Mary Shelley to Ed Van Ulrich (tm): "Fuck off!"

[Smokin' 5150]

Isn't it ironic that Van Ulrich and his lawyers refer to his design as the "Frankenstein" design?

After all, Frankenstein is a piece of literature created by Mary Shelley, whose only misfortune was that she created her work of art before copyright laws existed.

In other words, in his effort to protect his creativity, Ed Van Ulrich has no problem trampling on the creative efforts of someone else.

I hope her ghost haunts his hyprocritical ass.

[Eddymon]

good point, i never even thought of that before. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

[Wolfie3]

And don't forget "5150", which of course came from the police code. [img]graemlins/irked.gif[/img]

[Eddymon]

Wolfgang came from Mozart.

Sherman came from a General.

Most of Diver Down came from other musicians. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

[Wolfie3]

Originally posted by Eddymon:
Wolfgang came from Mozart.

Sherman came from a General.

Most of Diver Down came from other musicians. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

Of course the difference though, is that he's not trying to copyright/trademark those things. [img]redface.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/irked.gif[/img]

Not yet anyway ...

[SgtSchultz]

Originally posted by Eddymon:
Wolfgang came from Mozart.

Sherman came from a General.

Most of Diver Down came from other musicians. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

Does Edward Van Halen™ (© ® ™ Copyright 2002. All Rights Reserved. Name may not be reproduced without prior written consent of the copyright holder.) have an animal names Sherman? Weird, becasue I named my cat Sherman in 1996 - I think that I was first! Otherwise, I might have to change his name!

[Olen]

Smokin' 5150: Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus was written in 1818. Copyright law in the US has existed since the drafting of the Constitution, and is contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, stating:

"The Congress shave have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The first Copyright Act was passed in 1790, a full year before the Constitution was actually ratified by the States in 1791.

The authors of the Constitution wrote this clause in a symmetrical fashion. Notice that "progress of science", "to authors" and "writings" appear first in the groupings, while "useful arts", "inventors" and "discoveries" appear second.

Progress of science + authors + writings = Copyrights

Progress of useful arts + inventors + discoveries = Patents

As for Mary Shelley, and her estate, 184 years have passed, and the length of the copyright monopoly would have passed by now. When the copyright expires on an item, it falls into the "public domain" which anyone can freely use without fear of infringement liability.

Wolfie: 5150, as a police code, is incapable of having copyright protection. It falls into the classification of non-statutory subject matter (ie, not capable of copyright protection), which includes "...any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery..." (Sect. 102 of 1976 Copyright Act).

Sgt. Shultz: The " Edward Van Halen™ (© ® ™ Copyright 2002. All Rights Reserved. Name may not be reproduced without prior written consent of the copyright holder.)" is hilarious!! All your bases are covered by that disclaimer, LOL.

Folks, despite the seriousness of my posts on intellectual property issues, I do see the humor in most of what everyone posts. Taking jabs at EVH is perfectly fine in my book...since I took some jabs at him and this whole Van Halen mess a couple of months ago with my "Behind the Music" spoof.

Just don't mistake my "seriousness" of the issues with "lacking a sense of humor." Trust me...the legal system hasn't SUCKED that out of me...YET!

[ April 15, 2002 at 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Olen ]</p>

[Smokin' 5150]

Thanks for the IP primer, Olen. It is good to see at least one lawyer besides myself who has not lost his ear for good music or sense of humor.

Based upon Olen's post, I am planning on retiring from the law in 2186 to sell Ed Van Halen replica guitars with complete impunity.

[SgtSchultz]

Interesting discussion regarding copyright and when it falls into the “public domain”.

Recently, there have been NEW laws regarding WHEN something that is copyrighted falls into the domain. Copyright holders have been pressuring Congress – and winning – about extending copyrights for much longer and/or transferring it to an heir or whomever. This is a controversial issue. Sure, the person who has the copyright deserves to defend it and profit form it – but where and when does it end? Congress is basically being pressured to allow the Copyright holder to extend the time of the Copyright and to transfer it – ad finitum and as I indicated before, the pressure has changed some law.

But, where does it stop? There are good reasons for a copyright (and a patent etc) to eventually expire and become part of the public domain. It’s healthy for a society like ours, and citizens of a democratic Republic to be able to build on other ideas.

It is my opinion that, among other reasons, Edward Van Halen™ © ® (Copyright 2002. All Rights Reserved. Name may not be reproduced without prior written consent of the copyright holder. Edward Van Halen is a registered trademark of E.L.V.H., Inc.) is trademarking and guarding his copyright and trademarks NOW because of new laws and impending law that will make it possible for his estate, heirs, family partnership – however he has it set up, to continue to profit from the trademarks and copyrights – for a long time.

Sgt. Schultz has not yet received a letter regarding copyright infringement but if that happens he will consult mit der Younger Low Country Immigrant’s Counzel.

[Olen]

More useless info for everyone except those truly interested in intellectual property, LOL.

The "new" law that Sgt. Shultz is speaking of is the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" (SBCTEA) which I think was enacted in '98. The SBCTEA is a lengthy section of the 1976 Copyright Act as amended in '98. For those interested, the legal cite is 17 USC Sect. 300-305, but most specifically Sects. 302 & 304. Obviously, this section deals with the duration of the copyright protection afforded to a copyright holder.

Before I try to explain the SBCTEA, it is necessary to explain some things about the Copyright Laws.

There are two controlling Copyright Acts at present. The 1909 Act and the 1976 Act. Under the 1909 Act, as originally drafted, the duration of copyright protection is/was 28 years from the date of first publication (not creation). As the expiration of this term neared, the copyright holder had the option of renewing the copyright protection term for an additional 28 years.

Under the 1976 Act, any work created after the effective date of the act (which was 1/1/78) was given a copyright term of "life of the author + 50 years." That was modified around '94 to "life of the author + 70 years" to reflect consistency with sister nations that are members of the Berne Convention.

Short Summary:
1909 Act = 28 years + renewal for 28 years

1976 Act = life of author + 70 years

The SBCTEA modifies the copyright terms of both the 1909 Act and the 1976 Act, or more accurately, the works created under either act. However, the SBCTEA MOSTLY affects works created under the 1909 Act.

Under the SBCTEA, if a copyrighted work was subsisting in its initial term before 1/1/78, the work is given the statutory 28 year period of protection, and the holder is entitled to renew for a term of an additional 67 years (for a total of 95 years of copyright protection) at the end of the initial 28 year term.

Under the SBCTEA, if a copyright work was subsisting in its renewal term at the effective date of the SBCTEA (which is sometime after '98, and if memory serves me, should have been 1/1/00), the copyrighted work is granted a term of 95 years from the date the copyright was originally secured.

The SBCTEA has minor alterations to the 1976 Act and the duration of the copyright term, which I will not discuss.

As one can see, copyright terms have been extended from 56 years (under the original language of the 1909 Act - 28 + 28) to 95 years (28 + 67) for works created under the 1909 Act.

Most people probably would not blink too much at these extensions, other than to note that the duration of copyright protection was extended (duh). However, it is interesting to note that Sonny Bono benefited from this, as well as all of his contemporaries. Most notably, I think the Walt Disney family/corporation was behind the copyright term extension b/c many of Walt's original copyrights were due to expire. And, if I am not mistaken, there is another round of extensions being pursued. I will have to research that some to be more definite. But as you can see, lobbiests are earning their money for these copyright holders. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As Sgt. Shultz alluded to, upon the death of a copyright holder (barring some contractual/licensing arrangement from the past), the estate of the copyright holder controls the copyright. And that can be dictated by the will of the copyright holder or the laws of a state in regard to intestate succession (person w/o a will), and is noted as bold face in the quoted language below. As stated in the 1976 Act (Sect. 201 (d)(1)), "The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance of operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession."

Sorry if anyone wasted their time reading this who didn't want to. I find it interesting...hopefully a few others will too.

[img]graemlins/devil.gif[/img]

[CHRIS]

Was it not Dave who designed Ed's Frankenstrat anyway? Perhaps Dave should have copyrighted the design before Ed had a chance to.