LCGB AGM ref BLOA

[GTFOMWSC]

I have another question it is being said quite a few times now that Mike Karslake copyrighted the designs and name if this is correct then how come Gavin was able to obtain it?.Surely if it was actually done and not just verbally given then he couldn't of got it.He could only of got it if it hadn't been,it wouldn't matter if it was a verbal or even written on a piece of paper if it wasn't actually registered it wouldn't of been copyrighted.I'm sure someone has said they actually saw the copyright can that person clarify that it was a copyright certificate.It seems very odd that if it's copyrighted then somebody else can obtain the name and designs.

Sigh,,,, you don't have to register copyright, it's implicit. Therefore he has tried to steal the history of the LCGB/BLOA by registering the name but has infringed copyright too through using the designs.

rubbish by what you say then why copyright anything then? all you have to do is tell someone you design something and its yours without regerstering it then? let the lawyers decide who is right and who is wrong

[Donnie]

Jesus, you are getting hung up on the reserved or applied rubbish.

Copyright is implicit.
It is the creators, in this case Mike's.
If he signed it over (which is the only way copyright can be given up) to the LCGB there will be proof of such.
If not, it passes automatically to his next of kin.

To simplify for you.
Get your phone out and take a photo of something, anything. See that photo, post it wherever you like online, anywhere, YOU own the copyright to that photo and no one can legally use it without your permission. So, if its used it's illegal, without you having to go and register the copyright, you already have this, it's implicit!

However, if you licence the image for use under certain circumstances, then it can be used under the agreement, you STILL own copyright!

You can hand over copyright, but its very rare for anyone to do so!

[Donnie]

rubbish by what you say then why copyright anything then? all you have to do is tell someone you design something and its yours without regerstering it then? let the lawyers decide who is right and who is wrong

I don't need to, it's copyright law and not rubbish, simple.

[Burnside]

I believe I may have noted the relevant legal position of this earlier?
Copyright exists for a period after death -it's 70 years for published works and may well be similar for imagery also.
If the rights of the logos were passed to the LCGB (which the paperwork suggests they were) then copyright still exists.

Correct, copyright, including imagery, last for 70 years after death, so even if the trademark has expired and can be taken by a new party, they cannot use copyrighted imagery, logos, etc.

So very interesting how Gavin Frankland accuses LCGB of bullying by stopping other vendors from selling BLOA merchandise, despite this being at the succinct request of the copyright owner, but blocks LCGB from selling BLOA merchandise on eBay...when they are actually legally entitled to do so but he isn't.

yes IF the copyright was actually done and not reserved if it wasn't and only reserved then they do not have copyright the scanned doc only shows reserved not copyright so you cannot pass something down or hold for 70 years if you never copyrighted in the first place.I will say again RESERVED is not copyrighted.I'll assume that LCGB do have the actual copyright but the scans do not show this.

I'm not sure that is correct, you do not have to apply for a copyright, all you need to do is state on the image that copyright is reserved, as has been done, along with a date, which these have.

Unless you can provide a link to where it says otherwise?

[Donnie]

Yep, "all rights reserved" is what you use to ensure any eejit looking to reuse your work realises that all rights are reserved with the copyright holder, simple.

[Burnside]

So would a wedding photographer have to apply for copyright on every single individual photograph that he takes? No of course he doesn't, he has copyright by default

[Donnie]

Exactly! Finally someone gets it!

[timexit17]

This is precisely why the question asked 'ad nauseam' has not been answered as yet.

Unless GF can prove that the letters shown in LCGBs evidence are not relevant (i.e. weren't by Mike, weren't to the LCGB as 'the club' or didn't cover the imagery) then it seems obvious that he can only answer NO.

There are 2 separate (although linked) issues here though, some are choosing to combine these, but they are legally separate:

1. The trademark dispute
2. The use of imagery

I don't think the IPO making a decision in GF's favour on issue 1 automatically assigns any rights under issue 2 apart from the obvious consequence that the imagery can't be used in some cases (since it contains the trademarked name).
This would result in an impasse, meaning entirely new badges/logos would have to be used by 'new BLOA' and presumably anything already made with copyrighted images refunded/returned and destroyed at Gavins cost - I can't see that being very cheap.

This copyright stuff has opened a rather unwelcome can of worms potentially though - there are a few people 'out there' making & selling reproduced BLOA items, I'm guessing these have gone relatively unnoticed since the badges are hardly a big enough deal to worry the copyright holder, if the copyright has to be enforced the copyright holder may well see fit to applying it across the board.

eBay are a law unto themselves however - I've been selling/buying on there since they 1st appeared on t'web and the number of times they've made silly decisions contrary to UK/EU law must run into the thousands every month, they are purely interested in getting their fees -legality doesn't come into it.

[Steveshipley]

Jesus, you are getting hung up on the reserved or applied rubbish.

Copyright is implicit.
It is the creators, in this case Mike's.
If he signed it over (which is the only way copyright can be given up) to the LCGB there will be proof of such.
If not, it passes automatically to his next of kin.

To simplify for you.
Get your phone out and take a photo of something, anything. See that photo, post it wherever you like online, anywhere, YOU own the copyright to that photo and no one can legally use it without your permission. So, if its used it's illegal, without you having to go and register the copyright, you already have this, it's implicit!

However, if you licence the image for use under certain circumstances, then it can be used under the agreement, you STILL own copyright!

You can hand over copyright, but its very rare for anyone to do so!

well then Mr Donnie, what about the monkey selfie. he didn't get to keep the copyright did he. judge ruled the other way

[timexit17]

The Judge ruled that copyright could only be held by the human species.
Would have been fun had he ruled t'other way though!