# Is reproducing a decal (not for resale) ok/legal?



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I have seen prior posts of people screwing up a decal and wanting a 2nd try, (silvering, improper positioning, etc) but usually the reply is "ask the manufacturer if you can buy another sheet."

This is ok, I guess - unless the decal itself is not properly scaled or has some other defect - in which case altering it to proper scale or color is a preferred route.

So is reproducing a decal sheet from a purchase for your own use ok? 

In the TOS thread, I said the Shuttle Pad landing decal in the 1/350 is a bit small, so scaling it up slightly would be better.

FYI - if it is ok and anyone is interested, I can post how - though you need the proper materials/printer to do it....


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

from a legal perspective, no, you shouldn't, as it is actually a copyrighted product. Even with Air Force sheets, say a set for a F-100 in Thunderbirds Acrobatic team deco, the physical layout of the sheet is protected material.

That's the legal.

The practical is, don't tell, don't sell. 

Seriously, until we get to that 'completely connected' age where your wireless Bluetooth scanner shoots an image to your wireless connected computer and you then shoot the image to your wireless cloud supported printer, all of which is monitored and tracked by someone and thus a month later your credit card is dinged $10,000 for copyright infringement, until that happens a private person can do as they wish in the privacy of their own home. 

Don't ask, don't tell, don't sell.That's a simple mantra, isn't it?


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> So is reproducing a decal sheet from a purchase for your own use ok?


Everything I've learned about fair use of images would say it's OK.

As long as you purchased the original, and are making a copy for personal use only, no sharing or selling of the image.

Hmmm, once you put the decal on the model, it kind of means you couldn't even give away that model since it has a copy of an image on it, if you wanted to stick to the letter of the law...


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Steve H said:


> from a legal perspective, no, you shouldn't, as it is actually a copyrighted product. Even with Air Force sheets, say a set for a F-100 in Thunderbirds Acrobatic team deco, the physical layout of the sheet is protected material.
> 
> That's the legal.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info! Good to know.

Good thing I didn't do that. 

As for the "everything connected and monitored" thought - with all the news stories about the subject out, I'm thinking it's already done.


----------



## Tim Nolan (Jul 9, 2008)

Phhhhhhhhhhhhhtttt! 

I make copies of stuff all the time for EXACTLY that reason, and because the kit decal paper sucks so bad that half the time they either fall apart or don't stick right anyways!! So I got to infringement hell........ :devil:


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Actually from a legal perspective IP (Intellectual Property) infringement doesn't happen unless you reproduce for sale, distribution, public or business use. Any time it's personal or internal use, you are perfectly fine. 

As long as you are ONLY using it yourself, not giving away copies or selling a build, have no worries.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

Don't know how much potential for success it has but there is an international proposal out there now that would essentially ban the reselling of books without compensating the original publisher\author.

The fact something this nutty is even being considered is crazy but doesn't really surprise me.


On the decal copying thing it pretty much boils down to if someone wanted to crack down on this activity and selected you to make an example of.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

spawndude said:


> Don't know how much potential for success it has but there is an international proposal out there now that would essentially ban the reselling of books without compensating the original publisherauthor.
> 
> The fact something this nutty is even being considered is crazy but doesn't really surprise me.
> 
> ...


A year or 2 ago there was a story of George Orwell's estate in a dispute with an electronic distributor - and the company that sold an electronic copy of "1984" reached into a college student's electronic reader and took it back! (It also wiped his notes, which he was making for his college report).

Ironic that it happened with "1984".

Good ol' paper books. Nothing like them.... 

Good thing a lot of decals these days are easy to make yourself with a computer and drawing package.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

J_Indy said:


> A year or 2 ago there was a story of George Orwell's estate in a dispute with an electronic distributor - and the company that sold an electronic copy of "1984" reached into a college student's electronic reader and took it back! (It also wiped his notes, which he was making for his college report).
> 
> Ironic that it happened with "1984".
> 
> ...


If memory serves, EVERYBODY who bought that specific E-book version of 1984 had it wiped from their readers. Whenever they connected or synched, *zap* gone.

I consider that a very, very frightening thing. And, yes, very '1984'. I'll stop there as this could, would veer very political very quickly.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I've been thinking about using for instance printing out a black and white copy of window decals and using the printout for a template in order to drill out the windows on a model, so as not to ruin the decal sheet that came with it.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Copyright law allows people who buy music on CD or tape to make a backup copy. This is essentially what you would be doing with the decal sheet. As long as you keep the original sheet (intact) you are in compliance with the law. In the case of a marking being incorrectly sized, you have no issue to worry about since the IP owner made a mistake and you are simply correcting it.

Once the decal image has been applied to the model, you're in compliance with the intent of the IP owner anyway. By the way, even if you distributed the correctly sized image to others that own the same model, there is no violation.

Scott


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

irishtrek said:


> I've been thinking about using for instance printing out a black and white copy of window decals and using the printout for a template in order to drill out the windows on a model, so as not to ruin the decal sheet that came with it.


I did that with the "sticker" decals that came with the 1/1000 scale _Enterprise_. I would place them on in the correct positions and use them as drilling templates for hogging out the windows.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oh fer - if you hadn't asked us here, nobody would have ever known. Just do it. If it's for personal use and you're not selling it, there's not a thing wrong with it. 

It's like making a xerox of a print article to save.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Ummm, I think everyone is missing the obvious, including the OP ...

We're talking about making a decal of a CIRCLE. Not some Blue Angels liver skin. A CIRCLE.

No, there is nothing illegal about making a decal of a circle to put inside your TOS Enterprise kit.

(Whether you're going to be able to see the difference through the small door opening is another matter.)


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Paulbo said:


> Ummm, I think everyone is missing the obvious, including the OP ...
> 
> We're talking about making a decal of a CIRCLE. Not some Blue Angels liver skin. A CIRCLE.
> 
> ...


That is absolutely true - however I was just using it as an example.

There is nothing to stop someone from doing more than that once you know how to do it (which isn't hard - but the fact that some folks brought it up in the past means some don't know how - actually the last one I saw was about a silvering problem with that landing bay decal...).

The only way around it is take the usual advice - try and buy another sheet for that 1 decal (if it's a model from Japan, check your Japanese first j/k )

Otherwise you'd have to scan your decal sheet before you do anything with it (then make mods or waste a lot of ink), so if you get to that final stage and find yourself saying "Oh S!!!! - it ripped!!" or "CR!!! - that's in the wrong place!!", you wouldn't be (mostly) stuck. Mostly.

Soooo.... yes, in this specific case it is a circle/square/lines - but it doesn't have to stop there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

spawndude said:


> Don't know how much potential for success it has but there is an international proposal out there now that would essentially ban the reselling of books without compensating the original publisherauthor.
> 
> The fact something this nutty is even being considered is crazy but doesn't really surprise me.
> 
> ...


I remember reading about that craziness too. I understand that writers deserve to be paid, but paid only once. Once I've bought a book it's mine to do with as I please. The idea that any court anywhere would have their time wasted with this notion is beyond me. I haven't heard about it since so I'm assuming that the powers that be came to their senses.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Geez, that would impact garage sales, flea markets... even at MosquitoCon there are people selling off old books. That's ridiculous.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The more laws like that, the bigger the black market gets. There's no way even a total police state could keep up with those sorts of transactions. So they can try . . .


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

That's one of the most money-grubbing, absurd ideas I've seen in a while....

So what happens when someone auctions off a first printing of a classic - the publisher shows up at the Christie's auction and demands their cut??

Action Comics #1 sold for over $2 million - Late Day Payday!!! 

It used to be companies would try and provide value in the pursuit of profit, but these days more and more behavior is just attempts at being predatory.

Next time you look at a "service" or a "proposal" for a law, you can tell what it is trying to do if it falls under the category of "predatory".


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> That's one of the most money-grubbing, absurd ideas I've seen in a while....
> 
> So what happens when someone auctions off a first printing of a classic - the publisher shows up at the Christie's auction and demands their cut??
> 
> ...


Look at the history of Congress's extensions of copyright periods at the behest of those holding older intellectual properties. What started out as a 14 year period with renewal to 28 years is now over 90 frackin' years. It's a lot easier to collect on old properties than to be challenged to come up with new ones in a vibrant intellectual marketplace (which would be all the more vibrant if people were allowed to utilize more public domain properties in their creations).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Look at the history of Congress's extensions of copyright periods at the behest of those holding older intellectual properties. What started out as a 14 year period with renewal to 28 years is now over 90 frackin' years. It's a lot easier to collect on old properties than to be challenged to come up with new ones in a vibrant intellectual marketplace (which would be all the more vibrant if people were allowed to utilize more public domain properties in their creations).


Because of course it's not REALLY about getting money to the actual creators (altho a token dribble will make it there, eventually, at least on paper), it's about some middlemen, be it studio or publisher or manager getting that money 'in trust' where it sits to be gathered interest on or leveraged to raise other income or other accounting tricks. 

See also Hollywood and the "Oh, well, that $50 Million movie did indeed make $500 Million but gee, it's not PROFITABLE yet, it's still in the red gosh darn." accounting nonsense. 

Can you IMAGINE the technological headache just in used books? That local little shop (you all know what they look like  ) where the owner/manager/sole employee has a 1970's era cash register would now have to have a system to document the author of every single book sold so that his monthly check to the Authority that oversees the royalties can properly attribute the correct funds to the correct parties. 

So, say, 5 cents of the two dollar price you paid for a '70s Ace printing of H. Beam Piper's Space Viking is supposed to go to his estate. Except he has no estate. Oh well, more in the 'pot' for the Agency. 

Wow. and again I must stop lest I get too political.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

As a photographer who reads a good deal about the industry, I can say that intellectual property/copyright law is much more complicated — bordering on nonsensical in some cases — than most of us know; that also applies to a lot of us who _think_ we know. The internet and electronic transmission has really thrown things into a constantly-shifting state of turmoil. Even the attorneys for whom this is a specialty have to keep a continual watch on case law to try to keep up. Attorneys of other specialties make semi-educated guesses at best. And there are a lot of other people — the vast majority of people who respond to questions such as this with regard to what is and is not legal — who may talk a good game and are almost always sincere — are very often wrong, repeating information that falls under the "everyone knows this" category, but has no basis in what the courts and the law actually says.

So legally, I don't know the answer to the question with any certainty. Practically speaking, I think you're fine. I think most reasonable people would think you should be able to do this so that you can correct your mistakes. But legally, I could be dead wrong. And the way this sort of thing has gone the last 10 years or so, the only way to determine the true legal answer would be for such a case to go to court. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

sbaxter said:


> I think most reasonable people would think you should be able to do this so that you can correct your mistakes. But legally, I could be dead wrong. And the way this sort of thing has gone the last 10 years or so, the only way to determine the true legal answer would be for such a case to go to court.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


The way I default to looking at these things is - "Think of the most fracked-up, twisted nonsensical possibility - and that will probably be it. 

Because someone is making money by making sure the stupid way is the legal way.

As an aside - in 1906 Francis Galton found that in a county fair contest for guessing the weight of an ox, the average (mean) of all guesses was within 1% of the correct weight, even though the individual guesses were all over the spectrum. (The Wisdom of the Crowd).

This is why people get paid a lot of money to make sure things get done a certain way (lobbyists) - to make sure the wisdom of the crowd, which would favor the majority, ends up skewed and only favoring a few....

Hmmmm... this IS getting political...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Because of course it's not REALLY about getting money to the actual creators (altho a token dribble will make it there, eventually, at least on paper), it's about some middlemen, be it studio or publisher or manager getting that money 'in trust' where it sits to be gathered interest on or leveraged to raise other income or other accounting tricks.


NAIL ON HEAD!!!! :thumbsup:

Such properties are quickly and routinely bought up by corporations giving the family a good deal at the time but accruing to the massive portfolio over a period of many, many generations now. So, yes, it's really in the interest of the massive corporations rather than the struggling author that this stuff happens. Disney is one of the worst offenders, I think. We still don't know how long they'll continue to manage to keep Mickey Mouse's first films out of public domain.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

You know, I remember long ago there was some law passed that imposed a tax on blank media manufactures (Video cassette and audio cassette tape) that was supposed to compensate for any and all 'home use copyright infringement', so creators would get money when you made that mix tape. This tax was SUPPOSED to be something the tape makers ate but naturally it was passed down to the consumer in higher prices. I mean, duh, of course it would be passed down. 

And this law was grandfathered (or, maybe better, grandsoned?  ) to digital media, CD-R and DVD-R.

Now, has ANYONE ever heard of some act, a creator, who has gotten a royalty check from that? Where does THAT money go?

hmmmm.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> NAIL ON HEAD!!!! :thumbsup:
> 
> Such properties are quickly and routinely bought up by corporations giving the family a good deal at the time but accruing to the massive portfolio over a period of many, many generations now. So, yes, it's really in the interest of the massive corporations rather than the struggling author that this stuff happens. Disney is one of the worst offenders, I think. We still don't know how long they'll continue to manage to keep Mickey Mouse's first films out of public domain.


Ahhh, you just want to buy 'Song of the South'. 

Honestly, visual/audio media, I have no real problem with the Studios or Labels having eternal copyright. They're overall in a much better position to protect and preserve the elements, the negatives, the interpositives, the three-strip Technicolor elements, the trims and outtakes, everything that preserves a film for the future. Yes, there's been lackluster care in the past, there's been some HORRIBLE mistakes, there's been accidents like the big fire at a Kodak warehouse back in the '70s (and some think that was an intentional fire for insurance purposes, but we'll never know), but in this modern digital age at least Warner Bros understands the value of having lots of content, what we used to call 'deep catalog'. 

I really don't want to own a PD print of Sleeping Beauty which is sourced from a crap 35mm dupe suffering from Yellow Layer Failure. 

If one is waiting for early works that may, in today's overly trigger-word sensitive society, may be considered...unworthy... of public display or even discussion, I say it's better to wait for times to change, for rationality and maturity and common sense to grow, where things can be judged in historical context and not hysteria. It WILL happen, eventually, dire times we live notwithstanding.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Just make the decal! No one is going to break down your door and arrest you if you put a decal sheet on your scanner and make a copy!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Sure it is perfectly legal. It is no different than recording a TV show to replay later at home, copying a CD you own to listen to in your car by yourself, etc.

A lot of the sheets that people want to copy are also old, discontinued or otherwise unavailable. For example, I reproduced some odd size Aurora sheets for a few of their airplane kits. The originals were all badly yellowed and unusable. Modern replacements were not available. Obviously Aurora has been out of business for 40 years... 

Having said that, reproducing some decals is a pain in the butt and its not as easy as you might think, to get good results. It is much easier, if possible, to buy another set of original decals if possible.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

RSN said:


> Just make the decal! No one is going to break down your door and arrest you if you put a decal sheet on your scanner and make a copy!



Are you SURE???!!!

Doesn't the "D" in DEA stand for Decal Enforcement Agency? 

BTW
http://www.stupidlaws.com/


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

RSN said:


> Just make the decal! No one is going to break down your door and arrest you if you put a decal sheet on your scanner and make a copy!


I wouldn't be so sure of that anymore.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Honestly, visual/audio media, I have no real problem with the Studios or Labels having eternal copyright. They're overall in a much better position to protect and preserve the elements, the negatives, the interpositives, the three-strip Technicolor elements, the trims and outtakes, everything that preserves a film for the future. Yes, there's been lackluster care in the past, there's been some HORRIBLE mistakes, there's been accidents like the big fire at a Kodak warehouse back in the '70s (and some think that was an intentional fire for insurance purposes, but we'll never know), but in this modern digital age at least Warner Bros understands the value of having lots of content, what we used to call 'deep catalog'.


Ah, the beauty of technology is that the films can be on different, quality preserving formats--digital, in other words. The formats are getting more and more dense and soon, home recording quality will be much better than movie prints--especially those of fifty or more years. The initial transfer to a digital format can be problematic, I'll admit, but art preservation associations and even business ventures can accomplish that. 

Eternal copyrights are not needed to preserve the old films but, and this is also a matter of principle, our history is also locked away in those private vaults that are also subject to being destroyed whereas dispersed prints have, in the past, been the only way we've been able to see a LOT of great old movies or seen them partially or wholly restored to their original versions. Dispersing those old properties make them more common and available.

At some point, and I'm not necessarily a fan of 28 years--fifty is more like it, IMHO--those properties should become public domain. :thumbsup:


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Copyright relates to profits and ownership. You can make an exact copy of a Ferrari if you want. They can't do Sweet F.A.. But if you make money at it, or say it is your design, "RELEASE THE LAWYERS!!" And you can't put the Ferrari Horse symbol on it either.

People make copies of props and clothes from movies all the time, for collecting or cosplay. They didn't get permission from the copyright holders.
I've scratchbuilt many designs from movies, just for myself, and published them in model magazines and the web. Haven't been sued yet.

But when a guy makes copies to sell, they shut him down. And they HAVE to. If they don't protect it, they lose the rights to it. 
For example, 'Elevator' and 'Aspirin' were lost as copyrighted words because the company didn't defend their rights.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

If Disney makes a movie, Disney should have claim to that film, as should any studio, until the end of time. What "right" does the public have to something they had no hand in producing? I just don't get that type of thinking.

Artists, actors, musicians are all "Work for Hire" and unless they produce and distribute their own property, they do not take the financial risk. They negotiate a deal to be compensated for their time and effort, while studios and production companies pay all the bills associated with the advertising, release and restoration of the film, album or book. Just my view of it.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

terryr said:


> But when a guy makes copies to sell, they shut him down. And they HAVE to. If they don't protect it, they lose the rights to it.
> For example, 'Elevator' and 'Aspirin' were lost as copyrighted words because the company didn't defend their rights.


That's Trademark, not copyright. You don't have to defend or renew copyright. Trademarks have to be applied for, defended, and renewed or they can be claimed by someone else. Copyright is automatic, doesn't require any upkeep.

If you don't defend a copyright it makes it harder in the future to make a claim of damages and get any money, not impossible, just harder.

People get confused now because fair use still says you can copy something for personal use, but they have made it a crime to break the encryption on digital media, so at the same time you are allowed to make a copy and prevented from doing so if the movie or song is encrypted.

As far as I know there haven't been any cases changing fair use for printed material. Using images of such material on web sites has been considered sharing, so that is something to look out for, images shared have to be "unusable", like thumbnails or too low a resolution for someone else to print a good copy from.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

RSN said:


> If Disney makes a movie, Disney should have claim to that film, as should any studio, until the end of time. What "right" does the public have to something they had no hand in producing? I just don't get that type of thinking.


By keeping copyrights of a reasonably short duration, as I suggested, perhaps 50 years, you also keep non-producing entities like descendants and corporations from benefiting from an artist's work. 

If I may explain my viewpoint:

It's kind of like the deal with patents. Those are intended to be protected for a limited time to encourage inventions to begin with but, as it has been commonly recognized, eventually, others should be free to use those inventions without paying royalty so as to encourage further invention.

At what point should there no longer be concerns with protecting old properties? It used to be a maximum of 28 years and now it's 90+ years. 

With any property, eventually, the people originally involved, even at the corporate level, even the "work for hire," are all dead so the people who had any hand in producing it no longer exist. Why should there be laws restricting what is essentially then our common history?

The original copyright laws were of short duration to encourage both industry--rewarding the production of intellectual property for those who produced it--AND to contribute to the greater body of knowledge and art by allowing others to build upon it or distribute it in order to allow others to benefit from it.

I've been reading a LOT of public domain books that I could not have afforded to purchase. I have benefited greatly from the expiration of copyrights. My self-education has gone well beyond what I learned in college--in great part due to public domain material.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

But you see, and I'm not trying to call names or start fights or hurt feelings, that attitude really comes across as, well, spoiled? Privileged? 

"Because *I* want it I should be able to have it, for free or super cheap"

There is where my personal and political philosophies start butting heads and becoming contradictory. 

I think it's foolish and self-destructive to throttle access to knowledge and entertainment but there's always been a 'gatekeeper' of SOME kind, be it cost or limited locations for selling or whatever. Without a profit motive there's no incentive to make things available. 

Who maintains the 'base' item? Somebody has to print the book that becomes 'public domain' to be scanned and electronically available. Somebody has to maintain the film negatives to be scanned and digitized, maintained in a condition so when better, more powerful tools becomes available it can be redone. How do you do that without a profit motive? Development costs money. Human Time (labor) costs money. 

"Somebody should do it, like Public Libraries!"

Been to a library lately? Me neither. Last time I visited (mom looking for new British crime shows to watch) it was as empty as a tomb. Hell, they don't even have distinct sections anymore, 'Fiction' is ALL fiction, SF and Mystery and Drama and on and on, crammed together by author, near-porn next to Rocketship Galileo. (no, not Heinlein near porn.  )

Warner Bros. is spending huge amounts of money cleaning up and digitizing their entire catalog, and releasing some amazing stuff (good, bad, so what, they're doing it!) via the Warner Archives program. If they were to be told they MUST divest themselves of that catalog because it was now public domain they'd stop these efforts instantly. 

Now maybe you don't care that the TV Series 'Probe' has actually managed to come out on M.O.D. DVD, but I am flabbergasted and happy. And it looks surprisingly good for a show that hasn't seen the light of day in 40 years. 

So, sorry, I can't get on the 'everything PD right now!' bandwagon. I've never believed I DESERVED to watch something.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> But you see, and I'm not trying to call names or start fights or hurt feelings, that attitude really comes across as, well, spoiled? Privileged?


It used to be that copyright periods were fairly short as I've repeatedly pointed out so I really don't get the "spoiled" or "privileged" labels. Our ancestors were hardly spoiled in that regard. (We are certainly spoiled compared to them, I'd say.)

And I've never said _everything _should be public domain (instantly) and consider fifty years fine--which is about twice as long as the copyright period originally was in this country. 



Steve H said:


> I think it's foolish and self-destructive to throttle access to knowledge and entertainment but there's always been a 'gatekeeper' of SOME kind, be it cost or limited locations for selling or whatever. Without a profit motive there's no incentive to make things available.


Yes, there's always been a compromise involved.




Steve H said:


> Who maintains the 'base' item? Somebody has to print the book that becomes 'public domain' to be scanned and electronically available. Somebody has to maintain the film negatives to be scanned and digitized, maintained in a condition so when better, more powerful tools becomes available it can be redone. How do you do that without a profit motive? Development costs money. Human Time (labor) costs money.


I won't even discuss books. Too easy to preserve electronically now. Gutenberg.org is my friend. 

As for films, there have been a lot of public domain films already scanned and released into digital public domain. There are a lot of people interested in film preservation whether profit can be made or not.

And, as I've pointed out previously, it's getting easier and easier to make pristine digital copies of movies and TV shows. At some point nearly ALL film and maybe even video tape will be disintegrated and unusable, unplayable. And it won't matter because there will be copies on different, better formats that might survive thousands of years. I'd rather bet that wide dispersing of films results in more availability and more secure preservation than keeping them locked in a company vault forever.

As for profit, some silent movies have been cleaned up, had new music composed, etc. Guess what. Those movies are copyrighted for the improvements made. If there's much of a demand, they're selling, being shown on TV, etc. The profit motive is working for preservation efforts and will continue to. 



Steve H said:


> Warner Bros. is spending huge amounts of money cleaning up and digitizing their entire catalog, and releasing some amazing stuff (good, bad, so what, they're doing it!) via the Warner Archives program. If they were to be told they MUST divest themselves of that catalog because it was now public domain they'd stop these efforts instantly.


Not really saying they should be instantly stripped of their current properties. A good copyright law should last a reasonable number of years (it's a compromise) and then those older properties slowly, year by year, become public domain.

And public domain is not a death warrant by any means. "It's a Wonderful Life" was in the public domain for many years and saw many releases, good and so-so quality, both at very reasonable prices.



Steve H said:


> So, sorry, I can't get on the 'everything PD right now!' bandwagon.


Again, not saying "everything PD right now!"


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Steve H said:


> Now maybe you don't care that the TV Series 'Probe' has actually managed to come out on M.O.D. DVD, but I am flabbergasted and happy. And it looks surprisingly good for a show that hasn't seen the light of day in 40 years.


What? WHAT? "Probe" is available on DVD? Where, man, WHERE?! I loved that show!!!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Fozzie said:


> What? WHAT? "Probe" is available on DVD? Where, man, WHERE?! I loved that show!!!


I got signals crossed, forgot that 'Probe' got renamed 'Search' when it went to series. 

But BOTH are available and currently on sale at Warner Archives!

http://www.wbshop.com/product/probe+(1972-tv)+1000205360.do?sortby=ourPicks&refType=&from=Search

http://www.wbshop.com/product/searc...79775.do?sortby=ourPicks&refType=&from=Search

These are 'Manufacture On Demand' discs, often disparaged but every single one I've bought has been beautiful. 

Oh, wait, looks like the first printing of Search is pressed, not burned! huh! Didn't know Warner did that! So if MOD is a problem, you're in luck!

And both are somewhat cheaper at Amazon, just in case. Warner Archives sometimes has 'buy a number of titles for a reduced price' deals. 

Well, there, I've brightened at least one person's day. 

Hmmm, wonder if someone who has one of those 3-D printer things and mad skills might create a prop replica of the little camera thingie from the show...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^_Search _was a great series, IMHO! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Note that there are a number of Star Trek productions that are making full episodes with accurate reproductions of original sets and ships, and using original character names, and distributing them via streaming video and YouTube, _and Paramount/CBS leave them alone because they're not charging money_.

Scan the damn decal.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

An interesting conversation.... 

What it appears to me is PerfesserCoffee's stance is summed up as "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." 

Whereas, I think SteveH and RSN would argue "Define 'need'".

In the case of drug patents, they expire so that generics can be made for afforability/availability, helping more people (assuming the drug doesn't have major adverse side-effects of course).

That is a real, tangible "need".

In the case of entertainment - does anyone really "need" Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings? Or Harry Potter? 

One argument is that collectively, these things influence and form a culture, and culture is a "need" of the human species that distinguishes it from rutting animals (sometimes )

Others might argue the opposite - that it is too subjective an appraisal that cannot be defined the way a physical need can be.

I suppose it boils down to the old question - Is Art necessary?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

If you want to copy the decals for your own personal use it is fine-
just as long as you do not mention your intent to do so on the Internet...


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard Baker said:


> If you want to copy the decals for your own personal use it is fine-
> just as long as you do not mention your intent to do so on the Internet...


And if you are caught or captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

J_Indy said:


> An interesting conversation....
> 
> What it appears to me is PerfesserCoffee's stance is summed up as "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
> 
> ...


I just point to Mary Shelley's original "Frankenstein" novel and the hundreds of interpretations, most of them awful. The most successful being the 1931 film, though not a straight telling of the book, it has all the elements Shelley intended, life is created, that life is not seen as perfect, that life is rejected by it's parent and goes out into the world not knowing how to love, it is hunted by ignorance and ultimately confronts his parent to get the answer of "Why".

Can you imagine if Mickey Mouse, Superman, The Hulk and any other modern property were to be turned over to the public for anyone to use them as they saw fit, in contradiction to the original intention? No one "NEEDS" that!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

John P said:


> Note that there are a number of Star Trek productions that are making full episodes with accurate reproductions of original sets and ships, and using original character names, and distributing them via streaming video and YouTube, _and Paramount/CBS leave them alone because they're not charging money_.
> 
> Scan the damn decal.


You know, to be 100% honest, I have NO idea how those productions are allowed. It completely flies in the face of everything I've ever seen regarding Hollywood and protecting trademarks and copyrights.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

From what I have heard those productions are allowed as long as they do not produce any income. The DVD "Of Gods and Men" cannot be sold, but if you buy a small poster they include the disc as a free 'gift'. Ed Whitefire's original Enterprise D Deck Blueprints cannot be sold, but he sells 'a special mailing tube with custom packing'.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I dunno, after that last movie and the whole 'Nu52' pile of crap, maybe Superman SHOULD be taken away from DC Comics. 

Anyway, I think J Indy gets me on this. Is Art (capital A) necessary? Yes, I believe so. But what, exactly, is Art? Is a movie Art? Or is it a commercial product formulated and constructed purely for entertainment purposes, designed to be consumed and disposed of? Naturally, we know it's both, not because of intent, but because of appreciation. And that appreciation, I would suggest, has grown BECAUSE Hollywood was dragged kicking and screaming (while at the same time laughing and rolling around like Scrooge McDuck in growing piles of money) to the Home Video Revolution.

I currently own a TON of movies that I loved in my youth, as well as TV series. I've also discovered films and shows I'd never seen or heard of. Warner Archives has released just about every film I only saw once on the old 'ABC Movies of the Week' (and other network original movies) but remember to this day- The Last Dinosaur, Genesis II, Earth II, Planet Earth (hm, odd pattern there  ), Probe, City Beneath the Sea- none of which would have happened if there wasn't money to be made.

And see, there have been bootlegs of those floating around for YEARS. Any Sci Fi con, any comic convention, someone would have a table with those, crappy multi-gen VHS dupes generated from some guy who was a super-early adopter of video recording, or had a conversion set-up and pirated a tape made in England or France or Germany. That horror show would be the future if studios lost control, a 'Wild West' of copies of copies sourced from questionable quality materials. 

I know some would say "so what! It's blurry and faded and the credits are cut off but I have it!" and to be fair, there IS some value in that thinking because at the very least the product is preserved, but man, man, when I think of the copy of Citizen Kane I saw in college film school (late '70s), muddy and contrast-y and just a mess, compared to the current remastering which...well, let's say I had never actually SEEN Citizen Kane until this. Or the new almost completely restored Metropolis, or Things to Come. Night and day. 

Oh, yeah, you know, do the decal thing. This is almost a meme now


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> An interesting conversation....
> 
> What it appears to me is PerfesserCoffee's stance is summed up as "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
> 
> ...


Art happens. That's enough. 

My point is that at some point (the exact timing is admittedly arbitrary) writings, (including educational, philosophical, etc. not just "entertainment"), photographs, films, and other intellectual property become part of our history and should be freely available as such. When the producing parties are all dead and corporations are buying up the properties to milk everything they can out of them, after a while the society as a whole loses by not having access. A corporation is a not a person, it is a "legal fiction." Perpetual ownership of properties by corporations seems more than a little bizarre to me. 

Maybe it's just me? There are already trademarks and trade secrets and other such things that they can keep forever. IMHO, copyrighted materials should, after some number of years, belong to us all.

