Momo
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,034
๐๐ป 601
March 2014
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by Momo on Apr 18, 2020 20:14:09 GMT 1,  i thought , on first pass , this to be of better quality that these two can knock up. perhaps you disagree ?
This the Conner Bros too?
i thought , on first pass , this to be of better quality that these two can knock up. perhaps you disagree ? This the Conner Bros too? |
|
dotdot
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 3,658
๐๐ป 1,030
December 2006
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by dotdot on Apr 18, 2020 20:25:41 GMT 1, source here
a site i thought disappeared years ago - on being reminded it was still there - i popped in today - and found this ...
it's the kind of stuff folk there can knock up in 5 - goes to show the skill the CB think they have.
check out the site , people - if you've never heard of it think of it as a gift.
source herea site i thought disappeared years ago - on being reminded it was still there - i popped in today - and found this ... it's the kind of stuff folk there can knock up in 5 - goes to show the skill the CB think they have. check out the site , people - if you've never heard of it think of it as a gift. |
|
|
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by Horatio Nelson on Apr 18, 2020 21:58:14 GMT 1, Any edition for charity is something commendable and I wouldnโt want to take away from that.
But increasing an edition number after having sold the initial edition really shows a lack of integrity on an artistic/commercial level. Yes, itโs great that the charity/NHS should get an additional 50% beyond what was originally planned, but sticking to an edition number as advertised/sold is such a fundamental cornerstone of practising/selling art that even charity isnโt a good enough excuse to alter an edition size like this.
There are other ways to achieve similar aims, e.g. different colourways, different sizes, handfinished versions, unsigned edition (as they have also done).
Any edition for charity is something commendable and I wouldnโt want to take away from that.
But increasing an edition number after having sold the initial edition really shows a lack of integrity on an artistic/commercial level. Yes, itโs great that the charity/NHS should get an additional 50% beyond what was originally planned, but sticking to an edition number as advertised/sold is such a fundamental cornerstone of practising/selling art that even charity isnโt a good enough excuse to alter an edition size like this.
There are other ways to achieve similar aims, e.g. different colourways, different sizes, handfinished versions, unsigned edition (as they have also done).
|
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by moron on Apr 20, 2020 13:00:06 GMT 1, In reality this is nothing new. Warhol, Lichtenstein, Hirst even Banksy have all โborrowedโ other artists work, styles or ideas and passed it off as their own. I can give you dozens of examples.
That's true but styles and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Hirst openly admitted he stole from other artists and said "fuck them" Warhol and Lichtenstein were criticised by many at the time. Even though Warhol was more about every day objects becoming art when sold as art in a gallery which did make many people think at the time. Banksy might have stolen ideas from other artists and the closest he got to plagiarism is when he published that text about advertising and took credit for which was stolen from some other guy.
The art world is very poncey and pretentious on some levels and what is called genius and great art for some promoted artists is called no talent and copying for other artists.
Anyway the Con Bros have committed copyright infringement as they do not have permission or rights to use those images of paintings and could find themselves and their gallery having to pay out a lot to the copyright owners in a US and a UK court should theowners decide to litigate.
Richard Prince art backfired on him recently too.
In reality this is nothing new. Warhol, Lichtenstein, Hirst even Banksy have all โborrowedโ other artists work, styles or ideas and passed it off as their own. I can give you dozens of examples. That's true but styles and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Hirst openly admitted he stole from other artists and said "fuck them" Warhol and Lichtenstein were criticised by many at the time. Even though Warhol was more about every day objects becoming art when sold as art in a gallery which did make many people think at the time. Banksy might have stolen ideas from other artists and the closest he got to plagiarism is when he published that text about advertising and took credit for which was stolen from some other guy. The art world is very poncey and pretentious on some levels and what is called genius and great art for some promoted artists is called no talent and copying for other artists. Anyway the Con Bros have committed copyright infringement as they do not have permission or rights to use those images of paintings and could find themselves and their gallery having to pay out a lot to the copyright owners in a US and a UK court should theowners decide to litigate. Richard Prince art backfired on him recently too. |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by moron on Apr 20, 2020 13:00:40 GMT 1, 200 signed turned into 300 signed turned into 500 more unsigned. I doubt those NHS workers realize they're sending pictures of their ID to thieves. I like their 'thanks to brandlergalleries' in the post...another fuckin crook๐คฃ
I don't know why.
200 signed turned into 300 signed turned into 500 more unsigned. I doubt those NHS workers realize they're sending pictures of their ID to thieves. I like their 'thanks to brandlergalleries' in the post...another fuckin crook๐คฃ I always assumed you were Brandler, I don't know why. |
|
Pattycakes
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,379
๐๐ป 423
June 2007
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by Pattycakes on Apr 20, 2020 20:56:21 GMT 1, I am not sure but does the copyright for these images lie with the artist or with the publisher? The paintings were commissioned as book covers, so one would assume it's the respective publishers who own the copyright, and if they no longer exist then there is no-one to make a copyright claim.
I am not sure but does the copyright for these images lie with the artist or with the publisher? The paintings were commissioned as book covers, so one would assume it's the respective publishers who own the copyright, and if they no longer exist then there is no-one to make a copyright claim.
|
|
|
|
Terry Fuckwitt
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 3,600
๐๐ป 6,562
October 2019
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by Terry Fuckwitt on Apr 21, 2020 10:32:33 GMT 1, I like their 'thanks to brandlergalleries' in the post...another fuckin crook๐คฃ ย I always assumed you were Brandler, I don't know why.
I love you too!
Might have been the 'fuckwitt' bit that swayed you.
I like their 'thanks to brandlergalleries' in the post...another fuckin crook๐คฃ ย I always assumed you were Brandler, I don't know why. I love you too! Might have been the 'fuckwitt' bit that swayed you. |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by moron on Apr 22, 2020 17:00:05 GMT 1, I always assumed you were Brandler, I don't know why. I love you too! Might have been the 'fuckwitt' bit that swayed you.
I always assumed you were Brandler, I don't know why. I love you too! Might have been the 'fuckwitt' bit that swayed you. Sorry my mistake, I meant to say that I always thought Poster Bob was Brandler. |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by moron on Apr 22, 2020 17:30:15 GMT 1, I am not sure but does the copyright for these images lie with the artist or with the publisher? The paintings were commissioned as book covers, so one would assume it's the respective publishers who own the copyright, and if they no longer exist then there is no-one to make a copyright claim.
R A Maguire owns all rights to his lifetime portfolio. Rights to use images from his portfolio are available by contacting Lynn Maguire his daughter.
Robert Maguire retained copyright for his book covers and the books usually had the name of the artists and the name of the copyright holder for the cover art.
So it's not rocket science for the Cocaine Brothers to know who owns copyright for any particular image they want to rip off via a simple google as to the copyright holder for an image on a book.
The fact that Lynn Maguire wrote:
"We have shut down our tribute to Mr. Maguire due to the proliferation of art "appropriation"; otherwise known as IP theft. We wish to particularly thank The Connor Brothers for their masterful manipulation of social media and for taking a shit on the legacy of my father and other great book illustrators of his era."
I am not sure but does the copyright for these images lie with the artist or with the publisher? The paintings were commissioned as book covers, so one would assume it's the respective publishers who own the copyright, and if they no longer exist then there is no-one to make a copyright claim. R A Maguire owns all rights to his lifetime portfolio. Rights to use images from his portfolio are available by contacting Lynn Maguire his daughter. Robert Maguire retained copyright for his book covers and the books usually had the name of the artists and the name of the copyright holder for the cover art. So it's not rocket science for the Cocaine Brothers to know who owns copyright for any particular image they want to rip off via a simple google as to the copyright holder for an image on a book. The fact that Lynn Maguire wrote: " We have shut down our tribute to Mr. Maguire due to the proliferation of art "appropriation"; otherwise known as IP theft. We wish to particularly thank The Connor Brothers for their masterful manipulation of social media and for taking a shit on the legacy of my father and other great book illustrators of his era." |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by moron on Apr 22, 2020 17:46:25 GMT 1, 
"This piece was painted for a 1971 reissue of an old romance novel written in 1957 and first published under the Arcadia House imprint, then later under MacFadden Books (the last printing for which this painting was rendered). The 70โs saw the large scale reissue of paperbacks originally issued by Belmont Books, MacFadden Books, and Lancer Books,"
www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=729337
Painted in 1971 and protected by US copyright and international copyright laws.
"This piece was painted for a 1971 reissue of an old romance novel written in 1957 and first published under the Arcadia House imprint, then later under MacFadden Books (the last printing for which this painting was rendered). The 70โs saw the large scale reissue of paperbacks originally issued by Belmont Books, MacFadden Books, and Lancer Books," www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=729337 Painted in 1971 and protected by US copyright and international copyright laws.
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by met on Apr 23, 2020 5:23:51 GMT 1, "This piece was painted for a 1971 reissue of an old romance novel written in 1957 and first published under the Arcadia House imprint, then later under MacFadden Books (the last printing for which this painting was rendered). The 70โs saw the large scale reissue of paperbacks originally issued by Belmont Books, MacFadden Books, and Lancer Books," www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=729337 Painted in 1971 and protected by US copyright and international copyright laws.
The date information on your source page is incorrect.
Although I'm unsure of when Robert Maguire created his painting, it was no later than 1963. That's the year Macfadden Books first published the image on the cover of Nurse in the Tropics.
Confusion might exist because Macfadden Books used the image over the course of eight or nine years โ from 1963 until 1971. The different editions have identification numbers partly corresponding to their cover price:
#40-109, 1963 - cover price: 40ยข
#50-347, 1967 - cover price: 50ยข
#60-479, 1971 - cover price: 60ยข
Here is the 1963 version (#40-109):
Search for "Nurse in the Tropics" in this bibliography for author Peggy Gaddis / Peggy Dern:
www.philsp.com/homeville/KRJ/gaddis.htm
See also Illustration magazine (Issue 3, April 2002) โ The Magic of Robert Maguire (page 18, middle column, under 'MacFadden Books: 1961โ1965'):
epdf.pub/illustration-vol-n-3.html
____________________
Focusing on US copyright law (the most relevant here), it's unclear to me how any of us could possibly know whether Maguire's image has retained copyright.
I'm assuming protection was secured upon first publication in 1963, i.e. that Maguire did not register the image himself before then. An initial 28-year term will have begun on that date, continuing until 31 December 1991.
For the image to have then received a second term of 67 years, a renewal registration will have had to be made during the final year of the first term. [The work's original date of publication precluded automatic renewal.]
NB: If a renewal registration was not made in time (very possible, since Maguire was about 70 years old), my understanding is that the copyright will have expired on 31 December 1991, with the image thereafter entering the public domain.
See Duration of Copyright โ Works Already Under Statutory Protection before 1978 โ Mandatory Renewal:
www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf
"This piece was painted for a 1971 reissue of an old romance novel written in 1957 and first published under the Arcadia House imprint, then later under MacFadden Books (the last printing for which this painting was rendered). The 70โs saw the large scale reissue of paperbacks originally issued by Belmont Books, MacFadden Books, and Lancer Books," www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=729337 Painted in 1971 and protected by US copyright and international copyright laws. The date information on your source page is incorrect. Although I'm unsure of when Robert Maguire created his painting, it was no later than 1963. That's the year Macfadden Books first published the image on the cover of Nurse in the Tropics. Confusion might exist because Macfadden Books used the image over the course of eight or nine years โ from 1963 until 1971. The different editions have identification numbers partly corresponding to their cover price: #40-109, 1963 - cover price: 40ยข #50-347, 1967 - cover price: 50ยข #60-479, 1971 - cover price: 60ยข Here is the 1963 version (#40-109): Search for "Nurse in the Tropics" in this bibliography for author Peggy Gaddis / Peggy Dern:
www.philsp.com/homeville/KRJ/gaddis.htmSee also Illustration magazine (Issue 3, April 2002) โ The Magic of Robert Maguire (page 18, middle column, under 'MacFadden Books: 1961โ1965'):
epdf.pub/illustration-vol-n-3.html____________________ Focusing on US copyright law (the most relevant here), it's unclear to me how any of us could possibly know whether Maguire's image has retained copyright. I'm assuming protection was secured upon first publication in 1963, i.e. that Maguire did not register the image himself before then. An initial 28-year term will have begun on that date, continuing until 31 December 1991. For the image to have then received a second term of 67 years, a renewal registration will have had to be made during the final year of the first term. [The work's original date of publication precluded automatic renewal.] NB: If a renewal registration was not made in time (very possible, since Maguire was about 70 years old), my understanding is that the copyright will have expired on 31 December 1991, with the image thereafter entering the public domain. See Duration of Copyright โ Works Already Under Statutory Protection before 1978 โ Mandatory Renewal:www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by moron on Apr 24, 2020 19:21:47 GMT 1, "This piece was painted for a 1971 reissue of an old romance novel written in 1957 and first published under the Arcadia House imprint, then later under MacFadden Books (the last printing for which this painting was rendered). The 70โs saw the large scale reissue of paperbacks originally issued by Belmont Books, MacFadden Books, and Lancer Books," www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=729337 Painted in 1971 and protected by US copyright and international copyright laws. The date information on your source page is incorrect. Although I'm unsure of when Robert Maguire created his painting, it was no later than 1963. That's the year Macfadden Books first published the image on the cover of Nurse in the Tropics. Confusion might exist because Macfadden Books used the image over the course of eight or nine years โ from 1963 until 1971. The different editions have identification numbers partly corresponding to their cover price: #40-109, 1963 - cover price: 40ยข #50-347, 1967 - cover price: 50ยข #60-479, 1971 - cover price: 60ยข Here is the 1963 version (#40-109): Search for "Nurse in the Tropics" in this bibliography for author Peggy Gaddis / Peggy Dern:
www.philsp.com/homeville/KRJ/gaddis.htmSee also Illustration magazine (Issue 3, April 2002) โ The Magic of Robert Maguire (page 18, middle column, under 'MacFadden Books: 1961โ1965'):
epdf.pub/illustration-vol-n-3.html____________________ Focusing on US copyright law (the most relevant here), it's unclear to me how any of us could possibly know whether Maguire's image has retained copyright. I'm assuming protection was secured upon first publication in 1963, i.e. that Maguire did not register the image himself before then. An initial 28-year term will have begun on that date, continuing until 31 December 1991. For the image to have then received a second term of 67 years, a renewal registration will have had to be made during the final year of the first term. [The work's original date of publication precluded automatic renewal.] NB: If a renewal registration was not made in time (very possible, since Maguire was about 70 years old), my understanding is that the copyright will have expired on 31 December 1991, with the image thereafter entering the public domain. See Duration of Copyright โ Works Already Under Statutory Protection before 1978 โ Mandatory Renewal:www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf
It looks like you are correct that the painting was done or the 1963 book cover and the person who bought the original painting made a mistake as to when it was painted.
From the R A Maguire Cover Art website: "Any cover art published from 1963 on is protected by the Copyright Law of 1978. The rights to all the original images on this site are available.
"
When Lynn Maguire refers to ip theft and publicly names the Connor Brothers.
She is accusing them of ip theft.
IP theft is according to the FBI. " Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressionsโknown as โintellectual propertyโโwhich can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software"
www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft
I think there are two types of copyright protection. One is for any original art that is fixed in a tangible medium and published. The other is copyright regarding book covers.
"Works published after 1923, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years."
fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/
R A Maguire died on February 26, 2005.
Normally with art as in paintings, drawings etc They are automatically copyright protected for 70 years after the artist died. R A Maguire was an artist who made original paintings. His art is copyright. He granted a licence to publishers to use his art on their book covers.
None of the publishers were called Conner Brothers or whatever the name of the gallery that sells their crap is called.
It's amazing really that Lynn Maguire set up a site to allow people to buy prints etc of her fathers art and also allowed people to use inexpensive licensed images. Did everything correctly and along come some junkies with a coke habit who decided to steal the images instead.
"This piece was painted for a 1971 reissue of an old romance novel written in 1957 and first published under the Arcadia House imprint, then later under MacFadden Books (the last printing for which this painting was rendered). The 70โs saw the large scale reissue of paperbacks originally issued by Belmont Books, MacFadden Books, and Lancer Books," www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=729337 Painted in 1971 and protected by US copyright and international copyright laws. The date information on your source page is incorrect. Although I'm unsure of when Robert Maguire created his painting, it was no later than 1963. That's the year Macfadden Books first published the image on the cover of Nurse in the Tropics. Confusion might exist because Macfadden Books used the image over the course of eight or nine years โ from 1963 until 1971. The different editions have identification numbers partly corresponding to their cover price: #40-109, 1963 - cover price: 40ยข #50-347, 1967 - cover price: 50ยข #60-479, 1971 - cover price: 60ยข Here is the 1963 version (#40-109): Search for "Nurse in the Tropics" in this bibliography for author Peggy Gaddis / Peggy Dern:
www.philsp.com/homeville/KRJ/gaddis.htmSee also Illustration magazine (Issue 3, April 2002) โ The Magic of Robert Maguire (page 18, middle column, under 'MacFadden Books: 1961โ1965'):
epdf.pub/illustration-vol-n-3.html____________________ Focusing on US copyright law (the most relevant here), it's unclear to me how any of us could possibly know whether Maguire's image has retained copyright. I'm assuming protection was secured upon first publication in 1963, i.e. that Maguire did not register the image himself before then. An initial 28-year term will have begun on that date, continuing until 31 December 1991. For the image to have then received a second term of 67 years, a renewal registration will have had to be made during the final year of the first term. [The work's original date of publication precluded automatic renewal.] NB: If a renewal registration was not made in time (very possible, since Maguire was about 70 years old), my understanding is that the copyright will have expired on 31 December 1991, with the image thereafter entering the public domain. See Duration of Copyright โ Works Already Under Statutory Protection before 1978 โ Mandatory Renewal:www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf It looks like you are correct that the painting was done or the 1963 book cover and the person who bought the original painting made a mistake as to when it was painted. From the R A Maguire Cover Art website: "Any cover art published from 1963 on is protected by the Copyright Law of 1978. The rights to all the original images on this site are available.
"
When Lynn Maguire refers to ip theft and publicly names the Connor Brothers. She is accusing them of ip theft. IP theft is according to the FBI. " Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressionsโknown as โintellectual propertyโโwhich can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software"
www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft
I think there are two types of copyright protection. One is for any original art that is fixed in a tangible medium and published. The other is copyright regarding book covers.
"Works published after 1923, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years."
fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/R A Maguire died on February 26, 2005. Normally with art as in paintings, drawings etc They are automatically copyright protected for 70 years after the artist died. R A Maguire was an artist who made original paintings. His art is copyright. He granted a licence to publishers to use his art on their book covers. None of the publishers were called Conner Brothers or whatever the name of the gallery that sells their crap is called. It's amazing really that Lynn Maguire set up a site to allow people to buy prints etc of her fathers art and also allowed people to use inexpensive licensed images. Did everything correctly and along come some junkies with a coke habit who decided to steal the images instead. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by met on Apr 25, 2020 1:15:48 GMT 1, [...] Focusing on US copyright law (the most relevant here), it's unclear to me how any of us could possibly know whether Maguire's image has retained copyright. I'm assuming protection was secured upon first publication in 1963, i.e. that Maguire did not register the image himself before then. An initial 28-year term will have begun on that date, continuing until 31 December 1991. For the image to have then received a second term of 67 years, a renewal registration will have had to be made during the final year of the first term. [The work's original date of publication precluded automatic renewal.] NB: If a renewal registration was not made in time (very possible, since Maguire was about 70 years old), my understanding is that the copyright will have expired on 31 December 1991, with the image thereafter entering the public domain. See Duration of Copyright โ Works Already Under Statutory Protection before 1978 โ Mandatory Renewal:www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf It looks like you are correct that the painting was done or the 1963 book cover and the person who bought the original painting made a mistake as to when it was painted. From the R A Maguire Cover Art website: "Any cover art published from 1963 on is protected by the Copyright Law of 1978. The rights to all the original images on this site are available.
"
When Lynn Maguire refers to ip theft and publicly names the Connor Brothers. She is accusing them of ip theft. IP theft is according to the FBI. " Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressionsโknown as โintellectual propertyโโwhich can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software"www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft I think there are two types of copyright protection. One is for any original art that is fixed in a tangible medium and published. The other is copyright regarding book covers.
"Works published after 1923, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years." fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/R A Maguire died on February 26, 2005. Normally with art as in paintings, drawings etc They are automatically copyright protected for 70 years after the artist died. R A Maguire was an artist who made original paintings. His art is copyright. He granted a licence to publishers to use his art on their book covers. None of the publishers were called Conner Brothers or whatever the name of the gallery that sells their crap is called. It's amazing really that Lynn Maguire set up a site to allow people to buy prints etc of her fathers art and also allowed people to use inexpensive licensed images. Did everything correctly and along come some junkies with a coke habit who decided to steal the images instead.
I don't completely follow what you're saying.
My own comment about intellectual property was a technical legal point:
If it were the case that a renewal registration wasn't made circa 1991 with the United States Copyright Office, then this nurse image by Robert Maguire would be outside of US copyright protection โ meaning that subsequent appropriation of the image would not constitute IP theft under US copyright law.
The above is a direct application of the relevant US statutes*. [In addition, a default assumption for me is that, when they're referred to by laymen, legal terms like "IP theft" are being used simply in a colloquial sense.]
The issues I have with output by the Connor Brothers are manifold, but unrelated to legislation.
*If interested in the source legislation, see the Copyright Act of 1976 (US Code, Title 17, Section 304(a)) โ specifically the version in effect prior to the enactment date of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. It is the older version of Section 304(a) that applies to copyrights secured before 1 January 1964 (cf. Section 102(g) of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992).
[...] Focusing on US copyright law (the most relevant here), it's unclear to me how any of us could possibly know whether Maguire's image has retained copyright. I'm assuming protection was secured upon first publication in 1963, i.e. that Maguire did not register the image himself before then. An initial 28-year term will have begun on that date, continuing until 31 December 1991. For the image to have then received a second term of 67 years, a renewal registration will have had to be made during the final year of the first term. [The work's original date of publication precluded automatic renewal.] NB: If a renewal registration was not made in time (very possible, since Maguire was about 70 years old), my understanding is that the copyright will have expired on 31 December 1991, with the image thereafter entering the public domain. See Duration of Copyright โ Works Already Under Statutory Protection before 1978 โ Mandatory Renewal:www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf It looks like you are correct that the painting was done or the 1963 book cover and the person who bought the original painting made a mistake as to when it was painted. From the R A Maguire Cover Art website: "Any cover art published from 1963 on is protected by the Copyright Law of 1978. The rights to all the original images on this site are available.
"
When Lynn Maguire refers to ip theft and publicly names the Connor Brothers. She is accusing them of ip theft. IP theft is according to the FBI. " Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressionsโknown as โintellectual propertyโโwhich can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software"www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft I think there are two types of copyright protection. One is for any original art that is fixed in a tangible medium and published. The other is copyright regarding book covers.
"Works published after 1923, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years." fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/R A Maguire died on February 26, 2005. Normally with art as in paintings, drawings etc They are automatically copyright protected for 70 years after the artist died. R A Maguire was an artist who made original paintings. His art is copyright. He granted a licence to publishers to use his art on their book covers. None of the publishers were called Conner Brothers or whatever the name of the gallery that sells their crap is called. It's amazing really that Lynn Maguire set up a site to allow people to buy prints etc of her fathers art and also allowed people to use inexpensive licensed images. Did everything correctly and along come some junkies with a coke habit who decided to steal the images instead. I don't completely follow what you're saying. My own comment about intellectual property was a technical legal point: If it were the case that a renewal registration wasn't made circa 1991 with the United States Copyright Office, then this nurse image by Robert Maguire would be outside of US copyright protection โ meaning that subsequent appropriation of the image would not constitute IP theft under US copyright law. The above is a direct application of the relevant US statutes*. [In addition, a default assumption for me is that, when they're referred to by laymen, legal terms like "IP theft" are being used simply in a colloquial sense.]The issues I have with output by the Connor Brothers are manifold, but unrelated to legislation. * If interested in the source legislation, see the Copyright Act of 1976 (US Code, Title 17, Section 304(a)) โ specifically the version in effect prior to the enactment date of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. It is the older version of Section 304(a) that applies to copyrights secured before 1 January 1964 (cf. Section 102(g) of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992). |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by moron on Apr 25, 2020 11:44:20 GMT 1, It looks like you are correct that the painting was done or the 1963 book cover and the person who bought the original painting made a mistake as to when it was painted. From the R A Maguire Cover Art website: "Any cover art published from 1963 on is protected by the Copyright Law of 1978. The rights to all the original images on this site are available.
