Adobe Reader lossage
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 29 Apr 2010 13:12 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > The law on this is pretty complex. In the UK the default situation is > > > > > that intellectual property that you create in the course of your > > > > > employment is owned by the employer unless there is a specific clause > > > > > saying otherwise. > > > > > > > > It occurs to me that that was *NOT* the case when I started working as a > > > > journo in, erm '93 IIRC. > > > > > > I was working in TV journalism from 1964 to 1996. It was definitely the > > > default throughout that time. > > > > Which law said so? > > > > - when I started work, the default position was that you owned your own > > writing unless you explicitly gave away your copyright, so everyone told > > me. > > How would that actually work then? The firm puts a clause in your employment contract saying that your work for them is their copyright, basically. > So when you left the company they > would have to go through their archives to remove all the stories that > you wrote? <puzzled> You're mad, you are. There's no reason for that even if were possible for me to assert my copyright, which I suspect would be tricky. There's no reason to leave copyright material in the hands of whoever you like - that's what copyright's *for*. > Or have to get in contact with you again to ask you if they > could reprint? I suspect that the lawyers could sort it out, but AFAIK, I own the copyright on all my work for my first publisher, and so they needed my permission to publish anything first time, reprints, whatever. (Unless there is a clause in your contract handing over your copyright, you keep it. And that first journalism contract I signed did *NOT* have such a clause, believe me I read it very carefully, I've still got a copy in my filing cabinet.) .... which the lawyers would probably say that I had given implicitly by, erm, writing the stuff and, erm, doing all the other things necessary to get it printed and sent to subscribers. Well, aside from the bits that the production manager did (I didn't touch contracts, just copy). I'm sure a lawyer could argue that by repeatedly writing stuff and sending it to be published, I had at least given permission for first time publication and was getting paid for at least that much by the fact I was getting a salary and all that. > Also does that not mean that if you wrote something and it got popular, > you could withdraw it from them and give it to someone else who paid you > again for it. > > I realy don't see how that could work in business. .... which is why the sensible employer of creative workers puts a clause in the contract to deal with the copyright business, as I have already explained. And the first employer I had when I started scribbling was *NOT* a sensible employer, the management was quite simply hopeless, they'd just neglected to think about the need for such a clause (and almost any other sensible aspect of running the firm, staff relations, and so on and so forth). It beats me why you don't first READ my explanations and then THINK about them a bit before going off on one. You do this a lot - fail to understand what I've written due to not bothering to read it, and then asking all sorts of really idiotic questions on the basis of your refusal to try to understand my point. > It certainly wouldn't be the norm (and couldn't work) in any other form > of business. Woody, I'm talking about what the *default position in law* is, not what the default position in terms of `the actual contracts actual workers actually sign in actual real life'. It's a shame that you failed to understand this point as you so often fail to understand me - a shame, because you just go off on one quite pointlessly and stupidly, all because you've not bothered to read what I've written carefully enough. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 29 Apr 2010 13:12 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: > > >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: [snip] > It's the paying-for that is the moment of handover. The payment will > be subject to a contract, and the contract will either hand your > copyright over to the purchasor or if you keep them, forbid you from > republishing it for a period. But the contract in my case did not work like that, and at no point did it mention the copyright issue *ANYWHERE*. Not one single mention. I checked /very/ carefully: I couldn't quite believe it... > The whole thing is straight contractual obligations. <cough> In my case, there was no explict, written contract that covered such activities. Nor was there any payment for bits of copy, not even any handing over. I was on a salary, writing on a PC in an office (except when I was out of the office nosing and noting), sending stuff off to the typesetter for publication, checking the proofs when they came back, signing off finished pages for the printer, and so on. The lawyers would I'm sure argue that by doing so, I was explicitly handing over my copyright; *MY* lawyers would try `But he was only giving permission for reasonable use of his work in that publication, not handing over all his copyrights' and a grand old time could be had by all. Except that I'd not bother trying it on, on account of my words in those cases having no value at all in any context other than being published in the magazines in question. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 29 Apr 2010 13:49 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The law on this is pretty complex. In the UK the default > > > > > > situation is that intellectual property that you create in the > > > > > > course of your employment is owned by the employer unless there > > > > > > is a specific clause saying otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > It occurs to me that that was *NOT* the case when I started > > > > > working as a journo in, erm '93 IIRC. > > > > > > > > I was working in TV journalism from 1964 to 1996. It was definitely the > > > > default throughout that time. > > > > > > Which law said so? > > > > > > - when I started work, the default position was that you owned your own > > > writing unless you explicitly gave away your copyright, so everyone told > > > me. > > > > How would that actually work then? > > The firm puts a clause in your employment contract saying that your work > for them is their copyright, basically. Well, yes, that is normal. So not what you said then. > > So when you left the company they > > would have to go through their archives to remove all the stories that > > you wrote? > > <puzzled> You're mad, you are. There's no reason for that even if were > possible for me to assert my copyright, which I suspect would be tricky. > > There's no reason to leave copyright material in the hands of whoever > you like - that's what copyright's *for*. > > > Or have to get in contact with you again to ask you if they > > could reprint? > > I suspect that the lawyers could sort it out, but AFAIK, I own the > copyright on all my work for my first publisher, and so they needed my > permission to publish anything first time, reprints, whatever. > > (Unless there is a clause in your contract handing over your copyright, > you keep it. And that first journalism contract I signed did *NOT* have > such a clause, believe me I read it very carefully, I've still got a > copy in my filing cabinet.) That is what I was saying about. It would seem odd to provide you will full time employment but leave you with the ownership of things you did for them in their time when they were paying you. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 29 Apr 2010 15:33 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > > > > - when I started work, the default position was that you owned your own > > > > writing unless you explicitly gave away your copyright, so everyone told > > > > me. > > > > > > How would that actually work then? > > > > The firm puts a clause in your employment contract saying that your work > > for them is their copyright, basically. > > Well, yes, that is normal. So not what you said then. What I said on the subject is absolutely 100% perfectly correct. Since you can't be bothered to deal with the actual real point I've been trying to address, I give up. [snip] > > (Unless there is a clause in your contract handing over your copyright, > > you keep it. And that first journalism contract I signed did *NOT* have > > such a clause, believe me I read it very carefully, I've still got a > > copy in my filing cabinet.) > > That is what I was saying about. It would seem odd to provide you will > full time employment but leave you with the ownership of things you did > for them in their time when they were paying you. Yes, isn't it? Like I say, it was idiotic management at one firm. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Dorian Gray on 30 Apr 2010 04:40
In article <1jhq3zw.qxj7s61jdqn89N%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: > It would seem odd to provide you will > full time employment but leave you with the ownership of things you did > for them in their time when they were paying you. I think full-time employed academics everywhere still own copyright on books that they write - certainly in Cambridge. Not so inventions anymore, but they did until 2005. |