Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Oct -> Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 23:13:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 02:14:40 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:52:27 -0500
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

--- I dun snipped so much here my new fangled scissors broke.---

>****BB  Your physical analysis can be wrong. Law, at least this
>copyright law, is very specific.  And it VERY specifically says
>that if Ed Walters owns the copyright to the B&J photos, AND he
>does not have a transfer agreement, which he doesnt, the he MUST
>BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

I truly wished that BB had more to pin her argument on than this
copyright straw dog...  Even a brief reference to the two
investigators championed by Kevin Randle for dismissing GB in his
latest book would be some distraction from this harping on the
copyright code.

Some comfort was found when BB broke briefly from this topic and
gave requested info on an unrelated subject to another hard
working subscriber.  This freed me from dismissing her as some
vocal delusional paranoid.

Without doubt, BB has properly related the letter of the
copyright law as explained by her attorney.  This attorney should
be fired for not explaining to BB that any law is reflected in
both its language and its common practice and that the widespread
practice of any law takes precedence over its exact wording.

There ain't no copyright police, no copyright mounties, no
copyright cavalry sweeping down from the ridges to right the
falsities of the errant filer.  The justice department needs to
be strongly induced before it will even cast an eye towards the
copyright office.  Copyrights as with patents, are enforced in
the civil courts.  In practice, anyone can make any claims on any
copyright application and as long as this is not challenge in
court by some other aggrieved private party, it will stand as
legally binding.

As long as the "real" photographers never challenge him in court,
EW can declare himself the photographer even if he had never seen
the camera, the negative nor a print of the image.  Sure,
technically this may be illegal, but the copyright office doesn't
give a damn...

Bye...  Ted..