OT: Dave Oneal's Anaheim Vacation Land review

[daliseurat]

I know, this has nothing to do with Disney music. But since folks here talked about this book before, I figured having read it, I should give you my review.

To cut to the chase: I enjoyed this book. Anaheim Vacation Land is a unique niche book. It is about the crazy hotels and attractions that popped up all around Disneyland in the sixties and seventies. It is mainly filled with scans of olds postcards, brochures and ads from these place. Some original photographs as well as archival images are also included. It's all tied together by Dave's text. The book will interest people who enjoy the kitchy architecture of the 60's and 70's as well as those of us who need to read everything the even remotely relates to Disneyland. I found it a hoot reading about some of the old attractions in Anaheim as well as seeing pictures of Disneyland from the grounds of some of the hotels.

Yes, the book is overpriced for a softcover at 54.99. Yes, the text needs to be proofread better. But, this is true of many of these niche books that have been self-published over the years. They can't really afford to price the book very low because they won't sell enough copies to cover the costs of production. If the price scares you off, but you'd like to read it, he does offer an instant download of the book for 14.99. And the profits from the book are being donated to the Anaheim Motel Families. And the book actually give email and phone numbers for those who wish to help further.

The bottom line is that I enjoyed it.

 

[cschurr]

I haven't had a chance to get/read the book yet, but I LOVE LOVE LOVE the illustrations. ;D I'm a big fan of the retro type style. (and the style most of the motels are done in)

Yea, that is all I had to say. ;D

C

 

[X-S Tech]

Bill, keep in mind he has to cover the cost of using the copyrighted images from the various postcards he's used in the book too.

 

[Magic Music]

keep in mind he has to cover the cost of using the copyrighted images from the various postcards he's used in the book

So he respects copyrighted photographs but not copyrighted music? :

 

[X-S Tech]

I think we should start an internet trend of using a designated special color when something is meant in jest. Perhaps light green for sarcasm, hot pink for hyperbole, and cerulean for satire.

 

[almandot]

that sounds like a great idea

 

[daliseurat]

Even though the copyright comment was a joke (and a funny one) I believe the use of the photographs and postcards falls under the "fair use" section of copyright. "The Nickle Tour" used hundreds of Disney postcards and I find it difficult to believe they had to pay for each one either. The cost would be huge. From what I know, "fair use" allows people to use copyrighted work for historical purposes as long as the person using the work doesn't try to claim it as their own. And Dave did put in a good bit of copyright info in the book. Anyone else know anything about this kind of thing? I'd love a legal explanation that makes sense.

 

[jerm]

keep in mind he has to cover the cost of using the copyrighted images from the various postcards he's used in the book

So he respects copyrighted photographs but not copyrighted music? :

You mean you were joking???? If you go back and look at some of his early videos, he has no respect for anything that is copyrighted...music, pics, videos! But since he is "working" for Disney he needs to start playing by the rules a little bit more I guess.

 

[Magic Music]

You mean you were joking????

Who? Me? Or X-S Tech? I was not joking.

I think we should start an internet trend of using a designated special color to indicate who we are replying to. Or, I suppose, we could just use the 'Quote' feature more intelligently.

 

[Magic Music]

I believe the use of the photographs and postcards falls under the "fair use" section of copyright.

Very unlikely.

U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else?s Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?

My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?

Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.

In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a ?copy? of a photograph ? the tangible embodiment of the ?work? ? is distinct from the ?work? itself ? the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the ?work? is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer?s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a ?fair use? under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of ?fair use.? Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered ?fair,? such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between ?fair use? and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of ?fair use? would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered ?fair? nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

[daliseurat]

Yeah, thats the stuff I read. Pretty complex stuff. It definitely gives me pause. I still don't really understand it. So many people have done self-published books using pics they don't own. I wonder how many actually got permission from various copyright holders and how many didn't. There really must be a simple explanation out there.

 

[daliseurat]

Okay. I checked with someone I know who does a lot of self-publishing. According to him, if you are utilizing many sources for a book that is either instructional or historical in nature it constitutes fair use. However, if the books content is over 10% of a specific copyright holder you MAY need their permission because they could claim that you are using a significant portion of their material to sell your book. Also, you must make certain to state in the publication to credit the copyright holders and not claim any ownership. So I would assume that if this is correct, Dave's book is okay as it contains many, many sources.. And the NICKLE TOUR probably did have to get permission from Disney as it contained only Disney sources.

If anyone besides me is interested...

 

[Magic Music]

instructional or historical in nature ... constitutes fair use.

For non-profit educational purposes, yes, for a commercial venture, no.

if the books [sic] content is over 10% of a specific copyright holder you MAY need their permission because they could claim that you are using a significant portion of their material to sell your book. Also, you must make certain to state in the publication to credit the copyright holders and not claim any ownership.

I doubt that this is correct.

There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

Let's say that I decide to create a coffee table book that is filled with nothing but exquisite full-page and double-page photographs taken around the Walt Disney World Resort and that each photograph is accompanied by 2-3 sentences of descriptive text written by me. Let's further say that there are 200 photographs in all and that each one has been taken by a different well-known photographer -- Clyde Butcher, Andre Gunther, Annie Leibovitz, Art Wolfe, etc. I managed to find these photographs in other books or on various websites and I decided that someone really needed to combine them all into one beautiful bound collection.

The book is published and offered for sale at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, Walden Books, etc., for $80.

Clearly my book is a for-profit commercial venture, and very clearly people are buying it to obtain copies of the beautiful photographs contained therein.

Do you honestly believe that Clyde Butcher and Annie Leibovitz don't have any rights as far as my coffee table book is concerned because their individual photographs don't represent over 10% of my book's content? I don't need their permission, it's "fair use," and, hey, I mentioned their names in the index, so it's "okay?"

I will believe that I won't be hearing from their attorneys on the day pigs fly...

 

[X-S Tech]

To clarify my post, yes, I was being sarcastic. I am well aware that Dave ONeal is no respecter of copyrights, and I was playing the trusting simpleton when I stated that most of the cost of his book must go towards paying the owners of the copyrighted images.

 

[diegorivera2]

Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

Circular 92
Chapter 2
Copyright Ownership and Transfer

* 201. Ownership of copyright
* 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
* 203. Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author
* 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
* 205. Recordation of transfers and other documents

? 201. Ownership of copyright1

(a) Initial Ownership. ? Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

(b) Works Made for Hire. ? In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

© Contributions to Collective Works. ? Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.


What's the color for sarcasm? I forgot.

 

[daliseurat]

instructional or historical in nature ... constitutes fair use.

For non-profit educational purposes, yes, for a commercial venture, no.

if the books [sic] content is over 10% of a specific copyright holder you MAY need their permission because they could claim that you are using a significant portion of their material to sell your book. Also, you must make certain to state in the publication to credit the copyright holders and not claim any ownership.

I doubt that this is correct.

There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

Let's say that I decide to create a coffee table book that is filled with nothing but exquisite full-page and double-page photographs taken around the Walt Disney World Resort and that each photograph is accompanied by 2-3 sentences of descriptive text written by me. Let's further say that there are 200 photographs in all and that each one has been taken by a different well-known photographer -- Clyde Butcher, Andre Gunther, Annie Leibovitz, Art Wolfe, etc. I managed to find these photographs in other books or on various websites and I decided that someone really needed to combine them all into one beautiful bound collection.

The book is published and offered for sale at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, Walden Books, etc., for $80.

Clearly my book is a for-profit commercial venture, and very clearly people are buying it to obtain copies of the beautiful photographs contained therein.

Do you honestly believe that Clyde Butcher and Annie Leibovitz don't have any rights as far as my coffee table book is concerned because their individual photographs don't represent over 10% of my book's content? I don't need their permission, it's "fair use," and, hey, I mentioned their names in the index, so it's "okay?"

I will believe that I won't be hearing from their attorneys on the day pigs fly...

I'm just repeating what I was told by a professional who self-publishes. According to him, the 10% guideline applies in the cases where "fair use' applies. So if your publication's use of copyrighted images DOES fall into the "fair use" category, and you use over 10% of a particular copyright holders work, they might have the right to suggest that your have abused the "fair use" rule and are using their work to sell your publication which violates "fair use".

In your example, as the book is not instructional or historical "fair use" would not apply. So I am sure you are most correct that the attorneys would most certainly come calling.

My source does make instructional material, as well as historical, but it's for profit. So I'm not certain that "fair use" only applies to non-profit ventures.

As far as Dave's book goes, it's historical, it definitely uses multiple sources as well as his own personal photography and is a non-profit publication. So, that particular book is probably safe. But, as I'm not a copyright lawyer, I could just be full of beans.

Now, about that coffee table book you came up with. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

And there's definitely some wrong with me, I am finding all this riveting. And I actually mean it.

 

[Tim Hollis]

I have not seen the book you are all discussing, but since most of my non-MOUSE TRACKS books deal with tourism history, I can offer at least one bit of advice concerning the use of vintage postcards and brochures and such. One thing that is not covered in the Copyright Office's material posted here is how an item ends up in the public domain. The law is that if something was printed/published prior to 1978 and did not include an official copyright notice, that item was in the public domain from that moment on and could never be reclaimed by copyright. For items published after 1978, they are assumed to be copyrighted whether or not they bear a notice.

Postcards, brochures and other such tourism memorabilia rarely, if ever, bear copyright notices, especially items from the 1940s-1970s. How many mom-and-pop motel owners would have gone to the trouble of registering a photo of their aqua and pink beach motel with the Copyright Office, anyway? So, as long as someone is dealing with pre-1978 material, the rules are quite clear. As someone else pointed out, the whole "fair use" business when dealing with genuinely copyrighted material is another matter entirely, and each individual publisher has to decide how far an author can go.

 

[Magic Music]

I'm just repeating what I was told by a professional who self-publishes. According to him, the 10% guideline applies in the cases where "fair use' applies.

Let me repeat:

There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

In your example, as the book is not instructional or historical "fair use" would not apply.

Oh, but the book is "historical." Many of the photographs are of attractions that no longer exist or that contain landmark elements that have changed over the years.

Where, though, do you see in Title 17, Circular 92, Chapter 1, Section 107 - Fair Use that copyrighted items appearing inside of a book of "historical" nature would be considered as "fair use" and not infringement (assuming permission has not been obtained)?

As far as "instructional" goes, "fair use" applies to items appearing inside of teaching materials that have been produced for use in educational institutions, not publications that may be considered educational.

A pre-teen may be able to obtain some form of sexual education from reading a steamy romance novel, but that does not mean that the novel was prepared for use in elementary school classrooms as teaching material, or that any copyrighted passages borrowed (without permission) from other romance novels that it contains can be considered "fair use."

I'm not certain that "fair use" only applies to non-profit ventures.

Whether the item is non-profit or commercial is but one of the factors that is considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

Section 107 specifically mentions "non-profit educational" use, not just "non-profit." I sincerely doubt that a calendar published and sold by a non-profit charitable organization, for example, would be exempt from copyright infringement claims.

Dave's book ... is a non-profit publication.

That may well be. But I don't see this mentioned on the Anaheim Vacationland website on the "Home," "Book," "Author," and "Purchase" pages.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, I could just be full of beans.

I'm not a copyright attorney either. I do, however, play a doctor on TV.

 

[daliseurat]

I have not seen the book you are all discussing, but since most of my non-MOUSE TRACKS books deal with tourism history, I can offer at least one bit of advice concerning the use of vintage postcards and brochures and such. One thing that is not covered in the Copyright Office's material posted here is how an item ends up in the public domain. The law is that if something was printed/published prior to 1978 and did not include an official copyright notice, that item was in the public domain from that moment on and could never be reclaimed by copyright. For items published after 1978, they are assumed to be copyrighted whether or not they bear a notice.

Postcards, brochures and other such tourism memorabilia rarely, if ever, bear copyright notices, especially items from the 1940s-1970s. How many mom-and-pop motel owners would have gone to the trouble of registering a photo of their aqua and pink beach motel with the Copyright Office, anyway? So, as long as someone is dealing with pre-1978 material, the rules are quite clear. As someone else pointed out, the whole "fair use" business when dealing with genuinely copyrighted material is another matter entirely, and each individual publisher has to decide how far an author can go.

That's interesting. Very interesting.

 

[daliseurat]

Okay Pigs. I'm done. Your Kung Fu is too strong.

I'm only reporting what a publishing professional told me. He was the one who told me about the whole "historical and instructional" angle. I know he did utilize an attorney, so there must be some credibility to it. I don't see any of the stuff he said in any of the stuff you posted. But, copyright law is clearly very complicated and all this shows me that I never want to publish anything that I don't own 100%.

Dave does a terrible job of documenting his charitable efforts. I think one reason he gets criticized so much is that he'll say it's for charity and then not put it in print. This book does have a line saying that the proceeds go to charity on his website.

http://www.abovethefirehouse.com/eac/viewtopic.php?t=349

But it does seem strange that he would leave that out of the actual publication. And that is probably why a lot of folks are wary of his stuff. Well, that and the fact that he sells a whole lot of stuff that he definitely does not own.

You wouldn't be a certain Brady, now would you...he did play a doctor on TV :