I ask it here, because (a) it pertains to something posted in the news section and because (b) this board doesn't have a general "Q&A" section. Also, I'm not trying to stir up trouble; I'm honestly curious.

Wouldn't it have been appropriate to include a copyright notice with the "Boston Charlie" lyrics? I find the absence of such a bit confounding, given Comicon's strong pro-creators'-rights stance.



[This message has been edited by Otto Chelman (edited 12-26-2000).]

Otto,
Yes, it would be appropriate, but when I checked the various POGO websites to find the complete lyrics, none of them had a copyright notice I could use. Since Walt is dead, I have no idea who owns the copyright to this (or any other POGO) material. One of the sites I found had a list of various record albums of Xmas music that have been offered for sale over the decades that included "Boston Charlie" and made notice of the fact that the musicians had listed the song as copyrighted to themselves or their music publishers. So my impression was that this classic has sort of moved into public domain.

Next year, unless I find out different, I'll just copyright it Walt Kelly.

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash

I'm reasonably sure that the Walt Kelly estate maintains copyright on Pogo, even if some individual strips may have moved into public domain due to non-renewal or other such circumstances. Certainly, Selby Kelly used to come after people who put out unauthorized greeting cards and such. I'd be very surprised if she (or successors) let the lyrics lapse, whether or not she (or successors) have been very aggressive about enforcing said rights. (Trademarks lapse if you don't police 'em; copyrights lapse if you don't renew 'em, or after a set period.)

I also believe that the copyright and permissions requirements for song lyrics are far stricter than for most materials and offer little leeway for "fair use."

[This message has been edited by Otto Chelman (edited 12-26-2000).]

"Deck Us All With Boston Charlie" is copyrighted by O.G.P.I., which is a corporation owned by the Estate of Walt Kelly. I am posting this message in my capacity as Consultant to said company.

It's funny -- I was just thinking, "Now, here's a question for Mark Evanier...."

Details will follow as to where Rick V. can report for punishment and execution.



[This message has been edited by Otto Chelman (edited 12-26-2000).]

"We have seen the enemy and he is us!"

Thanks, Mark! I'll contact you about getting permission if I decide to use it next year.



------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash

Rick -- I can e-mail you about that "punishment and execution" business if you want to keep the time and place private.

Let me know.

In all fairness, is it really common practice to run copyright information when lyrics are quoted in news?

I mean, I see and appreciate Otto's point, but really, what's all the hubbub, bub?

However, it's possible I don't have all the facts since I can't seem to figure out what story this relates to on SPLASH.

--Ricko

I apologize in advance for the generally pissy tone of this response, but, in the interests of overkill --

Yes, it is pretty common practice to provide a copyright notice with song lyrics, even in a news item. It's even more common to secure permission for using lyrics, for that matter, especially when quoting their complete text.

Secondly, that particular SPLASH entry wasn't news in any realistic definition of the term -- it was just a brief, "Walt Kelly said it best" preface, followed by the complete texts of the song lyrics. It was not a news item about (for example) a kill-crazy lunatic who chanted the lyrics as he decapitated department store Santas. Had you seen the item, you would have known this and probably not made your above post.

(This is the pissy part.) Third, my original question was, wouldn't such a notice have been appropriate -- i.e., wouldn't it be nice if one of the co-signers of the Creators' Bill of Rights had respected and recognized the rights of the creator whose work he was presenting in toto to a large audience, on-line and in easily copied format, without paying a fee? (The irony becomes greater when you consider how much digital ink SPLASH has given in recent months to stories about Web sites being taken down for posting copyrighted material, and related issues.)

Like I said before, I wasn't trying to cause trouble, I was honestly curious.

(The later "punishment and execution" cracks were meant lightly and were probably inappropriate; I apologize for them. Heck, everone hereabouts knows that I worship Rick like a god!)

I know it was an honest mistake, and I know that no real harm was done -- but I'm always amazed at how casual people are about things like this, and how often those casual people turn out to be folks with vested interests in the integrity of the copyright system.

Merry Christmas, everyone! Sorry to harsh your mellow!


------------------
Let's make 2001 Rick Veitch's year -- drop by the Gutters
and post some kind words about the greatest man who ever lived!

[This message has been edited by Otto Chelman (edited 12-26-2000).]

Gee, Otto,
Between here and the GUTTERS I'm beginning to feel like ol' SOUPY SAILS when he got between WHITE FANG and BLACK FOOT!

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash