Maybrick..where are we?

[DirectorDave]

Hi Caz,

“I don't 'expect' you to care about anything you don't want to, Dave. But you bothered to post about it, which is more than can be said for the majority of readers. You can share my little "unclean" bell if you like. There aren't many of us still bothering.”

First of all I thank you for the opportunity to air my views on the “Diary”……I’m fairly new to posting on the site and no doubt their will always be “newbies” wanting to express their opinion or debate the subject and they or long-time posters should have the opportunity to do that.

[caz]

Caroline Morris

There's really nothing difficult or complicated about this.

Yeah, but caz is just so much simpler and quicker to post if you don't want to waste time here.

If you take the time to reread what you posted, and what I wrote in response (and preferably follow the link I provided to information about "orphan works"), I'm sure you'll get the point.

Oh I followed the link you provided (thanks), but your original observation involved Mike Barrett supposedly conveying a copyright which nobody but you is suggesting he ever had to convey.

I don't claim to know any more than you do about the particular circumstances and legal advice Robert was given concerning the diary, but I wonder if one possibility is that it was not legally regarded as a work that would enjoy copyright 'protection' - at least not until it left Mike's hands and was published for the first time.

Do you know for a fact that this work was automatically protected by copyright before 1993? Maybe it's a black-and-white question with a black-and-white answer, and you know that the answer is always 'yes', regardless of what form a work may take. But I'm asking because I genuinely don't know and thought there might be the odd grey area to stimulate the grey matter of the odd intellectual property lawyer.

A simple 'yes' will be very quick for you to type and not too difficult or complicated for me to grasp and we can both move on.

First of all I thank you for the opportunity to air my views on the “Diary”……I’m fairly new to posting on the site and no doubt their will always be “newbies” wanting to express their opinion or debate the subject and they or long-time posters should have the opportunity to do that.

Hi Dave,

You're very welcome but your thanks are due to the owner of the site, not me. We are blessed with an equal opportunity to post, but it's not compulsory.

It was you who said you didn't care an iota about the subject (which is totally fine) and then proceeded to post about it anyway (which is also totally fine). Contradiction rules on diary threads!

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Caroline Morris

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get drawn into diversionary arguments about questions that are completely irrelevant.

The fact is that if the authorship of the diary is unknown, then there is no way that Robert Smith can own the copyright. It's as simple as that.

The question of who he considers conveyed the copyright to him is a separate one, because - as I have just said - if the authorship is unknown no one could have conveyed the copyright to him. I think it's perfectly clear from what Robert Smith has posted here in the past that he considered Barrett had held the copyright previously. But that's something I really am not going to waste time arguing about.

[caz]

The fact is that if the authorship of the diary is unknown, then there is no way that Robert Smith can own the copyright. It's as simple as that.

I think that was Chris giving us a lesson on how to say 'yes' in over 100 words.

I can't see how the simple 'yes' I actually asked for would have got you 'drawn' into any diversionary arguments, Chris. It's hardly my fault if you are completely incapable of saying 'yes' to the question I asked and moving on.

But if my question was completely irrelevant, it was based on the link you provided that described "orphan works" as works protected by copyright. If you know for a fact that the unpublished diary did enjoy copyright protection when it was in Mike's hands, why not just say so?

I don't think it's remotely clear that Robert ever considered Mike Barrett a potential copyright holder. The man is not quite the idiot you make him out to be (Robert I mean - I often think you see Mike as the Brain of Britain). It would be akin to Mike flogging some dusty old handwritten hymn sheets and the buyer assuming he composed them himself and was therefore the copyright holder. Whatever Robert currently thinks about the diary's origins he has never wavered from his firmly stated belief that ink met paper a very long time ago.

If you want to advise people that Robert can't legally own the copyright if it wasn't conveyed to him by the author - whoever that may have been - it's up to you. I'm not likely to be the one testing such advice.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

If you want to advise people that Robert can't legally own the copyright if it wasn't conveyed to him by the author - whoever that may have been - it's up to you.

