Here's a difficult one.
A re-enactment group takes a design from trajan's column, alters it and adds colours to make it unique. Someone now leaves that group and duplicates that design onto other shields for a new group.
I know plenty of re-enactment groups have split before and this sort of thing goes on all time, sometimes with fights over group names.
Is this really worth persuing under copyright on the shield design ?
Quote:Is this really worth persuing under copyright on the shield design ?
To claim a copyright means the claimant must have registered that copyright with the authorities or something.
Use of a certain design and colour scheme can't be claimed as copyright without proof that the claimant has designed it - the other group can similarly claim they designed it.
Without some form of previous registration any copyright claims about this (and the design is Traianic in the first place) seems a waste of time.
I believe that here formal registration of copyright isn't necessary. You merely need to say that you own the rights. I agree that fighting over something based upon an illustration on Trajan's column is a waste of time. It's not worth the pecunia and tempus.
Robert wrote:-
Quote:To claim a copyright means the claimant must have registered that copyright with the authorities or something.
...this is
not true - it is not necessary to 'register' copyright to claim it - it arises automatically upon the creation of an
original literary or artwork etc - the concept is explained in Wikipedia ( reproduced here for convenience)
"Copyright – symbolized "©"
the symbol is just to show that copyright is asserted - it is not necessary to have it – is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an
original work note that the work must be original, thus, in the case of a design from Trajan's column, copyright could not be asserted over the design itself, but could be over an original stencil, say, used to reproduce a groups emblem.... exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. It is an intellectual property form (unlike the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret)
..and thus is not registered, unlike patents, trademarks etc... applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.
...again, this means that in the case of a shield design it must be 'discrete' i.e. unique in some way - which wouldn't be the case with a design faithfully copied from the Column...
Copyright initially was conceived as a way for government to restrict printing, the contemporary intent of copyright is the promoting the creation of new works by giving authors control of and profit from them. Copy rights have been internationally standardised, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the creator or creatrix's death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate creations; some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a by civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.
...so to try and enforce copyright involves bringing a very expensive court case costing many thousands of Euros/Dollars.....usually only worth doing if there is some significant financial advantage at stake..
Most jurisdictions recognize copyright limitations, allowing "fair" exceptions to the creator's exclusivity of copyright, and giving users certain rights. The development of digital media and computer network technologies have prompted reinterpretation of these exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, and inspired additional challenges to copyright law's philosophic basis. Simultaneously, businesses with great economic dependence upon copyright have advocated the extension and expansion of their copy rights, and sought additional legal and technological enforcement"
...in other words, copyright law is presently in a mess and state of flux, as has been remarked on another thread.
The bottom line is you can't copyright any known Roman/Greek design, but you could (in theory) copyright an original stencil or CAD program used to reproduce a design, if you can establish it is entirely your work ( and not, say, a group or collaboratve work), but you would have to be very wealthy and prepared to spend it to enforce such a right, not forgetting the problems of evidence and proof. Forget it !!!
Disclaimer: The above is intended for general guidance only and is not intended as legal advice. Anyone involved in a legal dispute over copyright should obtain proper legal advice pertinent to their own particular circumstances.
I would hope this never came up...anyone claiming copyright over history would be the saddest, most pathetic soul.
Right, the walls mine, mine I sayyyy! :twisted: :twisted: And Rome,(I have a photo graph some where....) :lol: :lol: :lol:
Are you talking about the Conalian wall ... if so as you can see it clearly belongs to me :roll:
Don't know what is the situation in UK precisely.
In France, that's still a mess (except if you copy MP3 or DVD, then you go directly in jail). But the copyright allows you to claim the paternity of an opus. So, no one can tell that he created it instead of you. But it doesn't warrant you an exclusivity or a money income. Cos then you have to pay for a patent or/and a commercial right defense organisation.
When Letavia was founded, they wanted to use the secundia britanniae episem because their presence was quite probable in Brittanny. But it was already used in UK. So we chose the seguntienses' episem by courtesy and respect.
But if it was an american troop, we probably have chosen the first one anyway because confusion would not be possible and according to the notitia, there are not an infinity of episems. But the notitia is poorly detailed so you can afford variations...
In your case, why don't you take profit of the situation to make your shield more "sexy" ? Your problem will be to prove that you were the first to create this design and that the separative guys have no rights on it.
Is it possible and money worthy (light expenses or income superior to expense) to go in justice ?
Bye !
There is also a certain amount of freedom to copy the "general" design of something that exists, even if it's a registered work, but the changes made must make it clear that the new design is just that. The bigger the lawyers of the group that claims to be offended or suffer damage, the more likely they will win out. Don't copy the Nike swoosh and expect to get away with it on your own line of shoes.
Profit is a big part of the equation. The flap over Da Vinci Code and it's having been alleged to be a near copy of another earlier work by another author is an example. I'm 99% sure that copies of historical works are allowed, as long as they're not billed as originals (replica coins come to mind).
Copying a shield design from a modern reenactment legion is less clear, most likely. The design would have to be registered (not expensive in the US) as a trademark of whatever group was involved. If someone else decided to use the same design (unless it was a copy of some original, provably ancient design) I imagine the first group could sue, since you can sue in the US for just about anything you can think of, and perhaps make the second group "cease and desist". But what a lot of proctological discomfort, over something that's not such a big deal after all. Besides, there are so many shield elements, and so few that are clearly documented as belonging to original, pre-Notitia Dignitatis legions, that it's all speculation in the first place. The only winners in a fight like that are the lawyers. They get paid premium, either way, no matter what.
BTW copyright laws vary from country to country, and sometimes there may be conflicting clauses between them. International law is exceedingly complicated. I don't pretend to be an attorney, or to offer useful legal advice.
Nobody can "own" Trajan's column. Don't be silly. Although I do understand that museums hold some sort of copyright title to the objects in their collections, that allow them to prevent physical reproductions. ... if that is true, then that is truly owning the past ...
Anyhow, back to our shields
. The pattern we have is loosely based on one shown on the column. We added to it and sorted out colours to make a unique "roman inspired" design.
It's just bl**dy annoying (and perhaps a little misleading to the people that book events) that someone just basically copies the whole thing.
*sigh*
Just for our info, Madoc, could we see the design?
Hi Paul,
Quote:Robert wrote:-
Quote:To claim a copyright means the claimant must have registered that copyright with the authorities or something.
...this is not true - it is not necessary to 'register' copyright to claim it - it arises automatically upon the creation of an original literary or artwork etc - the concept is explained in Wikipedia ( reproduced here for convenience)
Well, David put it like I had in mind, with the shiueld as the recognised trademark of a group:
Quote:Copying a shield design from a modern reenactment legion is less clear, most likely. The design would have to be registered (not expensive in the US) as a trademark of whatever group was involved. If someone else decided to use the same design (unless it was a copy of some original, provably ancient design) I imagine the first group could sue, since you can sue in the US for just about anything you can think of, and perhaps make the second group "cease and desist".
As others have said above, the original concept of the shield as portrayed on Trajan's Column is not eligable for copyright.
When it's just a painted shield, the claimant would somehow have to prove that he was the first to design it - there's the (in)famous fight over the 'Mithras shield"....
But if the shield design was used as a group trademark, that would (like David says) be a different matter.
Even if it was used as the group's trademark, how can someone still put a copyright on an historical emblem?
Unless they made the emblem up themselves, then absolutely, but not an ancient one...is that what you guys are refering to?
Quote:Even if it was used as the group's trademark, how can someone still put a copyright on an historical emblem?
It would be a copyright on the colour scheme as a logo for the business.
Gents,
I actually got three separate legal opinions on this topic, to include one from a copyright/patent lawyer (Ross and Mathews out of Austin, TX) on a seperate issue that was raised with one of the groups that I associate with. This of course based on current laws in the United States, which will vary with other nations.
The bottom line is that a lot of what we do is very hard to copyright/patent/trade mark. This of course is based on the opinions of three lawyers, not mine and I am sure other lawyers might have different views of the law.
Its been a few months, but essentially what it boils down to is Public Domain and Fair Use and a few other slick legal terms that escape me at the moment. What this means is that historical units, equipment, devices, etc cannot be copyrighted in that they are considered to belong to the greater public.
For example,the name of Legio VI Ferrata in itself can not be patented, or copyrighted as it was a historical unit that existed, and is considered to be owned by the greater public and can not be owned by single individual or corporation.
A trademark, patent, or copyright has to show original ideas and creativity; which has been already stated here, however, in addition, the longer an original idea is not patented, trade marked, copyrighted and open to the public and not enforced, the tougher the time the creator of the original idea is going to have to get a copyright patent, or trade mark and be able to sue on its infringement.
A shield design, based off Trajan's Column, with changes to it might be able to get a copyright/trade mark/or patent on it since it would be different , however, if it is using common symbols of the period such as the cresent moons, thunderbolts, and other common symbols of the era it could be challenged as these symbols could be considered public domain as well.
In order to support or defend a claim, one way or the other would take lawyers, which take money, which means the only folks that get anything out of it is the lawyers.
I think in the cases of our hobby, it is always best to ask permission, much like a few units here have asked to be affliated members of the Batavi in the UK.
v/r
Mike