Magicalia and the YahooGroups

For the record the Daily Telegraph "Meanwhile "ENCANTA Media, publisher of hobby magazines including The Woodworker and Model Boats, was yesterday snapped up by online group Magicalia for pounds 2.7m.

Encanta chairman Peter Harkness will be chairman of the enlarged group, while managing director Owen Davies will be joint MD with Magicalia founders Jeremy Tapp and Adam Laird."

For people who want to speculate on who has done well from this back on January 25th 2006 the Daily Telegraph said

"Leeds-based Endless has bought the special interest magazine division of collapsed publisher Highbury House Communications for a sum believed to be near to pounds 1m. The new owner, which recently raised pounds 100m to invest, now owns a stable of hobby titles which had a turnover of pounds 6m before the collapse, including Model Boats, Military Modelling and Popular Patchwork. All 45 staff will transfer to a new company, Encanta Media. "

Charles

I have just been further deluged like Marie Antoinette with head disturbing matters!

I now have stuff addressed to snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com to question the present problems but goes on to suggest that the 'typograpghical arrangement' copyright for JWE articles has expired.

Again, it refers to

and goes on- ad nauseum

As I said at the outset, my decisions have already been made.

Cheers

Norman

Greg, you have again generalised comments I made to a specific situation, for Magicalia to be the victim of theft they need to own the item. All of the articles I saw (I admit I didn't see all) were more than 25 years old and I believe Magicalia no longer have any rights to the arrangement. I agree though that the author would still have copyright and every effort should be made to obtain permission from them or their surviving family. I suppose Magicalia would claim it was their duty to protect the interests of their authors - well done.

Using undue influence to gain control over something you do not own is also theft.

You seem very keen to put words in my mouth, I have no problem with reasonable profit that is how we all survive. However, how much do the original authors get from "archive access fees or photocopied back issue sales". A sensitive issue no doubt as they have changed their agreement with the authors to cover such issues. I wonder how much their fees were increased to cover the additional profits that may now be available. Perhaps Tony is buying the beer on the increase.

I suppose as always Greg, "right" lies somewhere between our apparently diametrically opposed views.

Regards

Keith

In which case, and assuming the original deal was a non-exclusive license for magazine publication, that would be perfectly OK and Magicalia would have no valid objection.

David

In article , ravensworth2674 writes

This site appears to be offering a service to protect clients' copyright, for which payment is made for 5 or 10 years' service. It has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of copyright itself.

David

In article , jontom snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com writes

Greg,

Your point prompts me to clarify what I said previously - that copyright exists for 70 years from the death of the author. This applies to literary or artistic works. For sound recordings or broadcasts, the duration is 50 years from first release. For typographical arrangements the period is 25 years from first publication (though there is a confusing conflict between UK law and the EU directive mandating it). So for articles first published over 25 years ago, no rights in the typesetting can remain alive. The underlying rights in the words and music may of course still exist.

David

Sorry David but apart from the '3' which was deleted from the mlathemods3 address- when Google intervened, you have what was given to my inbox as the website I have no doubt that you will be able to get it all 'red (read ) in tooth and claw' from the Yahoo site in question- and I would refer you accordingly

Yep - the "typographical arrangment" copyright only lasts 25 years from publication of the mag.

Regards, Tony

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, T>Hi Tony

I wouldn't bet on that! The authors' fees are exactly the same now as they have been since I started writing for MEW. I simply took the view that offering a back articles service was a reasonable thing to do as part of the original publication, regardless of whether I got anything extra for it (or not, in this case!).

The practical politics of running a back issue photocopying service seems to me to make about as much sense as selling chocolate teapots, unless they charge some outrageous amount per copy. Raising an invoice, fishing out the right issue, making the copy, mailing it, banking the cheque, etc... is a time consuming process and an expensive one in most organisations (this is why "minimum order charges" often get imposed). My guess is that whatever they charge for the service, it is just that - a service, and they very probably make a substantial loss on it.

Regards, Tony

-- DCree

----------------------------------------------------------------------- DCreed's Profile:

JWE has uploaded the solicitors letter to mwlathideas:-

Archie

One of the continuing problems we come across is material ripped off from sites and sold on ebay on a CD as 'original'.

It applies to almost anything, and the Americans are probably the worst offenders as they have the Freedom Of Information Act which to a degree covers things like material published by the Govt or for Govt contracts etc etc.

In practice, this means that almost anything gets made available, have a look at 'n2gravely' on ebay, he has a lot of copied engine manuals, but he doesn't sell them in electronic format to maximise his returns.

We get stuff ripped off our own website, but as it is in html and jpeg pictures it ain't so easy to do quickly, we try and make the b*ggers work for it!

Peter

-- Peter & Rita Forbes Email: snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk Web:

I am indebted to David Creed for his insight into things which refer to recent times and which are not really about published material which arose perhaps 50 or more years ago.

I believe that I had material in Model Engineer around this time and again more recently for which no payment was asked for or offered. I believed and continue to hold old fashioned ideas of being an Amateur Engineer and would remind younger readers that this was part of the original title and concept. One did it for the love of doing it.

I doubt that anyone else in the past received any remuneration for his contributions. There are people who are still alive who can easily comment on whether I am right or wrong. I published so that other readers could benefit from my efforts. Whether it was copyright or not was never considered.

So we have a situation where another contributor in those days has his work still being copied today. Only in October 2006, I actually discussed whether or not any payment had been made available to the next of kin. I simply wanted to be sure that all avenues had been investigated before trying to put his work on the net. Look back here!

Only in the past few hours, I actually traced a last known address of one contributor. Sadly, it would suggest that property is no longer in the hands of his family. I have already advised that other contempories are still alive.

It will make good mileage if copyright and royalties are claimed for work which was actually the labour of love.

Norman Atkinson

If they do that then that's fine by me, what I object to is people sitting on this stuff and not doing anything with it whilst at the same time preventing others form using it. I restate that I don't believe the copyright laws were originally intended to prevent people from doing things - they were intended to allow people to profit by doing things.

Firstly I think copyright infringement is fundamentally different from theft : in copyright what is being "stolen" is the right to duplicate something, not the thing itself.

Secondly I recall when I was a kid someone in a street near me (not a posh area btw) had an E-Type that was standing rotting and was never driven. I wouldn't shout if the laws were changed to permit someone to take possession of derelict machines and do them up. You'd need a definition of derelict of course, but as I understand it it is a defence against a charge of theft to honestly (& reasonably) believe the item to have been abandoned.

If the proprietors of ME and MEW have not done anything to make provision for back issues to be available after all these years then why should there not be the same "abandonment" defence against copyright infringement as there is against theft ?

Interesting, and quite emollient as such things go.

What they are intended to do is to give the owner of a literary work the right to decide, and exert control over, what can and cannot be done with that material.

The law doesn't agree with you. Tough.

Unfortunately, you have absolutely no way of telling whether the unavailability of copyright material is simply the result of "abandonment" or it is the result of the express intent of the copyright owner.

Consequently, the only certain course of action is to contact said owner before you do anything that may result in them sueing you.

Regards, Tony

I don't agree, though that is certainly the effect they have. The reason the copyright laws exist is not to give people control of their output but to encourage the creation of the works in the first place. The same applies to patents - the reason patents exist is to encourage people to publish their originl ideas rather than have them die with them.

I don't know what you mean by this ? Copyright infringement is under normal circumstances a civil offence, not a criminal one, so the law does agree with me ? Also I am arguing that there should be changes to the law - saying those changes haven't already been made doesn't really address the point.

Same goes for something abandoned beside a skip in the road. IANAL but presumeably intent is inferred from previous actions if it ever comes to court. The previous owners of ME and MEW did nothing to enable people to obtain back issues, and had no start date for such a service. Under those circumstances I don't see why a good case for abandonment shouldn't be made.

That sounds like good advice to me :-)

In article , Boo writes

Well, AIUI you are both right. The essence of a patent is that the inventor discloses the invention to the world, in return for a limited period of total control over the use of the invention. It is, IOW, a bargain, with benefits to both inventor and world.

David