CREATIVE NEW LIZZIE BORDEN DOLL

mesadave · Post by **mesadave** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:27 pm

Creative ebayer selling this. So easy to do with today's imaging & home printing technology. Now if my daughter would just relinquish her old barbies, I could pad them, dress them and put different lizzie faces of them. "Megan: Daddy has a great idea on how to start your college fund". Ha Ha.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 29188&rd=1

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:36 pm

Thanks for the link, MesaDave. That was cool and creepy seeing Lizzie's face peeking out from that bonnet! I wonder if there any copyright laws associated with Lizzie pics? Does the FRHS own the rights to them?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:44 am

Copyright note: As of today, anything published prior to 1924 is in the public domain. Any non-published work created by an author/artist who died before 1934.

Also anything published between 1024 and 1978 without a copyright notice is in the public domain. Anything published without a copyright notice between 1978 and March 1 1989 without subsequent registration is in the public domain.

Anything copyrighted between 1924 and 1964, but the copyright was not renewed, is in the public domain.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Thanks for the refresher on copyrights, Fairhaven Guy. Photos are different, tho. The photographer, or whoever contracts the photographer (like AP or Cosmo) owns the right to a photo taken by that particular photographer. Celebrities are public domain, but you need to be the photographer or have purchased the rights to a particular photograph. Even tho Lizzie's image is in the public domain, you can't just lift a photo from someone's book and use it. The photos that the FRHS have are available to authors for a price, and they aren't cheap. It is a sliding scale, depending on your project. I think it's like $25 to use one of their photos for a magazine article. And I think it goes up to $100 for use in a book that will have a run of 10,000 or more copies. I don't know how they got the right to do this. I guess because photos were donated to their museum, they 'own' them? Porter's "Fall River Tragedy" I'm not sure about. Common sense tells me you can use the photos in there, but then Robert Flynn reprinted it and he copyrighted the book. But whether he legally owns the copyright of the photos or original text, I don't know. Maybe his copyright just means his own edition.

mesadave · Post by **mesadave** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:52 pm

The FRHS has, for years, stated they own those photos. They own the prints that were given/donated to the FRHS by the previous families who owned them. The photographs themselves were never copyrighted by the photographer, Walsh, and even if they had, the coyright would have long expired.

This is why you see so many of those Lizzie images and crime scene photos on so many website. It's well within the public domain to use them. Courtesy has long been the real reason authors have credited the FRHS with photos.

Anyway, the FRHS only owns the prints they have. They have no legitimate "copyright" to them. Why anyone would PAY for copies of those prints is beyond me when they can easily be printed from one's own computer after spotting them on the web. And lots of people do.

Fairhaven Guy: That was a very excellent, concise and accurate recap regarding copyrights that you posted. Thank you.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:59 pm

Mesa, in addition to what you stated regarding the photos, the crime scene ones were not taken by a news service or other private body, but were taken in the course of a public investigation and were public property to start with.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:21 pm

Thanks, gang, that was helpful about copyright laws with photos. Interesting reading and good to know!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:58 pm

Crud!
I had some cool pics from Joe to post but I guess not, now.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:50 pm

I have to say that the dollmaker is quite an artist! Did you guys check out the detail on her clothing and some of the other dolls? The tiny baby doll is exquisite!

--Lyddie

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:03 am

Expired copyrights mean nothing. A person could renew it. Yes, there sure is a lot of lifting being done off of websites. Some of it illegal and quite open to lawsuits.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:13 am

Augusta,

Expired copyright mean just that. Once something has passed into the public domain, it is in the public domain forever.

The information I provided was from http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/traini ... Domain.htm

A copyright office study done in 1961 found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renwed. For textual material (including books) the figure was only 7%.

Anything published before 1963, that was copyrighted, but was not renewed is now in the public domain. It cannot be renewed.

There may be some confusion because a work by Dickens, for example, can be published today with newly designed pages and new illustrations and a forward by a scholar, and that particular book may be copyrighted. The text of Dickens' work is in the public domain, so that may be reproduced by anyone at all in its entirety.

A Lizzie example is this: All newspaper articles published about Lizzie before 1923 are in the public domain. Anybody can collect them up and publish them without any permission from anyone. That collection, could hen be copyrighted, so nobody could copy that particular book as it is published. However, any newspaper article in the book could be printed without permission, because the articles themselves are in the public domain.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:05 pm

Fairhaven Guy - Thanks very much for the link to the wonderful, easy to read, chart. I thought you could purchase the rights after expiration. I haven't boned up on copyrights in a long time, and this chart is wonderful. I thought after the copyright expired, you had like 25 years or something to attain that copyright ownership.

By saying expired copyrights don't mean anything, I meant that you still need to know whether something has been renewed or not. I should not have phrased it that way.

Good examples of reprints. When you change the format substantially you create a new work, leaving the material still copyright free, but your version copyrighted. Harry's Lizzie trial on CD is another example.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:08 pm

Yes, that Cornell copyright chart is great. I learned about it after I had screwed up some copyright information on another message board. The copyright laws have changed a couple of times in the last 30 years and they can be quite confusing. Besides needing to check whether or not a copyright expired, you now have to confirm whether or not an author has died in some cases.

It's great that somebody created that chart, and keeps it updated. (It had changed a bit since I first saw it last year.)