Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.sources,net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: copyright notice
Message-ID: <1002@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 14:52:54 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.1002
Posted: Mon Jan 27 14:52:54 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 05:46:34 EST
References: <844@rtech.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Distribution: net
Organization: CONTEL CADO Systems, Torrance, CA
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.sources:4253 net.legal:2825

In article <844@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes:
>> 
>> Speaking of copyright, does anyone know what the impact of copyrights
>> are on artists who use collage in some form that may utilize pictures
>> from magazines or excerpts from films, video or records for materials?
>> 
>> Keith Doyle
>
>A collage is a derivative work.  In a derivative work, one has copyright on
>the part the one contributed.  In a collage, the author has copyright on
>the selection and arrangement of the materials.  This doesn't give the author
>copyright on the original materials.  I believe an author would have the
>right to make, display, and sell collages of materials he or she rightfully
>obtained.  For example, one could buy magazines, cut out the pictures and
>makrda collage, and sell it without getting into trouble.  But one couldn't
>get away with making collages from illegal copies of magazines.
>-- 
>Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)

Then that would imply that for an artist to use excerpts from a video that
is copyrighted, he would have to get a legal copy of the video, and then
could 'splice' the tape into his composition, but couldn't re-record
segments, or make copies of his finished work.  Yet what about works like
'Frank Film', which was an animated collage of magazine images.  Could
Maybelline or Clarol or someone have a case against him because he
re-photographed these images that he cut out of their ads?  Could one go
to old magazines for 'copyright free' material?  (I would assume most ads
over 26 years old would fit this description, as I would kinda doubt
these copyrights are renewed)  Or have the copyright laws changed such that
any magazine that pre-dates a certain year is effectively public-domain
since maybe the mags didn't use to publish their copyrights correctly
(all rights reserved or improper format etc.)?  Any ideas on some of these
'fringe' areas?

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
#  cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa