Thor Does Exist
Tademark was purchased in 2002.
Pipe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_washing_machine
Tademark was purchased in 2002.
Pipe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_washing_machine
An Open Discussion about Copyright, automaticwasher.org/vacuumland and the Internet
- Thread starter Unimatic1140
- Start date
Help Support :
Robert, you may want to post some general guidelines for the average AW.org member to use since none of us are copyright experts.
Hi Joe, thanks! I'll give that a thought about how exactly to do that.
Robert, what about defunct companies? If Nash Kelvinator or Thor or Easy no longer exist, did their copyrights expire when the companies did, or does some corporation/competitor buy the copyrights even though the name disappears.
No the copyright are automatically transferred to the estate/heirs of the owners of the copyrights.
old Frigidaire ads, the copyrights may be held by Electrolux
Like the majority of old magazine ads, I can't remember seeing any old Frigidaire print ads that was copyrighted in the first place. But on the other hand, Tech-Talk service manuals are copyrighted. The copyrights on the older ones published before 1964 have safely expired and are safe to scan and upload but the later ones are valid copyrights and they are owned by Electrolux. But the goods news is for what ever reason Frigidaire seemed to have stopped copyrighting Tech-Talks in the late 1970s so some of those are safe too.
old Gibson ads, even though they don't make Gibson-badged products, the company was bought by Electrolux and that presumably includes the copyrights.
Again the majority of the ads were not copyrighted, not all but the majority. You have to look and see if there is a copyright mark on the actual ad.
Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot...
Crap, Ummmm, remember when I said yesterday that all the PODs are in the Public Domain??? Well today, I'm eating my words today, I see that today's is copyrighted. It's from a Sears Catalog from the 70s. I'll have to go through the PODs and double check. Grrrrrrrr, see its very easy to get this stuff mixed up.
Hi Joe, thanks! I'll give that a thought about how exactly to do that.
Robert, what about defunct companies? If Nash Kelvinator or Thor or Easy no longer exist, did their copyrights expire when the companies did, or does some corporation/competitor buy the copyrights even though the name disappears.
No the copyright are automatically transferred to the estate/heirs of the owners of the copyrights.
old Frigidaire ads, the copyrights may be held by Electrolux
Like the majority of old magazine ads, I can't remember seeing any old Frigidaire print ads that was copyrighted in the first place. But on the other hand, Tech-Talk service manuals are copyrighted. The copyrights on the older ones published before 1964 have safely expired and are safe to scan and upload but the later ones are valid copyrights and they are owned by Electrolux. But the goods news is for what ever reason Frigidaire seemed to have stopped copyrighting Tech-Talks in the late 1970s so some of those are safe too.
old Gibson ads, even though they don't make Gibson-badged products, the company was bought by Electrolux and that presumably includes the copyrights.
Again the majority of the ads were not copyrighted, not all but the majority. You have to look and see if there is a copyright mark on the actual ad.
Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot...
Crap, Ummmm, remember when I said yesterday that all the PODs are in the Public Domain??? Well today, I'm eating my words today, I see that today's is copyrighted. It's from a Sears Catalog from the 70s. I'll have to go through the PODs and double check. Grrrrrrrr, see its very easy to get this stuff mixed up.
I assume that photos of Laundress's detergent "stash" would be all right?
POD
Hmmmm.... Maybe between all the members here and all the different machines owned (washers,dryers, dishwashers, and perhaps even ranges, refrigerators, and other appliances) a pool of photos from collections could be used for the Picture of the Day. That would be 'safe', if I understand correctly...
Hmmmm.... Maybe between all the members here and all the different machines owned (washers,dryers, dishwashers, and perhaps even ranges, refrigerators, and other appliances) a pool of photos from collections could be used for the Picture of the Day. That would be 'safe', if I understand correctly...
I assume that photos of Laundress's detergent "stash" would be all right?
Absolutely.
Maybe between all the members here and all the different machines owned (washers,dryers, dishwashers, and perhaps even ranges, refrigerators, and other appliances) a pool of photos from collections could be used for the Picture of the Day. That would be 'safe', if I understand correctly...
I'm sorry guys, I'm clearly being misunderstood here. We now have 301 PODs loaded, maybe two or three need to be changed, the rest are perfectly fine. Today's POD just happened to be one of them. The last thing I want is for people to start thinking that all VINTAGE ADVERTISING is copyrighted when it is NOT and IT IS perfectly fine to share.
I think I opened up a can of worms that maybe I shouldn't have.
Now go to your stash of ads, old magazines, etc. Pick something out appliance related and look at it, then go to my first post in this thread, it will fit in under one of the blocks of years listed under THE GREEN HEADINGS. Which GREEN HEADING does it fall under? Read the info under and it should be clear. Give it a try.
Absolutely.
Maybe between all the members here and all the different machines owned (washers,dryers, dishwashers, and perhaps even ranges, refrigerators, and other appliances) a pool of photos from collections could be used for the Picture of the Day. That would be 'safe', if I understand correctly...
