Amos ‘n’ Andy wasn’t a live broadcast show on television. It was a filmed series, made in Hollywood at the old Hal Roach Studios (Laurel and Hardy, Our Gang, etc.).
Heh, heh. 
Of course, you’re right.
My bad. Thank you.
Right idea, wrong date. From the website of the U.S. Copyright Office:
Thank you.
“Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.”
What about works created prior to 1976/78? Was the elimination of the notice requirement made retroactive to these works?
(Of course, I suppose I could go wade through the official website, but since you already happen to be here… )
Got news for you. Copyright infringement is not just a tort action, it is also a criminal offence, and is punishable by a prison sentence of up to ten years. And yes, the cases are titled, “United States v. ______”
When a work originally published in the U.S. enters the public domain, it stays there. Copyright restoration in that link refers to certain foreign works, not domestic works.
Thank you.
Let me explain something to you: This is how it is for all aritsts. This is normal. We all do this. We practice and practice and practice and (did I mention we practice?) and these works sit in our closet and they don’t sell. To put a little humor into this, I take all the paintings in your closet and I raise you about 30 or so full sketchbooks, countless doodles in notebooks, endless newsprint pads, and so forth. 
So, I’m sorry. I hope you understand that most artists are going to look at you like, “So?” if you complain to them that your student works are languishing in the closet. This is how it is. We don’t sell every thing that we put our effort into. That’s. Not. How. It. Works. That’s part of the reason why so many of us want our copyrights to last longer—because of all those sketchbooks in our closet, representing years of college loans, time and study and effort that got us to the place where we are now—artists who can successfully make original artwork.
And as has been discussed, if the heirs of Slug Signorino are keeping up on registering all his copyrights, then this shows that they have an intent to keep those copyrights active. Best to copy someone else who hasn’t kept renewing their copyrights. You’d be free and clear and there would be no reason to worry. That’s why I think artemis’s idea has merit.
No. No! 20 years is not that long of a time. I have works on my site that are almost that old. I am active with my artwork, anyone who sees the artwork on my site will know that I still care about these works, own them, and will sell limited rights to them for a modest fee. I see no reason why, just because the work has reached the 20 year mark, that I should no longer have control over it. If I am active about keeping my copyright, and the site is clearly mine (not “abandoned,” like if I’m dead and no one can reach my heirs), then why take away my rights? Anyone who wants to use my work can contact me and I will give them a reasonable rate.
I can understand being frustrated if no one seems to give a damn about the work, and then, all of a sudden, a previously disinterested heir pops out of the woodwork with dollar signs in their eyes. With a scheme similar to artemis’s, that wouldn’t happen. Anyone who would copy my work would do so knowing who I am, how to contact me to negotiate a price, and so forth.
Let’s see—I sell little dribs and drabs off of a work. Let’s say an average of $50 a year for this one piece.
Let’s do the math: 10 x $50 = $500. 20 x $50 = $1,000. $500 more.
And if you take, let’s say, oh, 20 pieces that all make $50 a year, it adds up.
Well, there’s your reason for me to want that extra amount of time.
Not cease entirely, but dry up, yes. And I’ve already explained.
If someone sees one of my web images and wants to buy rights to it (to put on their own site), they have to contact me and pay me for it. If they see one of my web images and realize that it is in the public domain, guess what? They do, "Save as . . . " and I don’t get any money.
Or, let’s say someone buys a print I did. So they copy it and put a high res image up on the Internet, and sell it for far less than I sell it. Or, since it’s in the public domain, most likely they’d just give it away. Why pay me when they can get it for free elsewhere?
Do you seriously believe that people are going to pay me anyway for something that is, in essence, free?
And usually these medications are really, REALLY expensive for the first years of production, because the company that invested in all the R&D need to get their money back. And, unlike artwork, most medications are a life-or-death thing. People will buy it. With artwork, if an artist is charging a whole lot for the work (in anticipation of losing copyright in a few years), then most people will simply say, “Screw it. I’ll just wait 5 years and get it from someone else or see if I can get it for free. I can afford to wait.”
I think I did the math above.
I don’t know either, but it would be better than nothing. Perhaps the copyright office could list every artist who had re-registered their copyright. If the name of the artist you wanted to copy wasn’t on that list, then you’d be in the clear. If you didn’t know the name of the artist, I guess you’d be shit out of luck.
That’s wonderful, and keep doing that.
Here’s a suggestion: give the paintings away. I don’t know what else to tell you. You enjoy seeing people’s joy when they see your reproductions, so instead of having these work languish in your closet, just give them away. I don’t know the legal ramifications of this, but I find it doubtful that some copyright holder would get their knickers in a bunch if they learned that some friend-of-a-friend gave someone their student painting.
But that’s the problem. We all don’t get what we want. I can’t sell all the crappy little practice doodles I have in my garage and in my closet. But I enjoyed doing them, and doing them made me a better artist.
You are wanting to profit from (pardon me if this sounds harsh), copying the ideas, imagination, training, effort, originality, spirit, heartache, sweat, etc., of other people. I don’t know if you’ll ever be able to do this, and I doubt that many in the art community will support you in this. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but there you are.
Once again, I realize that you are new to all of this and I know you don’t understand (and I know that you are a good-natured soul), but I want to explain to you why this attitude would be very offensive to many artists.
You’re cherry-picking through other already established works, finding the ones that will make money, and you’re making money off of the back of that well-established cash cow.
The person who did that painting probably has a hundred times the unsold paintings in their closet, perhaps have umpteen sketchbooks full of bad drawings (you have to get through the bad ones to get to the good ones ;)) and it probably took them a LONG time and a lot of lost money to finally get that “winning look” that is finally, finally making them money. And they will see you, sauntering in, choosing which of their works to copy, selecting the ones that made the most money, and then making some money off of their idea. And they’ll think (if they’re still alive), “what a leech! Come up with your own ideas, like I did!”
Now, I realize that you’re not actually doing any of this now (since you daren’t copy the work from living artists), but if their work could go out of copyright in 20 years, that’s what you could do.
AND THAT’S A GIFT THAT YOU SHOULD CULTIVATE.
I think you’re being very shortsighted here. You obviously have skill, talent, potential, an eye for what people like. With a few more years (or less) of practice, you’ll be making your own original works, probably making good money off of the work, and you’ll not have to be bitching and expressing frustration because you can’t copy this guy’s work, or that guy’s work. It will cease to be an issue.
You don’t have to reproduce other people’s works. You can do it for enjoyment, (and I encourage you to continue to do so), but there is NO WAY I believe that you are going to be the type of person who is stuck copying others’ works for the rest of your life. It is human nature, especially artists’ nature, to want to make a unique, original statement. It’s not typical to be satisfied just copying someone else’s ideas for the rest of your life. I just don’t see it.
If you’ve only been at this for a year, it’s too soon for you to understand this, and I can sympathise. I went through the exact same thing when I was a teenager. I copied and copied and copied. It was fun! And copying taught me a lot of techniques and ideas and then as a result I developed my own style. That’s what will happen to you, in time. the situation you are in now is entirely temporary.
Well, the registration every XX years could fix that.
That’s okay, and I do understand where you are coming from. Been there myself.
Allow me to explain what some of my less tolerant artistic brethren might say to you about your notions about wanting to copy and sell others’ works in 20 years:
They’ll tell you that, for instance, that (hypothetical) painting of theirs that you just copied and sold was something that they did was the result of 10 years of study. They studied artistic anatomy (and animal anatomy, which has similarities to human anatomy) for several semesters. They memorized every bone in the body. The memorized the muscles. They took 3 years of life drawing classes, and studied figure drawing, where they struggled and struggled and filled many sketchbooks of bad figure drawings in order to get to the point where they could make up a figure from their imagination and it would have the proper lively feel, animation, and proportion. (Believe me, this is HARD.) They studied color theory, and did all sorts of drab color exercises. They took multiple painting courses, studied different techniques until they found one that clicked for them. They took that cartooning class and that was a real stretch for them because they’re kind of a “stiff” artist so loosening up was a real bitch.
They then took several more years fiddling with different techniques, having false starts, going in the wrong direction for a while, eating ramen when things were tight.
And finally they get some recognition. The right person sees their work. They start to make some money. Sell some prints. Finally that credit card bill goes down.
And then you come along, and you copy their best selling painting. You don’t have to think about the anatomy of the figure in the painting, because they did all the thinking for you. That figure is the result of endless hours of practice.
You didn’t have to think about what colors to use in that painting, because they did all the thinking for you. The lush colors of the painting are a result of many tedious hours of color theory class and many unsold color “studies.”
You didn’t have to think about the composition of the painting, because they did all the thinking for you . . .
Do you see where I’m going here? This artist isn’t going to like what you’ve done. Can you understand their perspective?
All artists respect a student who copies as a method of learning. Not all artists will respect an artist who stays in copy mode, and then complains because it’s not easy to make money off of others’ works.
The thing is, you won’t be copying others’ works for very long. You won’t. I can almost guarantee you. You’ve been only doing this for a year. Trust me. At the appropriate time, you’ll get all that you can out of it and you’ll move on. I promise you, this is all temporary.
I hope I don’t sound harsh. I just am trying to encourage you to believe that this will all pass. Sooner than you think. Really!
Not quite. For works originally published in the U.S. whose copyrights were first secured before 1964, formal renewal of the copyright for a second term was necessary, otherwise the work entered the public domain. The second, renwal term of copyright was extended to the new maximum, not the first term.
For instance, that is why a large number of episodes of The Andy Griffith Show from 1963 entered the public domain in 1992 — the copyright owner failed to renew the copyright in 1991.
False as to registration. U.S. case law always recognized that a common law copyright existed on a work from the moment of its creation. Registration of the copyright helped to secure those rights, but it did not create those rights.
U.S. copyright law did not do away with common law copyrights until 1998. But in doing so, it expanded copyright, not contracted it. Now all works were covered by statutory copyright law from the moment of creation.
Wow! Superb post, yosemitebabe! There are a few things in your post I could quibble over with you, but they are relatively inconsequential and I almost feel it would be disrespectful of me to do, given the excellent nature of your post and the points you make.
There are other things I’d like to respond to, and to be honest as I don’t want to leave you with any kind of false impression of my position, I will have to say I do have certain reservations in certain areas about some of the things you say and how I view my possible actions and impact upon them, but for now I’m pushing the nightly cut-off so I’ll just say thank you. Once again, an excellent post.
Thanks, Starving Artist, and I await your additional comments!
One thing I wanted to ask—perhaps I got you mixed up with someone else (I also frequent an art board), but did you say that you’d already gone through the Right Side of the Brain book? I can’t recall.
Do you have a sketchbook and are you using it? Are you doing (or have you done) any exercises out of any drawing books? (Like, Keys to Drawing?) Have you done any practice paintings by looking at a photograph for reference? (This is standard practice amongst most artists.)
When I first got seriously into art (I’ve always been into it, but got into it at about age 13-14), I did a combination of copying others’ drawings/paintings, copying photographs (movie stars, etc.), drawing friends and family (from life), and so forth. I loved the copying of others’ paintings and did quite a bit of it, but that wasn’t what I did exclusively. I had this oil painting teacher that I went to when I was a teenager, and she had all of these Walter Foster books (you know the ones ;)) to look through, and also all sorts of photographs from magazines, to use as reference. We were just practicing, after all, so it didn’t really matter what we copied. A lot of the landscapes in the Walter Foster books were very pretty. Very pretty. I remember copying quite a few of these paintings, and my parents were quite proud of me.
But I wasn’t, well, for lack of a better word, stuck copying these other works, because I was also drawing in sketchbooks, and copying photographs. All my fellow students in class were doing the same thing.
I also copied photographs from magazines, but a photo is a photo—you can copy your own photograph just as easily as you can copy someone else’s. So if you can copy photographs and come up with a nice piece of art, all you have to do in order to be in the clear (copyright-wise) is to start taking your own photos. And many, many artists do this.
So, I’m curious to know if you’ve done much of this yet. You seem to be quite single-mindedly focused on the copying of others’ paintings, which seems a bit unusual on the surface. Most art “newbies” are experimenting with various methods, like I described above. Is it that you are making the most money from your copies of other works, or because it’s what interests you most (and gets you the most positive responses), or something like that?
yosemitebabe, I just noticed the above post and your response to my question in the other thread. Unfortunately I have to log off for now, and as usual I have quite a bit to say in order to answer the questions you just asked and to continue with my comments from our discussion late last night. I will be back this evening or early in the morning and I’ll answer your questions then.
Best regards.
Sorry I joined THIS party late.
Why don’t you ask the copyright holder? Put the question to them: “You’re not going to sell it, mind if I copy it for free?”
If you can’t see yourself doing this, you already have your answer about whether it’s ethical.
Let me get this straight. I own a copyright, which means I get to decide under what circumstances copies are distributed and how many of them there may be. I would like the number of copies to be exactly zero under any circumstances.
On what ethical, legal, or even logical basis do you declare it wrong for me to wish that to be the case?
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Copyright violation can be criminal in some cases; I believe the chapter you linked was added by the NET Act a few years ago.
However, note that it only applies when the copies are made for “commercial advantage or private financial gain”, or when the retail value of the works exceeds $1000. I don’t think someone who copies a few old TV shows for personal use would have to worry about it.
There’s nothing wrong with wishing.
But when you start demanding that other people refrain from making copies, then you’ll have to convince them why you should “get to decide under what circumstances copies are distributed”. You are telling them what they can and can’t do with things in their possession (say, a photo and a copy machine), therefore you’re the one who needs to have an explanation.
Since the legality of copying isn’t under debate here, hopefully you’d have a more convincing argument than “Because it’s the law”, and unless you’re talking to your kids, hopefully it’s also more convincing than “Because I said so.”
On a similar note… Starving Artist, I’m still looking forward to your response.
Forget “wishing”, or what’s fair or enforceable, or legal. What’s at issue for me is your apparent lack of DEFINITION!
In the post I quoted, you seem to acknowledge that the notion of copyright exists, yet you qualify it with what amounts to market control of the work, which negates copyright. If in some version of logic, I can not set the number of copies to less than one, then there’s nothing to say this arbitrary lower limit can not be set to 100 or 1000, which effectively negates my copyright.
You are saying, in effect, “yeah, sure, you have an acknowledged copyright, unless I don’t like how you choose to use it”, which is the same as saying, “you have no copyright at all”. Can you clarify whether the concept of copyright exists for you or not? It’s not at all clear from the murky statements in your other posts.
If anyone gets to make a decision as to what copies get made when, then the work is in the public domain, a whole other kettle of fish than copyright.
The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
I thought my post that you quoted was pretty clear: I don’t agree that a copyright holder ethically has the right to withhold the copyrighted works. I don’t think a copyright holder (someone who has been granted a legal privilege) ethically has the right to decide that no one can have a copy of his work (though he does have that right legally).
Here’s what I said on page 2, which I also thought was pretty clear: IMO the only legitimate goal of intellectual property law is to compensate artists and inventors when their creations are used.
“Copyright” is a legal term, but ethically, that’s what copyright means to me - a way to make sure that if anyone gets rich selling copies of your work, it’s you (unless you forfeit that right). Not a way to control who can use it, or how many copies can exist. If you don’t think that’s properly called “copyright”, then draw your own conclusion.
Then perhaps I should say: If the copyright holder chooses not to distribute his work, it should fall into the public domain.
I don’t like to put it that way, because I’d like to leave the door open in case the copyright holder decides to start selling his work in the future.
I could understand this if society could not function without the work (example: in Boston, if you have electric heat in your house, the power company can not cut you off for non-payment in the middle of winter), but I can not see how such a standard could apply to an intellectual creation.
Yes, copyright is a legal term, meant to codify an ethical principle: If you create something, you should have control over it, at least initially, otherwise, why create? On the other hand, perpetual control could stymie progress, so your control ends after a time.
Your apparent distinction between rights to profit and rights to distribution I find to be non-existent. If I do not a have a claim to distribution control, then my rights to profit are meaningless. If someone gives away copies for free, then my right to profit from those copies has been violated. A system which allowed for this would be nonsensical.
Here is my problem with your whole thrust. If the market has the ability to require distribution, then the work is essentially in the public domain. You are severely blurring a line that is fairly well-drawn. Either you have exclusive control over distribution (and therefore profit) or you don’t. To create a situation in which a work falls into the public domain, but given a certain set of circumstances, “falls back out of it” is completely unfathomable. No one who wasn’t obsessed with keeping track of these things would make use of any work unless they had an army of lawyers to defend them against unforseeable infringement suits. I fail to see how this would promote progress in the arts and sciences.