[wade clark]

I believe in copy right laws and support them 100%. If you're carving for fun, not to sell, it's not a big deal to me, but if it bugs Harley or Bud or Coke or Mickey, they're entitled to squawk! It's their art.
...and there is a place for attorneys too!
Wade

[Clifford_Parker]

Originally Posted by kaiserb

Actually you can only carve a derivative with the permission of the original copyright holder, which may or may not be extended with the purchase from a rough out company. In creating a derivative (provided it is authorized) you only own copyright on the derivations not the entire figure.

Actually, the intent of a roughout is not simply to make an exact duplicate and derivations are expected. This does not give the person carving the derivations copyright to any changes made or violate the original copyright.

While you can copyright a pattern for a horse and rider or a pattern for making a rough out of the same you do not own the exclusive rights to carve a horse and rider and if someone else carves and offers for sale a horse and rider it will be the copyright owner's responsibility to prove it was made from their copyrighted material.

Numerous years as a part-time freelance photographer and two costly court cases have, sadly, taught me the ins and outs of copyright law.

[Irish]

Much of copyright law is simple, basic common-sense.

I believe that it is easy to understand, basic common-sense, that taking a book from a book store without paying for it is stealing. I doubt that anyone here would even question that it would be wrong to go to a book store, pick up a book and put it under your coat, then walk out without paying for the book. That's called stealing, right?

I doubt that anyone here would feel that a person has the right to justify the stealing of the book. I don't think anyone would post "It's not right that they don't let me steal the book because the bookstore is just greedy, trying to stop me from being creative, it doesn't hurt them if they don't know or they are making a ton of money so I don't care, besides that bookstore is just law suit happy with crooked evil lawyers."

I can't imagine that anyone reading this believes that just holding the book in their hands in the bookstore, not having paid for the book yet, makes you the owner of that book. Don't we all know that you have to pay the bookstore for the book before you own it?

And I really can't see anyone here not realizing that it would be a further wrong doing to slap that stolen book down on a Xerox machine, make a couple hundred copies of it then sell them or even give them away free. What about scratching out the author's name on that stolen book or even putting your name in the author's place, is there any doubt that this isn't right?



Much of copyright law is simple, basic common-sense.

What if you go to the library, the book there are free. You don't have to pay the librarian before you take them home. Those books don't cost you anything! Your library card didn't even cost you because your county or state funds that library. So, they're your books, right? You don't have to take them back to the library, you get to just keep them forever and put them on your bookshelf. You got them free so they are your property now.

You can even tell everyone, "Oh, I got that free at the library!" And if the library calls you or sends you a post card that they would like their book back ... well, we all know that libraries and librarians are also rich, greedy, mean, lawyer happy folks!

And would anyone here brag to the rest of the forum, "I'm going to keep that book from the library and sell copies of that book whenever I want to just because I want to and I can! And it is will the fault of the evil lawyers and even more evil librarians if they sue me for stealing. Oh, and I have three huge bookshelves full of free library books that I will give to you or copy for you or sell you. And if those librarians complain, well, they shouldn't have given it to me in the first place, it's their fault."



Do we all agree on those points?

Books are property. They are owned by someone - the book store, the library or you. The text, words, instructions and patterns in those books are also property. They belong by copyright law to the author of that work. Copyrighted works are just like library books. You borrow the book from the library and so that you can read it and use the information in that book, but the book remains the property of the library. And when you buy a book the contents remains the property of the author. You purchase the right to read them and put them to use, within reason - you can't make a movie from a book you bought without the author's permission. And everyone knows that!

Simple, basic common sense.


Susan

[oldbearx2]

The copy right laws work in strange and sometimes gray areas. I have a friend of mine who used to belong to a band called Yogi and the Boo Boo's, which is a play on his last name. Well, to make a long story short, they were contacted by Hanna-Barberra the cartoon company that held the copy rights to the Yogi Bear and Boo Boo names, and told that they would have to stop using that name or face the "music". I too agree with the copy right laws, they are there to protect those who need protecting. We just sometimes think because it's a big corporation, why should they care about what the little guy does. But sometimes the little guy benefits from the same laws.
Speaking of which, this lawyer walks into a bar----ah never mind.
have fun, carve, Harold

[jamesfa]

It seems that this same subject comes up every 12-18 mths.it still has not been resolved we have the for and the against.

my opinion is that artists have a right to protect their works,particularly if they earn some or all of their living from these same works.
I for one carve to have fun and pleasure and if by chance i copy something that someone feels that i have taken for their efforts,then there is no fun in fighting someone so i would offer a royalty fee if it was something i wanted to keep,or destroy it.

the last time this came up i had inadvertly made something to aid in carving which i felt was being offer by someone to copy as it turned out it was pointed out by someone that the design was developed by someone else and that these were sold by the creator.
legally i felt that there was enough difference to avoid any legal action,but morally i felt that i had used the basic design and improved it.so i contacted the original designer and we reach a mutually acceptable agrrement.

But i believe we lost a couple of members as a result of the disscussions that took place.
so lets end this thread and leave to the lawyer to figure it out they have to live too.

Frank

[Lightningbolt]

While I wholeheartedly (is that a word?) support the copyright protection of writer's, artist's, or whomever I also believe with the same conviction that it is the *lawyers* who have created their own low-life reputation in recent decades, which is probably the lowest of the low by those who have been the unfortunate recipients of their sometimes venomous injustice. What other reason could account for so many lawyer jokes since joking is one of the most common ways of dealing with pain. Must be a LOT of pain out there.

We now live in a society and a culture that values *winning* at all costs' more that it does with uncovering the truth. Must I say more than O.J. Simpson? Ok, I will... Michael Jackson, a certain recently retired U.S. president, and oh.... don't forget the lady who sued McDonald's for millions because her coffee was too hot. The list is endless. Yes, it is a fact that we live in a culture that honors winning over right n' wrong and kids need more processing with decent parents these days than ever before and that too is becoming a rare thing.

So when someone decides to cross the boundaries of a copyright, I agree that it's wrong, but I also must consider the underlying damage that (mostly trial lawyers) have brought on us all for the most part. Yeah, there are some good lawyers (and worthy causes) out there and I hope that I can find one if I'm ever the recipient of injustice, but for the most part lawyers have made their own bed when it comes to the lowest of reputations.

Sometimes the legal (yet highly unethical) maneuvering of lawyers can cause a lot of otherwise good people to become quite bitter with the profession to the point that they too begin to question the "truth" in their everyday lives. Ocassionally I also find myself questioning the law... the law written of, by, and for the lawyer... not the people. Lawyers have certainly made some otherwise very clear and simple situations very, very cloudy and that's a shame.

[Plain_Ol_Ed]

Who let O.J. off, Who let the retired president off, who awarded the hot coffee lady the money .... the jury .... We're our own worst enemy.

[Ashbys]

Hi- Ho , names are a bit different, heres how

for a business to operate in a state they are required to allpy for a license this application has a fee in which includes a name search. For 50 dollars you can have a corporation, and no two businesses in the same state can be be same name. But two corporations can with the same name exist in the same state if one of those is a corporation in another state.
I other words if "joe Bar" in a corporation in the state of texas , and expands into Kansas , where there is a joe Bar already then the two places can exist at the same time as the full names are really
"Joe Bar Incorporation of the state of Texas " and Joe Bar legal business in the state of Kansas.

As far as my ststements go concerning walmat, well that is only opinion. They might be more willing to remove an item off their shevles. I just have a high disreguard for the extreamly large corps which exist today and pay high profits to shareholders while paying cheap wages to employees. Or purchase products in overseas places at cheap prices often to the extent of almost slave labor , and I guess in someplaces even less than slave labor would cost. Then bring those products into the states and try to sell them to us so they can have large profits for sharholders. These companies would include , companies like will well most auto manufacters, who while laying off americans build jubs overseas then tries to sell their product as american made to the same people they took the jobs from.

Ok I know off topic and beating the drum!

Ash

[JIM QUILICI]

Susan,

Do you know any body who would ever buy a selfhelp book ( carving book for example) and not be able to use it to the fullest. nobody would buy Marvs, Prescott's or enlow and last but not least PETES BOOKS if they could not use their ideas and their patterns and their instructions. its a win win situation I buy the book and carve their pattern and they make money when I buy their book.I don't sell the carving I give them to friends and my sons, and have a lot of fun doing It. I went to a carving show on sat. and the person who won 1st place in the intermeterate class won it with a copy of bishops bust of a cowboy. The 1st place winner for a scene won it with a grouping of prescotts cowboys mounted on a base. wonder where they got those patterns all except biships ( who has no books but does have a web site with pictures of his carvings.) from books with patterns. books being used tho the fullest. for the reason they were written.

my 2 cents
Just old jim

[JIM QUILICI]

Originally Posted by decoycarve

Ya know what? Im going to carve what I want, sell it to whom ever wants to buy it and if I get locked up please send me some soap and plastic knives so I can keep CARVING.

Right on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thats what I'm talking about.

that could not have been said any better unless I said it myself. lol

just old Jim