开云体育

The Neil camp always seems to react very quickly when anything to do with copyright issues arise.
I remember in 2006 there was an article in the Australian edition of Audio Technology where the Aussie editor flew out to SF and spend a day at the ranch interviewing John Rowland and looking through Redwood Studios. The article contained some excellent photos and a great description of the studios, the processes used go convert the original masters to digital (I think they did this 3-4 times, every time new technology came out, another conversion!!) and some nice insights into the Neil camp.
Anyway I wanted to share this 7 page article with Rusties so I scanned pages and put them on 2 websites.
I get a call early the next morning from the editor of the magazine saying "the Neil camp has just rung from the ranch and they do not want the magazine article to be available on the web. Remove it!!!"
I asked the editor what his opinion was. He said he loved the publicity and basically didn't give a shit but he needed to maintain his relationship with John Rowland and the Neil camp.
I took it off but left one version of the article up on Johnny's site.


I would have ignored them if it wasn't for the editor's reputation.
It does show how naive the Neil camp can be in some things.


Regards

Stringman




--- In rust@..., "Chuck Naughton" <sixty_2_zero@> wrote:

--- In rust@..., "nyv1archive" <nyv1archive@> wrote:

Please be advised that unauthorized copying or reproducing any images on the Archives set is in direct violation of copyright and use laws, subject to legal action.

There are ways of contacting us, if research or journalism materials are needed.

Sharry has been notified of this directly.

thank you for your understanding,

for the NY archives team,
Archives Guy

Sharry,

I seriously doubt that utilizing copies of the photos you describe would violate any copyright laws. The yearbook photos themselves are probably public domain by now. First, since Neil and Co. did not originate the photos, they probably don't hold the rights. And even if they somehow got the rights assigned from the original photographer, or owner of the original plates or photograph I doubt if the original copyright holder took adequate measures to keep close hold on the rights. He may have sold the rights, but if that holds any water, I have a quit claim deed to the Mountainhouse Rest. in Woodside that I'll sell to Neil's people cheap! Plus the copyright is only good to the original owner, and assignees, until 50 years following the death of the original holder, or if the originator is unknown, 50 years from publication. So time has probably passed sufficient to the expiration of the photos copyright. Probably worth about the same as the old photo rights. Many of these photos have found their way to the public domain and have been reproduced and distributed over the years.





Since, your interest is journalistic, not commercial. Fair use would allow you to reproduce the phtos for journalistic purposes.

And, WTF? Neil's music has been traded freely with the apparent acquiescence of he and his camp. To now claim some sort of protection for reproduction of something they've reproduced for commercial purposes.