Yes, obviously, Robert Smith can't own the copyright unless it was conveyed to him by the previous owner of the copyright (unless he wrote the diary himself, of course!). That is elementary.

As for whether Robert Smith considered that Mike Barrett owned the copyright, he wrote on these boards in 2005:
"Shirley and her publishers were granted the rights, first by Mike Barrett, then by me, to publish the diary as an integral part of her book and all editions of it, for the full term of copyright. I have no legal grounds whatsoever to rescind any part of the author agreement between Shirley, Mike and Blake Publishing."

Obviously Mike Barrett could grant Shirley Harrison the rights to publish the diary only if he owned the copyright in the diary. That's what copyright means. Smith even specifies "for the full term of copyright", just in case anyone is in any doubt. And he even goes to the trouble of saying he has "no legal grounds whatsoever" to rescind the agreement between Barrett, Harrison and Harrison's publishers.

[caz]

Yes, obviously, Robert Smith can't own the copyright unless it was conveyed to him by the previous owner of the copyright (unless he wrote the diary himself, of course!). That is elementary.

You seem to be getting in a muddle, Chris, in your attempts to be flippant. Or are you being flippant in an attempt to muddy the waters and escape from a lost cause of your own making?

Whether Robert wrote the diary, or Jack the Ripper himself, Mike would not have been conveying any rights as the author of an unpublished work to anyone. When Smith Gryphon Ltd first published it in 1993, Mike was only claiming to have taken ownership of the physical scrapbook from Tony Devereux - that really should go without saying - and you still haven't answered the question of whether the work itself was even copyright protected while in his hands and unpublished.

The fact remains that Robert does own the copyright, whether you understand it or not, and it would be barking mad to interpret his words as a flat admission that Mike was the author and had conveyed it to him.

I suspect that Mike merely agreed that Shirley and Smith Gryphon would publish the contents of his funny little scrapbook, and that he wouldn't take it elsewhere or seek to publish it himself. Copyright in the work itself would then have been established on publication, with Robert simply carrying on the legal agreement with Shirley, that allows her to publish the diary as stated for the full term of that copyright. You seem to be confusing his legal grounds for establishing and owning the copyright in the first place with his legal grounds for going back on this agreement - two entirely different things.

In short, he had the legal grounds to establish and own the copyright (which Mike never did) but he would have 'no legal grounds whatsoever' to reverse his agreement with Shirley.

Sometimes things are a little more complex than one first imagines, or there'd be fewer lawyers and they wouldn't be able to charge so much for their advice.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Caroline Morris

I can only repeat what I've already said:

(1) The only way Robert Smith could own the copyright in the diary would be if the previous copyright holder had conveyed it to him. (Unless, of course -as I said - Smith had written the diary himself.) That is elementary.

(2) Of course what Robert Smith said does imply that he believed Barrett owned the copyright, because that is the only circumstance in which Barrett could grant anyone the rights to publish the diary. As I said, that is what copyright means.

In your last post you appear to be suggesting that Robert Smith's ownership of copyright would have been somehow "established" when Shirley Harrison published the text of the diary. That is sheer nonsense. No such mechanism exists, as you must know if you have read the information I directed you to.

I think before you post any more on this subject you'd do well to consider whether anyone involved - Robert Smith included - would thank you for posting such ill-informed nonsense. I really don't know what you imagine you are achieving by doing so.

[caz]

Therefore, I have legal copyright to parts of the diary.

Of course you have, Stevie Baby.

Along with proof of when the diary was written and proof that you wrote something that appears in it before that date.

And a good explanation for not going straight to the police when you first read the diary and found that someone had stolen your words to forge it.

It's just that seeing is believing and you still haven't shown us a sausage.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Of course what Robert Smith said does imply that he believed Barrett owned the copyright, because that is the only circumstance in which Barrett could grant anyone the rights to publish the diary. As I said, that is what copyright means.

Hi Chris,

Robert knows that Mike never owned the copyright. You can infer whatever you like, but it won't change that.

No such mechanism exists...

That's the only ill-informed nonsense Robert is likely to find if he ever decides to return to the boards. I can't imagine he'd thank you for implying that he either believed Mike had authored the diary when he published it or has been claiming a copyright to which he is not legally entitled ever since. Seeing as it's you, though, he'd probably laugh at your attempts to grasp the legalities involved.

Once again, how have you established that the diary was copyright protected, as "orphan works" are defined in the first line of the information you directed me to, when in Mike's hands prior to 1993?

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Once again, how have you established that the diary was copyright protected, as "orphan works" are defined in the first line of the information you directed me to, when in Mike's hands prior to 1993?

Just think about it.

If the copyright had expired by 1993, then it stands to reason that Robert Smith couldn't hold the copyright now!

[DirectorDave]

"It was you who said you didn't care an iota about the subject (which is totally fine) and then proceeded to post about it anyway (which is also totally fine)."

No I didn't I stated my opinion (Giving me my Jollies), then stated I did not care one iota about it......quite different!

And I think you are getting etiquette mixed up with rules……and I have never been a fan of etiquette.

[caz]

"It was you who said you didn't care an iota about the subject (which is totally fine) and then proceeded to post about it anyway (which is also totally fine)."

No I didn't I stated my opinion (Giving me my Jollies), then stated I did not care one iota about it......quite different!

And I think you are getting etiquette mixed up with rules……and I have never been a fan of etiquette.

????

You admit that you stated you did not care one iota about it and here you are still posting to this thread. And it's still totally fine.

I rest my case.

I have no idea what the etiquette v rules comment means in the context of anything I've posted. Is it important I should know?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz
Once again, how have you established that the diary was copyright protected, as "orphan works" are defined in the first line of the information you directed me to, when in Mike's hands prior to 1993?


Just think about it.

If the copyright had expired by 1993, then it stands to reason that Robert Smith couldn't hold the copyright now!

How many ways are you going to find to avoid answering my simple question, Chris?

You posted a link to information about "orphan works", which by the definition provided (in the very first line) are copyright protected.

Are you now acknowledging that this information is completely irrelevant to the diary, if no copyright holder existed in 1992?

You just think about it.

In 1992 we have an unpublished Victorian scrapbook and the only date inside is 1889. In order for the work to be copyright protected in 1992, its author must either have still been alive and kicking, or the copyright must have been bequeathed or conveyed by the previous holder to a specific individual who was alive and kicking.

Short of anyone proving that they held the copyright prior to 1993 (and I know for a fact that Robert would be delighted if anyone were to come forward with such proof), there was no copyright protection to 'convey' and no copyright holder to do the conveying.

In short, for Mike to have conveyed it to Robert in 1993, he'd have had to prove he was the current holder, which I don't think even you would consider a credible option. So let's drop that one and see what we are left with.

If you also wish to drop your "orphan works" diversion (and that may be wise), and claim instead that nobody who publishes a previously unpublished and unprotected work can, under any circumstances, obtain copyright protection for it, I'd appreciate a link to a reputable source for such a claim.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steve Powell]

Twit tripe.

Caroline scribbled:

Of course you have, Stevie Baby.

Along with proof of when the diary was written and proof that you wrote something that appears in it before that date.

And a good explanation for not going straight to the police when you first read the diary and found that someone had stolen your words to forge it.

It's just that seeing is believing and you still haven't shown us a sausage.

Love,

Caz
X

For a start:
Don't call me 'Stevie baby'!
This type of speech is reserved for tarts who just like to annoy males
when they can't converse like adults.
Secondly:
I haven't shown you any proof because you would only come back
with more twit tripe.
Thirdly:
You are the last person that I would show my sausage to.
Go and feed the cat and stop writing 'love' at the end of your posts,
as you know nothing of love.
You just supply a constant self-opinionating
stream of negative responses to anyone that posts here.
What a twitess.

[caz]

Morning Stevie Baby,

Touched a nerve there, methinks.

So the only reason you can't publish your proof is that little cazzikins might get to see it?

Who knew I had that much power?

Love,

Caz
X