"
When Lynn Maguire refers to ip theft and publicly names the Connor Brothers. She is accusing them of ip theft. IP theft is according to the FBI. " Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressionsโknown as โintellectual propertyโโwhich can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software"www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft I think there are two types of copyright protection. One is for any original art that is fixed in a tangible medium and published. The other is copyright regarding book covers.
"Works published after 1923, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years." fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/R A Maguire died on February 26, 2005. Normally with art as in paintings, drawings etc They are automatically copyright protected for 70 years after the artist died. R A Maguire was an artist who made original paintings. His art is copyright. He granted a licence to publishers to use his art on their book covers. None of the publishers were called Conner Brothers or whatever the name of the gallery that sells their crap is called. It's amazing really that Lynn Maguire set up a site to allow people to buy prints etc of her fathers art and also allowed people to use inexpensive licensed images. Did everything correctly and along come some junkies with a coke habit who decided to steal the images instead. I don't completely follow what you're saying. My own comment about intellectual property was a technical legal point: If it were the case that a renewal registration wasn't made circa 1991 with the United States Copyright Office, then this nurse image by Robert Maguire would be outside of US copyright protection โ meaning that subsequent appropriation of the image would not constitute IP theft under US copyright law. The above is a direct application of the relevant US statutes*. [In addition, a default assumption for me is that, when they're referred to by laymen, legal terms like "IP theft" are being used simply in a colloquial sense.]The issues I have with output by the Connor Brothers are manifold, but unrelated to legislation. * If interested in the source legislation, see the Copyright Act of 1976 (US Code, Title 17, Section 304(a)) โ specifically the version in effect prior to the enactment date of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. It is the older version of Section 304(a) that applies to copyrights secured before 1 January 1964 (cf. Section 102(g) of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992).
For art paintings, drawings etc, copyright is automatic and lasts for 70 years after the artists death.
So all of Maguires original paintings are copyright protected.
There is also copyright under the Berne convention which US is part of.
Regarding US copyright registration, that is done mainly so that it is easier to make a claim and get damages in a US court and awarded more than just the statutory damages which have a limit.
A copyright owner even if the art is not registered in the US Gov copyright register can contact a service provider hosting a site and using the DMCA takedown procedure issue a DMCA takedown notice and have the site taken down.
Normal recourse is to contact the site owner hosting a copyright infringing image and send them a dmca take down notice. If that is ignored, they can contact the site host and have the site taken down, plus removed from google search and pages.
I see the Con Bros have not bothers to give credit to the source of the images they have used in their so called art. So basically they stole them.
There is plenty of info online about copyright and art.
US copyright laws have been amended over the decades and artists are protected under the current law.
Copyright registration is not needed for an artwork to be copyright protected. It just makes it easier in US courts to wing bigger payouts.
UK copyright.
www.npg.org.uk/about/creators/copyright
I would love to know your other issues regarding the Con Bros.
Feel free to make them public.
It looks like you are correct that the painting was done or the 1963 book cover and the person who bought the original painting made a mistake as to when it was painted. From the R A Maguire Cover Art website: "Any cover art published from 1963 on is protected by the Copyright Law of 1978. The rights to all the original images on this site are available.
"
When Lynn Maguire refers to ip theft and publicly names the Connor Brothers. She is accusing them of ip theft. IP theft is according to the FBI. " Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressionsโknown as โintellectual propertyโโwhich can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software"www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft I think there are two types of copyright protection. One is for any original art that is fixed in a tangible medium and published. The other is copyright regarding book covers.