There are better arguments out there than mine: https://www.google.com/search?q=argument+against+intellectual+property+rights

Might be worth perusing if anyone wants to continue the inquiry.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I just really don't agree with that concept. I don't. I won't bother to Google (or Bing, as I try to avoid MS stuff  ) because every single argument I've read, back in print in the '70s to stuff on the internet, no matter how big the words or how convoluted the argument, always, ALWAYS can be broken down to "I want (something) and the mean old companies won't let me have it!!"

My next thing needs a bit of context. Sorry, but I'm really big on that.

Long ago, there was a time when movies were on reels, and these reels would be boxed up and either played in public venues (called movie theaters, but could also be classrooms, or school auditoriums or lodge halls or whatever). TV stations would rent packages of movies from various studios. All these things floated around in the world. Sometimes, they would end up in the hands of private individuals. This was 'Home Video' up until around the late '70s, when TV stations started going with either commercial videotape or were downloading feeds from the studios onto tape. The 'Film Library' was discontinued. 

So, films end up in the hands of people like you and me, only usually they have a butt-ton more money. There are some that have THOUSANDS of films, some acquired legally, others via more shady transactions. Films would be tossed out by TV stations and declare them destroyed but somehow they end up in somebody's home. That kind of thing. 

I won't go into all the nonsense about how some declare movies to be Public Domain because they've cut off or scratched out the copyright note. There's a company called Synergy Entertainment that puts out completely CRAP DVDs of movies they don't SAY are PD but it's obvious they think they are. You won't see much on their main site but don't worry, they have another label that has TONS of stuff, and it's all crap. 

In the '70s, bootleggers worked with people who owed these films in order to make money. Cartoons, horror, SF, the kinds of things people tend to obsess over, easy pickings. You've seen them. If you've been to a SF con, a comic con, a horror con, heck probably even a model convention, there's somebody there with the DVD of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers and Commando Cody serials among others. 

So here is the question I have. All that 'PD' material exists because it was excess to need. A TV station didn't want film anymore. A local distributor went bankrupt and his prints weren't returned to the studios. There was a product that was MASS PRODUCED, distributed via numerous channels and a copy wound up in the hands of a private citizen. OK, fine.

So then, Disney, some court or another declares that those specific early shorts (whatever they are. I can guess but I won't be rude) are now in the Public Domain.

What happens? What is Disney supposed to do, just open the vault and toss the reels into the trash, first-come first served? Because I must assume that if there were copies of these out there, found in a barn or rescued from a TV station, someone would be selling them via the various 'secret' ways such things propagate. 

So, if the ONLY copies are in the Disney Vault, who, exactly, becomes in charge of them? If they're sold to someone, how is that different from Disney owning them? It's still one person/company and whatever restrictions they impose!

And what if they were bought by someone for the sole purpose of destroying them, because they found them offensive? For whatever reason. 

I dunno. I'd rather the studios keep the control rather than have Persons With Agendas dive in.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Art happens. That's enough.
> 
> A corporation is a not a person, it is a "legal fiction." Perpetual ownership of properties by corporations seems more than a little bizarre to me.


Ah.... THIS is an interesting point! 

Because while Shakespeare lived a normal lifespan (for his time) and his descendants have vanished, a corporation as a "legal fiction" can exist forever, and so hold onto skimming the profit in perpetuity.

At that point, Steve H might argue that is ok (within reason), since those resources can maintain or enhance the quality of the work for future generations.

I suppose the "within reason" might be a sticking point, since that is arbitrary.

BTW, as a bit of trivia I read somewhere - The "Fathers of the American Revolution" never included any mention of a corporation having rights like individuals - even though the East India Company (THE Corporation of that era) was well established back then- so they knew what a corp was. Yet they never included mention of a corp in any of the founding documents.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> So then, Disney, some court or another declares that those specific early shorts (whatever they are. I can guess but I won't be rude) are now in the Public Domain.
> 
> What happens? What is Disney supposed to do, just open the vault and toss the reels into the trash, first-come first served? Because I must assume that if there were copies of these out there, found in a barn or rescued from a TV station, someone would be selling them via the various 'secret' ways such things propagate.
> 
> ...


At some point, I would hope there'd be a good attitude about turning over PD material to the public in some form or fashion. 

If Disney has the sole copies, then, yes they'd still have control up until the point they put them out in some form or fashion after which others could copy them to their hearts' content. 

That situation is not such a biggie to me. It's more a principle thing. There's a lot of intellectual property out there in some form or another that's copyrighted and restricted--in personal collections, etc. There may come a point where the next steps in technology make the old stuff much less valuable and there'd be no impetus to put it out. If it were PD and available, there'd be outlets for this knowledge, art, etc. I've come across a LOT of PD stuff from the 19th century on the internet and some of it is truly a wealth of knowledge.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

J_Indy said:


> Ah.... THIS is an interesting point!
> 
> Because while Shakespeare lived a normal lifespan (for his time) and his descendants have vanished, a corporation as a "legal fiction" can exist forever, and so hold onto skimming the profit in perpetuity.
> 
> ...