I'm sorry guys, I'm clearly being misunderstood here. We now have 301 PODs loaded, maybe two or three need to be changed, the rest are perfectly fine. Today's POD just happened to be one of them. The last thing I want is for people to start thinking that all VINTAGE ADVERTISING is copyrighted when it is NOT and IT IS perfectly fine to share.
I think I opened up a can of worms that maybe I shouldn't have.
Now go to your stash of ads, old magazines, etc. Pick something out appliance related and look at it, then go to my first post in this thread, it will fit in under one of the blocks of years listed under THE GREEN HEADINGS. Which GREEN HEADING does it fall under? Read the info under and it should be clear. Give it a try.
Ironic as it is, I received this card in the mail today from my Dad and step-mom. As funny as it is, it shows a brilliant use of the Public Domain. You can clearly see Kelvinator on the machines. And this card is a perfectly legal, for profit use of the public domain no less. It was taken right out of a 1957 magazine ad...
I try to approach my use of copyrighted material following the "fair use" guidelines. Fair use is not always black-and-white, but here is what the US Copyright Office has to say on the subject:
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
I think the reproduction here of appliance manufacturer photos, ads, parts lists and instruction manuals would fall under the fair use criteria of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
For other criteria, such as, is the reproduction of a commercial nature, the answer I think is "no" since no one is making money here. Also, does the reproduction affect the potential market? I would say the answer to that is also "no" since the materials are what the manufacturer used to sell and service the item in the first place.
Any thoughts?
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
I think the reproduction here of appliance manufacturer photos, ads, parts lists and instruction manuals would fall under the fair use criteria of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
For other criteria, such as, is the reproduction of a commercial nature, the answer I think is "no" since no one is making money here. Also, does the reproduction affect the potential market? I would say the answer to that is also "no" since the materials are what the manufacturer used to sell and service the item in the first place.
Any thoughts?
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Good research Doug!!!
I think the reproduction here of appliance manufacturer photos, ads, parts lists and instruction manuals would fall under the fair use criteria of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
I absolutely agree with you Doug, but no one can guarantee that a court would agree. Remember it is up to you personally to weigh the risks involved if the material is not in the Public Domain.
Also, does the reproduction affect the potential market? I would say the answer to that is also "no" since the materials are what the manufacturer used to sell and service the item in the first place.
I would also agree with you, clearly there cannot be a corporate market for these old materials, call up Whirlpool and ask them for a 1961 Automatic Washer Owners Manual, see if you have to hold the phone away from your ear because the laughter is so loud. I remember when I called WCI sometime in the 80s asking them for vintage Frigidaire owners manuals from the 50s and 60s and the person that I spoke to told me, and I remember his exact words "oh those have all be pitched". lol
I'm glad I was able raise some awareness here about what I've learned. I have every intention of obeying the law as it stands, but I also plan to keep tabs on the quickly growing copyright reform movement and seeing what can be done to help.
I think the reproduction here of appliance manufacturer photos, ads, parts lists and instruction manuals would fall under the fair use criteria of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
I absolutely agree with you Doug, but no one can guarantee that a court would agree. Remember it is up to you personally to weigh the risks involved if the material is not in the Public Domain.
Also, does the reproduction affect the potential market? I would say the answer to that is also "no" since the materials are what the manufacturer used to sell and service the item in the first place.
I would also agree with you, clearly there cannot be a corporate market for these old materials, call up Whirlpool and ask them for a 1961 Automatic Washer Owners Manual, see if you have to hold the phone away from your ear because the laughter is so loud. I remember when I called WCI sometime in the 80s asking them for vintage Frigidaire owners manuals from the 50s and 60s and the person that I spoke to told me, and I remember his exact words "oh those have all be pitched". lol
I'm glad I was able raise some awareness here about what I've learned. I have every intention of obeying the law as it stands, but I also plan to keep tabs on the quickly growing copyright reform movement and seeing what can be done to help.
mrb627
Well-known member
Big Brother
Robert,
If in our browsing of the forums, if we see a post that may or may not be a copyright infraction, should we click the report button to call your attention to it?
Malcolm
Robert,
If in our browsing of the forums, if we see a post that may or may not be a copyright infraction, should we click the report button to call your attention to it?
Malcolm
Certainly let me know if you really suspect there is an issue. Protecting everyone here is a top priority of mine to say the least.
aldspinboy
Well-known member
Hey Robert I am sort of confused...
Like if I had let's say Asko litariture..1997 and I see no copyright on the back page can you print it ?
As well as Calypso lit..
and other modern litature I am stumeped on what to scan now...
Hope your well and thanks.
Darren k
Like if I had let's say Asko litariture..1997 and I see no copyright on the back page can you print it ?
As well as Calypso lit..
and other modern litature I am stumeped on what to scan now...
Hope your well and thanks.
Darren k
Unfortunately Darren, printed after March 1, 1988 is automatically copyrighted whether it is marked copyrighted on the document or not. :-(
aldspinboy
Well-known member
Ahhhhh that sucks so much here to offer ooooh well boomer.
Thanks Robert.
Have a great day hugs to you and Fred.
Darren k
Thanks Robert.
Have a great day hugs to you and Fred.
Darren k
