Magicalia and the YahooGroups



The correctness of Peter's view is supported by the fact that British book publishers (at least in our limited experience) now include a specific clause in the licence agreement granting them rights to distribution on CD, or any other electronic form now known or ever invented. It could be argued that if the "old-fashioned" agreement already gave them this right, such a clause would not be needed (or of course it could just be a "belt and braces" precaution by their lawyers).
David
--
David Littlewood

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:20:20 +0000, Peter Fairbrother

Peter, Thank you and I stand corrected.
Can anyone explain how various newspapers like the Times etc do CD's then given they fall under British law ?
On a slightly different angle, Magicalia have recently revised their contracts to authors but still only relate to printed rights. Surely the time is now here to bring First Electronic rights into the field before they get left behind altogether ? -- Regards,
John Stevenson Nottingham, England.
Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:- http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Stevenson wrote:

I'm not entirely sure, but for eg letters and reader's contributions etc the papers generally insist that you either assign them the copyright or licence all rights on a non-exclusive basis - for freelance work published since the introduction of the online version they will also demand electronic and CD etc rights.
In general copyright in articles by staff writers, and commissioned works, ie most of the CD, will also be owned by the paper, and only older freelance work will be in any question. That's partly why eg Reuter's reports are re-written by staff writers - the new form of words is then owned by the paper, and the facts in the Reuter's report are not subject to copyright.
For older stuff by freelance writers where copyright is not clear they may make a minimum good-faith effort (look it up in a couple of databases) to find and pay the copyright holder, and then just wait for people to demand royalties, which they then pay.
That would be lawful, and I doubt any royalties would amount to much as the material involved would be only a small part of the whole CD, but I don't know for sure if that's what they do - I don't know of any cases, but they would not normally reach a Court.
On a US note, a few years ago the NY Times was accused of blacklisting freelance writers who demanded fees for work previously published in the paper and then published electronically - there was a US Supreme Court case in June 2001 that said that they had to pay the freelance writers for subsequent publication in electronic form (on the 'net, not on CD).
This is not quite the same situation as the photographs in National Geographic, partly because photographs are different to written works, and partly because publishing on a CD is different from publishing electronically - in the US publishing a CD of an entire magazine could be considered still to be first publication (if you accept the 2nd Circuit's NG decision) due to the implied inclusion of "privileges of revision", which is US legalese and doesn't actually mean anything like it sounds like, in US (but not in UK) first serial rights.

I'd have thought so. First electronic, CD, and all other media yet to be invented, rights.
--
Peter Fairbrother


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lester Caine wrote:

I did not write that.
Peter Fairbrother
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Fairbrother wrote:

Sorry - Quoting went funny somewhere. The point *I* was trying to make was that we had already had feedback somewhere that ME and MEW prior to the last couple of changes of owners had contracts in place that meant that they could not simply copy content for other uses, it needed to be cleared with every author. David Fenner had confirmed the situation prior to his retirement from MEW and this was one of the reasons for the new owners wanting to replace the contracts - that and to reduce payments ;) Now if someone has information to the contrary ......
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Jan 2007 00:59:57 -0800, "ravensworth2674"

Norman -
Which Yahoo groups are we talking about here? (being a member of a few and not having seen any such correspondence).
Regards, Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Jeffree wrote:

Tony, from what I can see - or rather NOT see in my Yahoo Groups folder - it seems to be the "Geometer" and "Beginners Workshop" groups at the least, Norman may know of some others.
These had many of the old "Duplex" articles in them which were quite interesting. James Early had spent a considerable time making PDF's of these which may otherwise have been lost to many.
Peter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Jan 2007 01:57:19 -0800, "Peter Neill"

Interesting. The situation as I understand it (at least, for the articles I have written for the mags over the years) is that what the mag bought from me was essentially the right to publish the article in a single issue of the mag; however, I retain the copyright to my articles. The wrinkle here though is that the magazine retains copyright of their particular choice of layout, etc. - so you can't reproduce pages of the mag without infringing both the mag's and the author's copyright, but if you were to present the same material in a different form (on a web page, say) where it was obvious that you hadn't simply photocopied bits of the mag, then only the author's copyright would be infringed.
So if these were PDFs of scanned pages from the magazine, then Magicalia actually has a legal right to tell the group to remove the material. However, if you take the trouble to transpose the text, pics, and drawings into a suitable word processing/image editing/CAD format, and post that on the web somewhere, and you have the Author's permission, then, assuming the Author has the same agreement with the mag that I do, I believe you can raise the proverbial digit in the general direction of Encanta.
For example, many of the articles I have written appear on my website - not as magazine page images, but as web pages of my own construction. If I chose to do so, I could grant you the right to publish those articles on your website, post them, on a Yahoo group, or whatever, and Encanta would have nothing to say about it.
Regards, Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Tony
This is interesting - surely the consequence of this is that they can continue to sell left over back issues but that there is no other way of profiting from the material without infringing the author's copyright - even reprinting back issues might infringe author's copyright - in which case all the offending material might be lost if the copyright holder cannot be found.
Russell
Tony Jeffree wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hi Russell -
That is essentially correct, although, as I say, it will depend upon the nature of the agreement between the author and whoever the publisher was at the time.
Up until recently, I have been submitting articles on the basis of "First British Serial Rights" (FBSR) - which is essentially the right to be the first to publish the article in Britain, but the copyright remains with me. I don't think that making photocopies of back issues strictly comes under FBSR, but on the other hand FBSR isn't clearly defined (Google on it and you will see varients on the theme).
I have recently signed an agreement with Encanta that covers work going forward, and that gives Encanta the following rights over articles I submit for publication (paras copied from the actual agreement):
1. 'Exclusive First publication rights' - An exclusive right to publish the Contribution in whole or in part into the first publication of the Magazine. For the purpose of this right, first publication means the initial print run of the Magazine, any subsequent print runs of the magazine, and the publication via any electronic medium of a facsimile representation of the printed version of the magazine, provided that any subsequent print runs and electronic versions are complete and identical in content to the printed version of the magazine from the initial print run. 2. 'Non-exclusive rights to provide photocopies' - The non-exclusive right to publish, sell, rent, distribute or otherwise supply copies of the Contribution in whole or in part to any third party in the form of photocopies.
So under this agreement, they would get to print off photocopies of my articles from back issues and sell them, or put a facsimile of the whole magazine onto a website, but they wouldn't get to re-use my articles in a new publication (a "special" on CNC, for example) without asking for a further license. After they have done their initial publication, I get to do with the material exactly what I choose, as the agreement simply assigns the above limited rights to publish, it doesn't assign ownership of the copyright; that remains with me. Clearly, what I can't do is to offer "firts publication rights" to anyone else (as Encanta have already had that), but I can do pretty much anything else with the material that I may choose to do. For the moment, most of it ends up on my website.
Regards, Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Tony
Thanks for that explanation. I was interested to see that your change of agreement reflects changes in other publications too.
I've googled FBSR and followed a few links - as I understand it now - Magicalia don't hold author's copyrights and copyright in the "Typographical arrangement of published editions" has expired for everthing published before the end of 1981 and I haven't seen many articles on Yahoo from after that.
So it seems that Magicalia have no rights - but if the lawyers were acting on behalf of eg Duplex they would have a case.
I find this irritating - it seems to be bullying to threaten an individual with a court case where the threat is in the costs rather than the outcome.
Russell
Tony Jeffree wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Russell -
I couldn't agree more. If the "typographical arrangment" copyright was all they ever owned, and it has expired in the case of the articles in question, then Magicalia have no business getting involved.
Regards, Tony

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Jan 2007 01:57:19 -0800, "Peter Neill"

Can't find either of those - do you have a URL to hand?
Regards, Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Jeffree wrote:

Tony, they appear to have completely disappeared from the Groups.
They were here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geometer
and here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beginnerswkshp http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beginnerswkshp1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beginnerswkshp2
Peter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Jan 2007 03:13:18 -0800, "Peter Neill"

That may explain why I couldn't find them ;-)
Yahoo says "no such group" when you follow the links.
Regards, Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Jeffree wrote:

I clocked it in the quorn_owners group but JWE is trying to focus the discussion in the mlprojects group.
--
Duncan Munro
http://metal.duncanamps.com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duncan Munro wrote:

I have been in touch with Carl Carlson of the Quorn groups. Please tell him that I am supporting his concerns.
Again, I believe that J W Early has most of mlathemods ones. Here, I helped post the Martin Cleeve stuff from the 50's. I have also written to James
My quick scan this morning suggests one large chaos with only photos left in many groups. By all means, readers can have any support from me. I feel that this is the beginning of the end of model engineering. I hope that I am wrong!
Norman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ravensworth2674 wrote:

Don't say that for Christ's sake, I've just spent 10 months making a Quorn grinder ;-)
--
Duncan Munro
http://metal.duncanamps.com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:33:11 +0000, Duncan Munro

You did say months, not years?? You've obviously built it wrong then <G>
Regards, Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Jeffree wrote:

What I didn't say is it's only 5% complete ;-)
--
Duncan Munro
http://metal.duncanamps.com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.