The list of subscribers to the Fractal-Art mailing list and the 
Fractint mailing list is in a constant state of change.  People 
come . . . people go . . .

Discussions regarding the dreaded "C" word (copyright) come up 
often.  And new copyright discussions are almost always a re-
hashing of the same old discussions, with a few new subscribers 
tossing in the same old issues. These discussions are (1) whether 
the author of an image, frm file, par file, etc., may have legal 
rights and what those rights are, and (2) whether the user of 
a freeware fractal generating program should ethically exercise 
those rights.  

This  posting of a collection of past copyright-issue postings 
to those 2 mailing lists is made with dual intent: (1) to provide 
answers or direction for new List members, and (2) to discourage 
any further debate on this issue.  If anyone has a question on 
copyright of a specific fractal, please contact the author of 
the fractal, and not the list, for information.

PLEASE  NOTE:  None of us are lawyers, and we are not providing 
legal advice.  These discussions are merely discussions between 
peers with mutual interests.   They are posted here in the hopes 
that the mailing lists will not be bogged down with future debates 
that are merely redundant.

PLEASE  DON'T  write to the list or to any specific list subscriber 
for more specific clarification on any of these general issues, 
or to debate them further.  I (Linda), for one, will cheerfully 
chuck any such correspondence instead of answering it!  :)))
  
As is always the case, there are differing opinons.  I don't claim 
to have included every message to both groups that includes the 
word "copyright," but the information here should be adequate to 
satisfy anyone's casual interest . . .   So, here goes!


****************************

Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 11:23:34 -0500 (EST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: I need some feedback

In a message dated 97-03-09 06:22:24 EST, Douglas wrote:

<<(Irrelevant info snipped)
There are only a few fractals on the page, and many are derived from
 somebody else's work (although they are credited as such).  >>

Douglas, what does "derived from" mean? Fractint artists use each others
fractal forumulas all the time, The art comes from the colors, the
parameters, the zooms, etc. There was a group of Fractint artists which were
involved in legal action on ownership some time ago (I was one of the
artists). I believe that one the outcomes of that action, which was favorable
to the group, was a clearer definition of what is unique to an artist. On of
the conclusions was that the parameter file and its associated color map was
what generated the fractal graphic deserving a copyright. The formulas
themselves are simply tools (I have  originated some of the formulas now in
the Fractint.frm file, but I don't feel I "own" them). The PAR files are a
different matter. If you are referring to the formulas themselves, then all
users of Fractint are creating graphics "derived from" someone else. Tim
Wegner, if you see this message, would you comment, too?

Ron 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:39:28 -0700 (MST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

Ron wrote to fractal-art:

>...There was a group of Fractint artists which were
>involved in legal action on ownership some time ago (I was one of the
>artists). I believe that one the outcomes of that action, which was favorable
>to the group, was a clearer definition of what is unique to an artist. One of
>the conclusions was that the parameter file and its associated color map was
>what generated the fractal graphic deserving a copyright. The formulas
>themselves are simply tools (I have  originated some of the formulas now in
>the Fractint.frm file, but I don't feel I "own" them). The PAR files are a
>different matter. If you are referring to the formulas themselves, then all
>users of Fractint are creating graphics "derived from" someone else.

Ron, I would certainly like it if you could post more details on this legal
action as it is of great interest to fractal artists.  Since I myself intend
to market fractal art prints and other related services, I need to know
*exactly* where the legal boundaries are, and your post above is not clear
enough.  Was there an actual ruling?  If so, can you post the actual decision
or give a reference to it so the rest of us could look it up?

I posit that we actually have two intellectual property issues here.  The
first is copyright, which Ron discusses, and the second is trade secret.  Of
course, I'm speaking from the U.S. perspective here, and these aspects can
vary somewhat from country to country, only linked by Bern with respect to
copyright law (there is no uniform world-wide trade secret law as far as I
know).

