To: All Msg #30, 12 Apr 94 21:50:00 Subject: Letter regarding Gulf Breeze * Forwarded from

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Don Allen To: All Msg #30, 12 Apr 94 21:50:00 Subject: Letter regarding Gulf Breeze * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET" * Originally by Michael Corbin * Originally to All * Originally dated 25 Mar 1994, 22:36 Barbara Becker of the UFO Research Network in St. Louis, Missouri, has asked me to post a letter to ParaNet which was also sent to Vicki Cooper of UFO Magazine concerning the copyright issues and the photos of the Gulf Breeze UFO. ParaNet applauds UFO Magazine for re-opening the Gulf Breeze case in the pages of the magazine. Barbara Becker raises some interesting questions about who the real authors of the "Jane" and "Bill" photos may be. February 9, 1994 To the Editor: Since you have decided to re-open the Gulf Breeze case in the pages of UFO Magazine there is a question I would like to throw out for your readers to ponder and Ed and Frances Walters to answer. How did the Walters legally use the "Believer Bill" and "Jane" photos and letters in THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS when they did not hold the copyright...or do they? The Bill and Jane photos were submitted to Duane Cook as Editor of the Gulf Breeze Sentinel. While neither photographer gave explicit permission in the accompanying letters for use, submission alone, is construed to mean the Sentinel could print the photos. Title 17 of the United States Code - Copyright Act of 1976, Section 201 (c) specifically says that in a collective work, such as a newspaper, the copyright vests initially with the author of the contribution. In the absence of the transfer of copyright, the owner of the collection, in this case the Sentinel and Cook, "is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work..." Simply said, Cook had the right to print and distribute those issues containing the Bill and Jane photos (and letters) and any revision of, or any work in the same series. Did Cook have the right to turn them over to Ed Walters? Section 202 states that the ownership of a copyright is distinctly different from the ownership of the material object in which the work is embodied. "Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object;..." This means that Cook probably could give Walters the actual photos and letters, since they were in his possession, but Walters could not use their content. Do Bill and Jane own the copyright, afterall, the letters and photos were submitted under a pseudonymn? Yes. Section 201 (a) states that the copyright vests initially with the author of the work. And Section 302 (c) states that the copyright on any pseudonymous work "endures for a term of seventy-five years from the year of its first publication, or a term of one hundred years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first." So there is no doubt that whoever Bill and Jane are they could hold the copyright for a very long time. Did Bill and Jane have to register their copyright prior to the publication of the photos in the Sentinel for it to be valid? No. Section 404 (a) states that a "separate contribution to a collective work may bear its own notice of copyright...however a single notice applicable to the collective work as a whole is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Sections 401 through 403: Copyright Notice, Deposit and Registration. When Cook published the Bill and Jane photos they became registered under this "blanket" copyright clause. Could Bill and Jane have transferred their copyright to Ed and Frances Walters? Yes, however, Section 204 (a) states that the transfer must be in writing and signed by the copyright holder or his authorized agent. Do the Walters have such a document? Will they produce a written transfer of copyright notarized prior to 1990, the date of publication of their book? Could the Walters invoke the "Fair Use" clause? Fair Use allows certain materials to be used without permission of the copyright holder. It generally applies to works in the public interest such as news reports, commentaries, criticisms, or works used in research or education. A famous case will illustrate "fair use". In Time, Inc., v Bernard Geis Associates, (293 F. Supp. 130.), Time being the copyright holder of the Zapruder film sued Geiss in U.S. District Court for copyright infringement...and lost. Geiss claimed that the artistic rendering of 22 frames of the Zapruder film used in a book fell under the Fair Use clause of the code. The court agreed and ruled that the renderings, the only pictorial representations in the book, supported the theory presented and made it easier to understand. The renderings were an integral part of the book and the book was in the public interest, subsequently there was no copyright infringement. Does this apply to THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS? Yes. While the Walters might argue that their book was in the public interest the validity of their claims did not rest on the Bill and Jane photos and letters. Walters used 38 of his own photos. He had a foreword written by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, an introduction by Budd Hopkins and endorsements by Walt Andrus, Bob Oeschler, Robert Nathan, Dr. Mark Carlatto, Vincent DiPeitro, Joe Greco and Dr. Brian O'Leary. If that isn't enough he had the "authentication" of his photographs by Harro Limbo of the Polaroid Corporation and Richard Vandenberg. If the preceeding list of experts isn't enough to support Walters' claims then what do two covertly submitted photos and letters substantiate? Nothing. In the Geiss case, the pictures were used to clarify a theory and were integral to the work as a whole. The Bill and Jane photos were not an integral part of THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS. It seems doubtful that the Walters could claim Fair Use as a defense for using copyrighted materials. Additionally, in Fair Use cases where the copyright holder is unknown, the person wishing to use the copyrighted materials will give notice, usually in a newspaper, announcing the intention to use the work. This gives the copyright holder a chance to come foreword. Since we know that both "Bill" and "Jane" read the Sentinel, this would have been a reasonable way to proceed. Did Ed Walters place a notice in the Sentinel announcing his intentions to write a book using the Bill and Jane photos and letters? Wouldn't you think Bill and Jane would have wanted some of the royalties from the use of their photos? Finally, in Inter-City Press, Inc. v Craig Siegfried (172 F. Supp. 37.) the court affirmed that, "A picture or drawing, which is an author's own production, cannot be copied, and acknowledgment of the authorship of an article or drawing does not exculpate the copier of infringement when it is done without the consent of the owner of the copyrighted material." In other words, giving Bill and Jane credit for the photos and letters does not release Walters from copyright infringement. What does all this mean? It means that for Ed and Frances Walters to have used the Bill and Jane photos and letters, they would need a written transfer agreement to avoid copyright infringement...or it could mean that Ed Walters is the author of the Bill and Jane photos and letters, and he was never worried about infringing on the copyright because he owns it. Sincerely, Barbara Becker UFO RESEARCH NETWORK St. Louis, Mo. U.S.A.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank