> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:07 +0100 > From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: EOS Re: manual .pdf files > > Your argument would be valid if Canon paid more to the actual author > of the manual for each additional manual sold, even more if that was > the sole means of payment for said author....OR if selling manuals > was the core business of Canon. > However, it will be a cold day in hell before they enter such an open- > end agreement with one of their employees.
What Canon pays authors is irrelevant, as it is up to market forces. If the author creates the work under contract or agreed employment "at will", the work belongs to Canon. That's the law. Fair compensation or not, my argument is not an opinion. I am stating fact of law. Photographers who complain about their works being copied yet think it acceptable to copy manuals are hypocrites. Should a freelance technical writer be able to illustrate his works with somebody else's photos at no charge and without permission? > Decent companies put their manuals online to begin with, and not mess > around with copyright in the context of 'work of > art/craftmanship/labor'. I agree that it is good to make the manuals available online at no charge. But even official online manuals are copyrighted works, prohibiting people from copying and selling "free" works for a fee. ---- > Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:18:25 -0000 > From: "Konstantinos Bibis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: EOS Re: manual .pdf files > > Do you really consider a manual explaining how to turn a camera on and > off as 'intelectual property' ? What I consider as IP is irrelevant; only the law matters Anybody can write their own manuals (e.g. Magic Lantern guides) to sell. What they cannot legally do without permission is copy the expression of somebody else's work (e.g. pages, images, or text) verbatim, except in "fair use" applications such as reviews, critiques, etc. Patents protect ideas such as inventions of machines, chemicals, algorithms, processes, etc. Copyrights protect EXPRESSIONS of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Anybody can legally write a manual explaining how to turn on a Canon camera, etc. They can't copy material from somebody else's manual. > Manuals are of use either to Canon customers or to wanna be > customers - so it's part of the Customer Support or promotion. > If they > had them free on the web people wouldnt be able to sell them (coz > nobody would buy something they can get for free) so no harm done to > anyone. ... in your opinion. Canon may or may not see it that way. It's for Canon to decide. > If you're based in the United States you're probably influenced by the > 'lawsuit culture' :) Not quite; it's a matter of property rights (which are not unique to the US). If I want others to respect my property rights, I have to respect others' property rights. It is a reciprocal arrangement that enables commerce to be transacted. Without it, theft would not be illegal, and governments could confiscate everything. The world economy would be a joke. Remember Communism? Communal property enabled the Soviet Union to *flourish* (note my sarcasm). How about you make your entire portfolio of photographs available for free, unlimited reproduction and use on a web site? :) The subjective utility of a creative work has no bearing on copyright. Service manual, song, film, book, thesis, photo, oil painting, etc. are equally protected under copyright law. Copy at your own risk (ask the RIAA how its members feel about MP3s). I doubt our good friend Henry Posner would want people Xerox-ing the B&H catalog and sticking their own store's ordering info in it. :) ---- > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:22:14 +0900 > From: Jim Davis Nature Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: EOS Re: manual .pdf files > > I bought a brand new manual for an older EOS camera here in Japan for > about 6 bucks. Surely, that's about enough to cover cost of making and > maybe a bit of shelf space, plus admin costs, etc. The point is, > they're not making money on them, it's simply a service. I would agree that it is merely a goodwill service, but that's NOT the point. The point is, creator of work (person or non-person entity such as corporation) gets to decide usage or sell the copyright and can't be forced to make that work, no matter how mundane, available for free (unless/until copyright expires). Anybody feeling altruistic? Write your own manual without copying Canon's material, and post it for free. :) * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
