pursuit of some absurd stance...

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I know I've been mentioning about a web site I have been doing
research on for some time about a 19th century stamp dealer. I'll
wait to see the fallout of that affair once I post it. It'll have a
lot of possible "issues". Let's see how fair usage plays out then.

[ Cracks whip, reminds himself where the project is... ]

[ One of the problems is that I need to re-scan about 200 - 300 items
and it is a chore. ]

Go get 'em Mette!

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