[AktiviX-discuss] help: threatened with copyright on art and ideas

[echo at aktivix.org]

Quoting max* <max at tofubandits.org.uk>:

> hi all,
> 
> does anyone have any experiences of dealing with threats re: copyright 
> infringments? any advice on how to deal with this? anyone been in similar 
> situations?
> 
> we've just received this email;
> 
> "Dear 'seeds for change',
> 
> I have contacted the organisation three times already without a response.
> I am one of the co-creators of the Blob Tree which was published in 1988
> by Marshall Pickering. It was copyrighted to Pip Wilson and myself, Ian
> Long. We have asked that the 'Jelly Baby Tree be taken off the web site as
> it infringes our copyright. We have had to contact several organisations,
> including Government agencies, who have agreed to take your resource off
> their websites.
> 
> We would like to deal with this problem sooner rather than later. Could we
> have some communication with the relevant person?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Ian Long"
> 
> It refers to an exercise that one of the seeds for change collective came up
> 
> with a few years ago (available at: 
> http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/tree.pdf ). That was a long time before 
> we'd ever seen or heard of the "blob tree".
> 
> Now we're being asked to remove it because somebody else claims copyright.
> The 
> blob tree seems to be 'older' than our tree, going by date of publication. 
> 
> We find it particularly ironic since all our work is @nti-copyright. we want
> 
> people to tkae our work, use it, change it, expand it! note that the sender 
> of the email claims to have been asking other people to take OUR resource of
> 
> their websites, even though we give express permision to all to use our 
> materials.
> 
> any advice on how to deal with this? anyone been in similar situations?

I have no experience at all, but as I understand it:

Yes, their blob tree was copyrighted to them by virtue of their having made it.
In precisely the same way, the Jelly Baby tree is copyrighted to whichever of
you drew it. S/he can do with that copyright whatever s/he likes, whether
giving it to someone else or everyone else. Anything written is automatically
copyrighted: 'it was copyrighted to N' simply means that N wrote it.

Presumably the image in question is not a copy of the particular image
copyrighted by Wilson and Long, but an original (whatever that means) work.
Which suggests to me that they don't have a leg to stand on. Personally, I
would probably reply saying that it's an original work, and that you have every
right to do with that work whatever you like. And I'd probably add a defiant
note on the website, but that's because I'm in a contrary mood right now.

/echo