[ERB claims that the manner in which Dynamite uses the mark, and specifically some of the covers which feature partial nudity, are damaging to the reputation and good will of ERB and the business it has built up around Tarzan and John Carter.]
I don't know about that for sure, though it could be, because I will say that when I see books with any of the character names from the Martian stories written by ERB (books which I actually own, c. 1963 printing) like Dejah Thorus or Tars Tarkas, I would immediately assume they were ERBs books/stories as written, so if other fans of those series assumed the same thing, then the comics might in fact be an "annoyance". I haven't much studied TM law or regulations so make that a personal feeling I suppose.
I'm definitely not a fan of the new covers either. The original stories weren't based on anything terribly sexual - they were sci-fi with a touch of romance. Not having looked at the comics, I don't know if they twisted the stories, but they sure have the cover art.
That being said, young people today would probably find the covers, er "interesting", while old fogies like me find them lewd - particularly when someone like me views the covers in light of the stories they've read, rather than the stories contained in the comics. The current covers would not be a good fit to the original books/stories.
At least one of the books I own has a publishers note in it, whereby ERB "renewed" their copyright...but no note about how long for.
Oddly enough, a few days ago I had made a recent post on Google+ looking for three of the original stories, but the reprints from 1963, not the original print. I had photographed the covers from those I had, to be sure people trying to sell me a book, had the right printing. While you can buy reprints on demands, they don't have the right covers. Weird timing that another story about this series has popped up.
I want to protect only my rights in my actual work. A digital copy of my work is still sort of my work. Getting a digital copy of my work makes the digital copy of the work the "holder's", but it still doesn't make it "their work". So, if someone obtained a digital copy of my work and posted it for sale on a stock site, you bet I'll complain.
If someone buys a couple of prints and wants to sell them for more somewhere else...more power to them if they can. They own the print, they can sell it if they want.
However, if someone takes a copy of my photo and creates their own painting, drawing, or other artwork from that photo...great. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's actually pretty cool - I've had a lot of artists ask to use my work for their painting and I always say yes.
Don't have a problem with someone copying my style, my setup or layout for a photo shoot...unlike some other photographers. I actually teach people how to do it if they ask.
In truth, I'm not horrible protective of my rights and don't waste a lot of time trolling around looking for unauthorized copies. Wastes my time and there's little value in it, for me, or anyone else.
That came from experience. I've had many "demands" (yes, demands) for some of my paid work to be issued freely.
Why? Because someone wanted it. That's why.
Seriously. I am not a great artist by any means. Nor do I think I'm the world's best photographer, but I am certainly annoyed when I get an email demanding that I should give away stuff I reserve only for prints.
As they say, beauty in art is in the eye of the beholder. I'd admit to actually not liking some of my completed work, but that stuff appears to sell. Go figure.
[he had to prove he was worth paying before people did so. And even then, they paid not for what he had done, but what he would do -- just as you pay a plumber or train driver.]
Do you pay your plumber or electrician before the job is done? We certainly don't. When the work is completed satisfactorily, they get paid. They don't get paid first.
I actually do tend to agree with the article, and with the fact that you have to work you way up to the paid market. I simply don't agree with paying anyone for work that has yet to be done.
When I do a portrait job, I don't ask for money first. I ask for payment when I finish the completed work and the client is happy with it.
And yes, artists do have to pay their bills just like everyone else.
While I give away the vast majority of my work for free (so I am on the freetard side I guess), I am also on the side where you get paid for the job you do. And because I create whatever it is I create, I get to choose which pieces I will give away or share for free, and what pieces I will sell.
Not you. Not the guy down the street, not an militant copyright OR copyleft group. I get to decide. For the most part, I'm fairly benevolent and tend to say yes pretty easily when people ask for something that isn't free but I have harder time when people DEMAND that I give away everything for free because it's expected.
Why is it so hard to understand for some people? Your plumber doesn't work for free. You can't board the train or bus without paying for it. The electrician will not come free of charge.
Why is it okay that artists and writers should be expected to give away what they work at, for free?
Sharing work for free gives me more pleasure than creating a fine art print for $300, but I do have to pay rent, and buy groceries, and all the other things families need to pay for.
I guess for me it's about choice. I am not anti-copyright, and I am not pro-copyright. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I simply want the same rights others have - to choose what I do with my own things. I don't expect to be paid for everything as evident by the number of sites where I post work for others to use, but when I do ask for payment, I shouldn't have to fight for it because half the world thinks it should be free.
The colours of the flag ... that is probably further reaching than just about any other of the requests they made.
I mean really ... shall someone register a domain with the colours of the flag, and then perhaps associate it with porn? I don't see how mentioning a flag with those particular colours is going to automatically be associated with Brazil.
Maybe they actually meant the flag design, as opposed to the colours?
Seriously ... photographer's the world over think this is ridiculous. Nobody needs to get paid to write about it - for the most part part, it's beyond intellectual comprehension why anyone can actually consider these or any "similarly composed" images "infringement".
They are not. And no amount of someone else telling a seasoned photographer they are is going to make that stick.
You are either a supporter of the complainant, the lawyer or, maybe the complainant.
As I was reading the comments I was sort of thinking the same thing. I was beginning to wonder if she'd been on the flight alone.
If this actually goes anywhere, there might be others come out of the woodwork, but...if she has historical medical data that supports her case and no one else does, there may be no other cases come forward.
Instead of a "mail" box you bought and paid for and installed (which you don't own?) - what about mail slots in your door? That's what our old house had...no mail box, just a slot labeled "mail"...do they own that too?
We did buy a "mail box" (which we paid for, have the receipt for too...it is ours, NOT the postal service's) and installed it all by our little ole selves. We taped a plastic sign to it that says "newspapers".
Finally had to tape a second sign to it: "This is not a mailbox...please use the slot labeled "MAIL".
I also agree with that. It's a figure that's actually not going to be accurate. Take into account the thousands of photographers who processed their own film in their own darkrooms (pre-digital days) and never published them for all the world to see.
Or in the early digital days even, where not everyone in the world bothered to print or publish on the net.
A photo is a photo, whether snapped by a monkey, a kid, an amateur/hobbyist or a professional photographer.
Uh, dump a bucket of water on a pile of dry snow. Yay...snow for a snowman.
Okay, yes he obviously had to go to some work and testing to set up something like the method used in the patent, but this is not something most people would even consider doing.
On the other hand, I live in a place where there is more than enough snow during the winter to build a suitable snowman...thousands of them, without worrying about dry snow. How would he know which method you used?
He'd be better of patenting the "kit" along with the method. Then he can sell the "kits" with the instructions and be all set.