There is, or should be, I would think, a sense of obligation to future generations and I think that's where the idea of limiting intellectual property comes from. After we're dead and gone, future generations may make something out of what is left them. :wave:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> At some point, I would hope there'd be a good attitude about turning over PD material to the public in some form or fashion.
> 
> If Disney has the sole copies, then, yes they'd still have control up until the point they put them out in some form or fashion after which others could copy them to their hearts' content.
> 
> That situation is not such a biggie to me. It's more a principle thing. There's a lot of intellectual property out there in some form or another that's copyrighted and restricted--in personal collections, etc. There may come a point where the next steps in technology make the old stuff much less valuable and there'd be no impetus to put it out. If it were PD and available, there'd be outlets for this knowledge, art, etc. I've come across a LOT of PD stuff from the 19th century on the internet and some of it is truly a wealth of knowledge.


But consider: Corporations may well be a legal fiction (as are governments and bodies that 'oversee' things like this) but they're run by people. And people are people. If Disney was sitting on films that were declared public domain, what possible incentive do they have to just be 'nice guys' and turn them over to some assumed more benevolent caretaker? My bet would be they'd just toss them in a furnace and walk away. 

So let's take it to the extreme. An International Committee for the Preservation and Utilization of Filmed Entertainment for the Public Good (whew! I'm sure they'd actually cook up a better acronym, something soothing and friendly) shows up without warning at Disney's storage area, jackbooted men with papers to seize the property regardless. And this Authority then must decide if the property in question has value...

Brother, I sure don't want to live in THAT world. Personal property seized by government, no, international fiat by force? Yikes.

Because, see, even if the copyright was termed null and void, the PHYSICAL ELEMENTS are still property, and legal fiction or no, Disney is the owner. Nobody has the right to take that from them. Yet.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> But consider: Corporations may well be a legal fiction (as are governments and bodies that 'oversee' things like this) but they're run by people. And people are people. If Disney was sitting on films that were declared public domain, what possible incentive do they have to just be 'nice guys' and turn them over to some assumed more benevolent caretaker? My bet would be they'd just toss them in a furnace and walk away.
> 
> So let's take it to the extreme. An International Committee for the Preservation and Utilization of Filmed Entertainment for the Public Good (whew! I'm sure they'd actually cook up a better acronym, something soothing and friendly) shows up without warning at Disney's storage area, jackbooted men with papers to seize the property regardless. And this Authority then must decide if the property in question has value...
> 
> ...


False dilemma.

By the time most things become PD, there're already copies of them out there. They simply become part of the common historical record. People can take them and do things with them, build on them, deconstruct them, whatever. New movie versions can come out, etc.

The Sherlock Holmes stories (in public domain and then, thanks to some changes in law, BACK in private hands) have been guarded over by corporate lawyers for a while now. There have been movies and such but the legal types get their cut. This is all based on a THREAT of legal action. They've extended the copyright, I think illegally, based on the LAST story collection released in the U.S. in the 1920's. In reality, the earlier stories should have been free to use but the lawyers work more like mobsters than actually attempting to follow the law. (Dang, I'm good! Turns out I was right! http://www.npr.org/2014/01/07/260471980/sherlocks-expiring-copyright-its-public-domain-dear-watson )

A more likely scenario than yours is that a police state would be necessary to guard old properties after a while. The court system could be clogged up with copyright cases if nothing ever became public domain. But then, I think both extremes are very unlikely and things will be done the way they have been in the past when things have become public domain. People get to use the properties any way they want. And I think that's a good thing.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Naturally, I don't think the scenario I've cooked up is a false dilemma. It's a very real consideration. Who then owns the master, the negative, the inter-positive dupes, the safety prints for three-stripe Technicolor? 

Are you suggesting that when, say, Gone With the Wind becomes PD everybody is going to just rip from the existing DVD and BDs and call it good? Well what's the point of THAT then? There can be no improvement, just Chinese-style rip and burning, and we're already at that stage. Cripes I know for a hard fact you can buy boots of any movie that exists within a week of it coming out. 

I dunno. 

Problem is, you just can't compare books to a movie. While it's all under the rubric of 'entertainment' there are so many practical different considerations. The least of which is a movie requires SOME kind of device to view it. Reprinting a book is a much more simple thing. If nothing else one could transcribe it, writing in long hand on paper page by page. 

Movies are more than that. Movies (TV shows, whatever) have a single, solitary starting point, a genesis. That physical item can't be just...shared. Someone owns it, someone controls it. There's no other way. 

If you long to see Star Wars in 4k HD, the ORIGINAL cut from May, 1977, that's only going to happen if Lucas (or, now, Disney) chooses to do it. Because that's where that negative is. Nobody taking the VHS widescreen tape of that movie (or maybe the LD) is going to be able to pull a clean 4k copy. It's GOT to come from the original negative.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Naturally, I don't think the scenario I've cooked up is a false dilemma. It's a very real consideration. Who then owns the master, the negative, the inter-positive dupes, the safety prints for three-stripe Technicolor?
> 
> Are you suggesting that when, say, Gone With the Wind becomes PD everybody is going to just rip from the existing DVD and BDs and call it good? Well what's the point of THAT then? There can be no improvement, just Chinese-style rip and burning, and we're already at that stage. Cripes I know for a hard fact you can buy boots of any movie that exists within a week of it coming out.
> 
> ...


 There are different ways of using old intellectual properties. And for all you know, it's possible that someone may make a 3D full immersion simulator version of _Star Wars_ on their home computer by the time that becomes available. Higher and higher resolution versions of movies are coming out.


----------