"Works published after 1923, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years." fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/R A Maguire died on February 26, 2005. Normally with art as in paintings, drawings etc They are automatically copyright protected for 70 years after the artist died. R A Maguire was an artist who made original paintings. His art is copyright. He granted a licence to publishers to use his art on their book covers. None of the publishers were called Conner Brothers or whatever the name of the gallery that sells their crap is called. It's amazing really that Lynn Maguire set up a site to allow people to buy prints etc of her fathers art and also allowed people to use inexpensive licensed images. Did everything correctly and along come some junkies with a coke habit who decided to steal the images instead. I don't completely follow what you're saying. My own comment about intellectual property was a technical legal point: If it were the case that a renewal registration wasn't made circa 1991 with the United States Copyright Office, then this nurse image by Robert Maguire would be outside of US copyright protection โ meaning that subsequent appropriation of the image would not constitute IP theft under US copyright law. The above is a direct application of the relevant US statutes*. [In addition, a default assumption for me is that, when they're referred to by laymen, legal terms like "IP theft" are being used simply in a colloquial sense.]The issues I have with output by the Connor Brothers are manifold, but unrelated to legislation. * If interested in the source legislation, see the Copyright Act of 1976 (US Code, Title 17, Section 304(a)) โ specifically the version in effect prior to the enactment date of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. It is the older version of Section 304(a) that applies to copyrights secured before 1 January 1964 (cf. Section 102(g) of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992).Copyright registration is not necessary as all creative works fixed in a tangible medium are automatically copyright. For art paintings, drawings etc, copyright is automatic and lasts for 70 years after the artists death. So all of Maguires original paintings are copyright protected. There is also copyright under the Berne convention which US is part of. Regarding US copyright registration, that is done mainly so that it is easier to make a claim and get damages in a US court and awarded more than just the statutory damages which have a limit. A copyright owner even if the art is not registered in the US Gov copyright register can contact a service provider hosting a site and using the DMCA takedown procedure issue a DMCA takedown notice and have the site taken down. Normal recourse is to contact the site owner hosting a copyright infringing image and send them a dmca take down notice. If that is ignored, they can contact the site host and have the site taken down, plus removed from google search and pages. I see the Con Bros have not bothers to give credit to the source of the images they have used in their so called art. So basically they stole them. There is plenty of info online about copyright and art. US copyright laws have been amended over the decades and artists are protected under the current law. Copyright registration is not needed for an artwork to be copyright protected. It just makes it easier in US courts to wing bigger payouts. UK copyright. www.npg.org.uk/about/creators/copyright I would love to know your other issues regarding the Con Bros. Feel free to make them public. |
|
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 15:43:11 GMT 1, Still for sale...
Still for sale...
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 15:43:59 GMT 1, Still for sale...
Still for sale...
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 15:44:35 GMT 1, Still for sale
Still for sale
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 15:46:09 GMT 1, Still for sale...
Still for sale...
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:02:25 GMT 1, Still for sale...
Still for sale...
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:02:59 GMT 1, Still for sale...
Still for sale...
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:03:17 GMT 1, Still for sale
Still for sale
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:06:12 GMT 1, Still for sale... Now with image!
Still for sale... Now with image! |
|
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:08:46 GMT 1, Still for sale... now with image!
Still for sale... now with image! |
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:09:52 GMT 1, Still for sale... Now with image!
Still for sale... Now with image! |
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:11:48 GMT 1, Still for sale, Now with image!
Still for sale, Now with image! |
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 16:14:05 GMT 1,
Still for sale
Still for sale |
|
Lazarus II
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,804
๐๐ป 2,429
August 2019
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by Lazarus II on Apr 27, 2020 16:25:35 GMT 1, I thought it might be being that it didnt sell in 13 days i couldnt see it shifting in 40 minutes today.
I thought it might be being that it didnt sell in 13 days i couldnt see it shifting in 40 minutes today.
|
|
m777
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 25
๐๐ป 11
April 2020
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by m777 on Apr 27, 2020 17:42:25 GMT 1, They've all duplicated for some reason
They've all duplicated for some reason
|
|
.dappy
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,841
๐๐ป 9,462
December 2010
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by .dappy on Apr 27, 2020 21:10:00 GMT 1, ... sell them back to Maddox ...
... sell them back to Maddox ...
|
|
|
|
The Connor Brothers ๐ฌ๐ง Mike Snelle & James Golding, by brushstroke on Apr 28, 2020 7:49:52 GMT 1, Dear Community,
I am looking for an original work from the Connor Brothers for sale?
Have used the search function, but couldnโt find anything recently.
Thanks.
Dear Community,
I am looking for an original work from the Connor Brothers for sale?
Have used the search function, but couldnโt find anything recently.
Thanks.
|
|
