I'd like to point out an interesting thing.

I did a bit of digging on the author.  Turns out that his first book in the
series got this as a review by Booknews Inc (April 1, 1990):

"A text for introductory computing courses, updated and expanded in the
areas of applications and the end-user, communications, and software and
hardware. Includes loads of color pictures and a buyer's guide to personal
computers. No bibliography."

The specifically state No bibliography which kind of leads me to beleive
that perhaps this author isn't totally careful about his sources and
copyrights.

Also, this series of books are quite pricey, ~$60 US - hardly non-profit!

So, I'd say contact all other artists if possible, get their opinions and
that of the ppl at IRTC, then decide what to do from there.  Ken had some
nice links on Copyright Law so check them out too.  In my opinion, they've
breeched your copyright and they are not using the book "non-profit".  Of
course I'm not a legal person clothed in black :)

Post a reply to this message

Fabien <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote in message
news:37F### [at] skynetbe...
> Ken wrote:
> > Raises an interesting question. If someone uses "your" source code to
> > render an image on "their" computer is the image that is produced now
> > the property of the computer owner who produces the image ?
>
>  That's a very special case, and I can't think of any comparison in the
> art field.  At worse, you could always consider Pov code as
> automatically
> copyrighted, just like any programming code.
[snip]

That's not really the case (in the US):
Source needs a specific copyright statement (with year) to make it
copyrighted. If you publish your source without such a statement, it will
fall into the public domain.
But if you publish it with a statement, for example something like "If you
use the source or parts of it to render an image, you may not publish the
resulting image in any commercial way.. bla, bla..." then nobody can legally
use the image created by the source in any such way as you exclude it in the
copyright note.

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Fabien wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote:
> > Raises an interesting question. If someone uses "your" source code to
> > render an image on "their" computer is the image that is produced now
> > the property of the computer owner who produces the image ?
> 
>  That's a very special case, and I can't think of any comparison in the
> art field. 

Sure. Look at conceptual art. The walldrawings of Sol Lewitt for instance.
They're basically just a script, a 'scene-file' describing exactly how the final
drawing should look, what materials should be used etc. Which doesn't mean
you're free to copy it everywhere. I believe you have to buy a license and then
maybe even the master will supervise the drawing (if he's still alive).

I'm not very good at copyrights and such but I believe you're talking about
intellectual ownership here (or whatever you would call it).

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Marco Bonetti wrote:
> 
> Hmm, would make a good /. article!
> Anybody?

The combination of copyright on postings and the private news server
makes that difficult unless Gautam copies his original posting to a web
page /. can link to.  In the meantime it's probably best for the
aggrieved to contact the publisher before contacting the media.  I don't
suppose anyone has heard anything from the publisher in the last few
days?

-Mark Gordon

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:44:38 +0200, Johannes Hubert wrote:
>That's not really the case (in the US):
>Source needs a specific copyright statement (with year) to make it
>copyrighted. If you publish your source without such a statement, it will
>fall into the public domain.

That's not true.  Hasn't been true for years.  See
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Post a reply to this message

> drawing should look, what materials should be used etc. Which doesn't mean
> you're free to copy it everywhere. I believe you have to buy a license and
then
> maybe even the master will supervise the drawing (if he's still alive).
>
> I'm not very good at copyrights and such but I believe you're talking
about
> intellectual ownership here (or whatever you would call it).
>
> Remco

Yes, that's correct, the source is still copyright and you are entitled to
all ownership because you created it.

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker <par### [at] fwicom> wrote in message
news:37f0c03b@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:44:38 +0200, Johannes Hubert wrote:
> >That's not really the case (in the US):
> >Source needs a specific copyright statement (with year) to make it
> >copyrighted. If you publish your source without such a statement, it will
> >fall into the public domain.
>
> That's not true.  Hasn't been true for years.  See
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Looks like my knowledge has been outdated for about 10 years :-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Better yet, if you don't sue them and at least get some sort of credit,
people will think he's the actual artist and unless they found the image on
IRTC before the book was published, they'll think you copied off of him.

Stupid, stupid world!

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)

Johannes Hubert <jhu### [at] algonetse> wrote in message
news:37ef3a01@news.povray.org...
> Since the US is usually regarded as litigation heaven, I would say: Sue
> them! You can finally make some money with your hobby!
>
> Now, jokes aside, I actually mean that quite seriously, because of the
> following reason:
>
> They should not get away with it. If you don't sue them, they'll do it
> again. If it is a large publisher, you'll probably get some nice punitive
> damages too.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Johannes (who isn't an attourney)
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
news:37f05073@news.povray.org...
> After reading this thread, I checked my Computer Science textbook, and it
> appears that POV-Ray is a very popular program for generating artwork for
> these books.  However, the cover artwork in question in this case was
> created by the author of the book, and no copyright violations are
involved.

Hey, interesting!  My last year's math book has a cover image made in POV
(it credited POV-Ray and Moray in the credit page on the front!  No joke!)

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)

Post a reply to this message

Hmm, could there be a market for POV-Ray collectibles?  I like to collect
things and books are one of the things.  I had thought about ordering that
Prentice Hall textbook because it might become a conversation piece in the
future at the very least.
  Also wanted to find a couple other early things like the Walnut Creek CD
and whatever books relating to POV.

Bob

Ian Burgmyer <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:37f3005d@news.povray.org...
> Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
> news:37f05073@news.povray.org...
> > After reading this thread, I checked my Computer Science textbook, and
it
> > appears that POV-Ray is a very popular program for generating artwork
for
> > these books.  However, the cover artwork in question in this case was
> > created by the author of the book, and no copyright violations are
> involved.
>
> Hey, interesting!  My last year's math book has a cover image made in POV
> (it credited POV-Ray and Moray in the credit page on the front!  No joke!)
>
> --
> This message brought to you by:
> -=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
>
> Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message