Regarding copyright, my impression is that ideas/concepts are not
copyrightable, just the fixed tangible expression of those ideas.  Thus, your
statement that the parameter file (with associated color map) is itself
copyrightable since it can be used to regenerate the final identical image
which is clearly copyrightable under pre-cyber copyright law -- makes
intuitive sense, while formulas cannot be copyrighted since they are more
"information" oriented and don't directly lead to a final fixed tangible
expression of art.  An example is that even though telephone directories are
copyrighted and the unauthorized duplication of them is forbidden by
copyright law, the courts have recently ruled that the information contained
in them is not protected, thus anybody can take a public phone directory and
transcribe the information into a database for other uses.

(Ron, what about color maps themselves?  Can a color map alone be copyright
protected?  If I extract a color map from a fractal image which is owned
by somebody else, and use it in a completely different image, possibly with
color cycling, is this a copyright or other type of infringement?)

Of course, a fractal artist can choose never to reveal the fractal parameters
to anybody except those who have signed a non-disclosure agreement, and thus
can come under legal protection via state trade secret laws (until recently,
all trade secret laws were state-based and there was no Federal trade secret
law -- this may change soon).  Anybody who has signed such an agreement and
then later reveals any aspect of the fractal art parameters could be sued for
trade secret misappropriation.  Also, reverse engineering of a fractal image
so as to duplicate it for monetary benefit *might* be illegal under some
Federal or state law, possibly different than trade secret laws (anybody
know?).

I admit what I just wrote sounds dry and even alarming.  Nobody likes to
read "lawyerese".  But fractal artists live in the real world, and IP issues,
like it or not, can be ignored only at one's peril, especially when money is
involved.

Hopefully others will join this discussion with their thoughts, as well as
facts, regarding the intellectual property aspects of fractal art.

Jon 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:48:48 -0500 (EST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

In a message dated 97-03-10 12:43:56 EST, you write:

<< Ron, I would certainly like it if you could post more details on this
legal  action as it is of great interest to fractal artists.  Since I myself intend
 to market fractal art prints and other related services, I need to know
 *exactly* where the legal boundaries are, and your post above is not clear
 enough.  Was there an actual ruling?  If so, can you post the actual
decision  or give a reference to it so the rest of us could look it up?
  >>

Jon,
Because of the nature of the settlement, I don't feel free to talk much about
it. I was not directly part of the negotiations. I suggest you post a note to
Tim Wegner. Concerning color maps, I think (my opinion) that is a grey area
where arguments can be made both ways. How do you inforce it? It you change 2
colors in a map is it different? What about 20? There are some similar issues
in the area of patents (I hold 48 US patents). I am not a lawyer and make no
pretenses of being such.

Ron 

-----------	*********------------: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:05:35 -0800
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

Hi guys,

Let's see, the .MAP gets the trade secret, the PAR file gets 
the copyright, the .FRM file would get the patient.

Jay

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:22:44 -0500
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

Excellent thread!

This is an area we have had lots of questions about and have chosen to err
on the side of caution until we get a better idea of what is proper.  I've
mentioned that I want to use natural forms that everyone can relate to, such
as a fern frond, a beautiful shape, but I heard that Barnsley was a
litigious sort, and therefore, even though we have clearly generated our own
modifications, for technical reasons as well as legal ones, we haven't dared
to use it.  Are we being too cautious?  Is there an accepted standard for
originality?  What constitutes an acceptable degree of modification?  I'm
certainly _not_ trying to see how close I can come to someone else's work
and get away with it.  That isn't artistic 'cricket' in my book.  I wonder
if there might not be a precedent in music.  History is full of examples of
composers who were inspired by other's work, did not copy it, but rather
built on and modified elements as part of a creative dialogue with each
other, exploring the limits of an idea.  Maybe that was before there were so
many lawyers.

Rick

-----------	*********------------

To: fractal-art@aros.net
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:21:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

The case we were involved with was not subtle. Nearly a hundred 
images were used exactly in a book and on a CD. The formulas, 
corners, and colors were exact copies, but the attribution was to a 
certain  "brilliant" individual (according the the CD jacket.) The 
images on the CD were even ordered so that images stolen from a 
particular artist were together on the CD (the thief sorted his booty 
by victim!). This was a truly shameless example of plagiarism.

Since all the images were publically available on Compuserve well 
before the book came out, the guilt was pretty obvious. The only way 
our artists could have been guilty would be if they all descended on 
his house at night in a helicopter and raided his computer <g!> 
His theft from them was easier. He had only to download their 
parameter files and generate the images as his own. One good thing 
about uploading parameter files is that it clearly establishes 
priority.

The unfortunate thing is that the publisher and even the book 
author were really innocent parties. They got the images in good 
faith from the culprit, who got off scot free except that his 
reputation with a number of people (including the publisher) was 
ruined. (His company was bankrupt and our lawyer said we would never 
collect from him.) Because of the settlement, I can't say who the 
publisher and author were, nor would I want to. I suppose I could 
mention who the original plagiarist is, but I won't. If he ever 
surfaces, the wronged artists (there were seven or eight of them if 
memory serves) could still take action against him. He's not safe.

This experience doesn't cast a lot of light on the tougher legal 
questions, because this was so blatant. If the plagiarist had taken a 
little effort to alter the images, it would have been less clear. He 
just grabbed images, dumped them on a CD, and sold them as his own 
work unmodified.

These kinds of legal efforts are not satisfying. The settlement 
doesn't make up for the aggravation. While I'm ambivalent about the 
legal issues, I must say that the community must have some way of 
enforcing fair play. 

Most artists I know like to share images and PAR files. They like
others to use there work as a starting point for there own. They
have little contests to see who can modify an image in the most
creative way. They are generous in crediting each other. When the
book and CD with the stolen images appeared, it had a chilling
effect on this whole spirit of cooperation. We felt we had to deal
with it. After the settlement the artists slowly began
re-establishing trust, and now things are friendly and free again.

Tim

-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:26:18 -0500 (EST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

Can anyone tell me how to go about copyrighting art work (fractals)?

Who do you apply to ?

Julian 

-----------	*********------------

To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 22:21:42 EST

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:26:18 -0500 (EST) Julian writes:
>Can anyone tell me how to go about copyrighting art work (fractals)?
>
>Who do you apply to ?

	First of all, current copyright law covers you the moment you
create a piece.  The copyright is assumed to be yours.  So it isn't
necessary for you to register your work with the Government.  However, it
is always prudent to be careful.  And it's always good to have a record
proving that a particular piece is yours.

	The information you need can be found at your local library. 
Just ask for the US Government (assuming that's where you live) Copyright
pamphlets.  There is information in there for whichever type of 
copyright you are looking for, and the 800 number for you to call.  If
you are lucky, the library will have the actual forms you need. 
Otherwise, you will need to have the government mail them to you.  I
can't recall the actual form number you need, but I'm sure I can find it
later.  In the meantime, somebody else will probably post it to you.

	I've never submitted digital work to the government for copyright
protection.  I don't know if they require the work to be printed out or
not.  That's piqued my curiosity. ;)  I think I'll look into it this
weekend.

Douglas 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 23:13:10 -0800
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

Douglas wrote:
<snip>
>         First of all, current copyright law covers you the moment you
> create a piece.  The copyright is assumed to be yours.  So it isn't
> necessary for you to register your work with the Government.  However, it
> is always prudent to be careful.  And it's always good to have a record
> proving that a particular piece is yours.<snip>

It might be worth remembering that no matter how much copyright
protection one has, it is still not worth much unless you also have
the time and financial resources to defend your claim. :(
- Jack

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 20:22:58 -0500 (EST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

	<<First of all, current copyright law covers you the moment you
create a piece.  The copyright is assumed to be yours.  So it isn't
necessary for you to register your work with the Government.  However, it
is always prudent to be careful.  And it's always good to have a record
proving that a particular piece is yours.>>

Some of the Fractint artists put a copyright notice in the PAR. With the
modified GIF produced by Fractint, the copyright is now included within the
image.

Ron

-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 01:49:29 -0500 (EST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

In a message dated 97-03-12 23:16:55 EST, you write:

>	I've never submitted digital work to the government for copyright
>protection.  I don't know if they require the work to be printed out or
>not.  That's piqued my curiosity. ;)  I think I'll look into it this
>weekend.
>
>Douglas 

Thanks for the info.  Keep us posted if you learn more.

Julian 

-----------	*********------------

To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 06:34:12 EST

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 23:13:10 -0800 Jack 
writes:
>Douglas wrote:
>It might be worth remembering that no matter how much copyright
>protection one has, it is still not worth much unless you also have
>the time and financial resources to defend your claim. :(

	Wow!  What a cynic!  I thought *I* was bad! ;)  What you say is
sad, but true.  However, it is better to be safe than sorry. (2 cliches
in a row.  That's bad even for me)  I once was involved in a startup game
company and when my partners tried to whittle down my share of the
profits, they called in a lawyer.  They tried to tell me that they were
going to change the name of the company in some goofy way of getting out
of the contract we had and still use my artwork unless I agreed to the
lower percentage.  It was pure hogwash.  Besides, I had registered my
artwork with the Government.  That sure changed the lawyer's song real
quick.  In this case, the lawyer had simply been paid to mail me the
letter and deal with me over the phone.  Once he realized that it
involved copyright law, he wasn't interested in bullying me anymore.  In
fact, he became quite respectful.  I realize that the situation could
have been awful if they had the money to pursue a copyright suit, but
because I had been careful it never came to that.

Douglas 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 06:07:32 -0800
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Legal Aspects of Fractal Art

Douglas wrote:
>Jack  writes:

>>It might be worth remembering that no matter how much copyright
>>protection one has, it is still not worth much unless you also have
>>the time and financial resources to defend your claim. :(

>Wow!  What a cynic!  I thought *I* was bad! ;)  What you say is
>sad, but true.  However, it is better to be safe than sorry. (2 cliches
>in a row.  That's bad even for me)  I once was involved in a startup game
>company and when my partners tried to whittle down my share of the
>profits, they called in a lawyer.  They tried to tell me that they were
>going to change the name of the company in some goofy way of getting out
>of the contract we had and still use my artwork unless I agreed to the
>lower percentage.  It was pure hogwash.  Besides, I had registered my
>artwork with the Government.  That sure changed the lawyer's song real
>quick.  In this case, the lawyer had simply been paid to mail me the
>letter and deal with me over the phone.  Once he realized that it
>involved copyright law, he wasn't interested in bullying me anymore.  In
>fact, he became quite respectful.  I realize that the situation could
>have been awful if they had the money to pursue a copyright suit, but
>because I had been careful it never came to that.

Although any creative work is *born* copyrighted (a fairly new concept in
U.S. copyright law, but has been around a while in European copyright law),
registering the work with the U.S. Copyright office confers upon the
registrant additional legal protection (and avenues) in court, and makes the
*cost* of infringing much more (I don't recall the details, but I think it
has to do with what the court can award in punitive damages).

I'm certain the attorney for the startup knew about the copyright issue, but
went on the assumption that it was not registered, thus it would be more
difficult for you to prove "who" owns it (there is the concept of work done
for others), and even if you did, you could not collect much in court (maybe
$500, so what competent but expensive IP attorney could you get to defend
you?).

Once he realized it was registered, that changed everything, and he knew that
you could make it miserable for them in court, and you could probably even get
a competent IP attorney to represent you for a percentage of the settlement,
which could be quite large (you could collect punitive damages).  That's why
he was *very nice* to you.  :^)

Thus, copyright registration is important to do for any creative work that
either means something to you or could generate profit.  Where there's money,
there's people who want to take it away.  Copyright registration gives you a
little more protection of your copyrightable assets.

Jon 

-----------	*********------------

SHORT HIATUS HERE.  THEN THE FIRST RE-HASH

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:17:29 -0400
To: fractal-art@aros.net, fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Gallery

Steve,

Thanks for stopping by and looking at my new gallery.

(unrelated discussion snipped)

PAR file included below.

 - I think you spoiled some of images with the titles and copyright stuff
 - right on the image. Copyright featured quite a bit at your site, has
 - someone ripped off some off your work?

Not my art, no.  I've had a few experiences over the past few years,
though, that have taught me that the world isn't full of nice, honest
people.  There are some real schmucks out there.

 - The best fractals that I have ever seen, have been created by JP
 - Louvet and Les St Clair. Both of these artist are incredibly generous
 - with their work. Les St Clair has made his par files available to all
 - who care to download them. JP Louvet has posted his images in the
 - native Fractint file format, so if you care to further explore them
 - you can just load them into Fractint.
 -
 - Les St Clair's and JP Louvet's approach seems to me to be in the
 - spirit of Fractint which is made available free to all. I'm just not
 - sure about copyright on Fractint images, it seems unnecessarily
 - commercial.

Okay, fair enough.  I don't use GIF format on my site because all of the
images were originally generated at 1024x768 or 1600x1200, and reduced down
to the 640x480 images you see.  (For HTML layout and file size reasons, not
because I consider 640x480 any "better".)  Since the reduction generates
24-bit images, pleasantly anti-aliased, it seemed a shame to reduce them
back to 8-bit color--especially since the FractInt information is lost,
anyway.  So they're saved as JPEGs, which has the other nice benefit of
compressing better than GIF anyway.  Yes, I know it isn't lossless, but at
this point the images in the gallery aren't intended as "archival" quality
anyway.  If you want high-quality, you need only ask, and I can provide the
original PAR files or full-size images.

My older fractal gallery (http://www.emi.net/~dmj/fractals/) does have a
complete PAR file available for download.  When I started the GeoCities
gallery, though, many of the images were post-processed or composited.
What, then, is the point of including PAR files?  The images can't be
reproduced from the PAR alone.  Do I then describe in detail, incuding all
the settings, exactly how the image is constructed?  Many people do not
have software that can do the same post-processing I did.  So I stopped
providing PAR files for general download on this site.

With regards to placing the copyright right on the images, I have
downloaded thousands of pictures off the net--some fractal, some rendered,
some just created out of thin air with Painter or Photoshop.  I keep
hundreds of them.  A lot of them do not have *any* information in the image
about who made it or what it's called.  Six months later, when I look at
the picture again, how do I know who made it?  If I wanted to do something
with it--anything that might involve sharing it with another person--how do
I contact the original artist to get their permission?  (Or perhaps even a
higher-res version?)  If non-fractal artists consider it proper to place
their name and copyright on the image, and perhaps even a title, is there
anything wrong with claiming copyright on a fractal image?  Isn't it even
expected?  (These are points for discussion, folks!)

As for the original "spirit" of FractInt: a quick glance at the FractInt
documentation shows that FractInt is not public domain.  It is copyrighted
freeware.  This means the authors allow it to be distributed freely (even
in source code form) but they place restrictions on its commercial usage
and distribution of altered versions of FractInt.  If you read the
copyright page in my gallery, you will see a very similar stance: for
personal use, do what you like.  For commercial use, contact me to arrange
something.

If having a copyright embedded in the image seems unnecessarily commercial,
I'm sorry--but I'm a paranoid kinda guy, and it's a fairly small step
towards protecting myself.  Not all the images on my site have copyrights
right on the image--only those I have taken the time to name.

 - That's it, time to get off the soap box. I did like your site and the
 - fractals.

Thanks for your commentary.  These are good things to discuss.

Damien 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 16:35:13 -0700
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Gallery and copyright info

SteveR wrote:
> I think you spoiled some of images with the titles and copyright stuff
> right on the image. Copyright featured quite a bit at your site, has
> someone rippped off some off your work?

One important consideration not mentioned is that as artists we have a
right and probably a responsibility to the art community to make sure
people know who we are in terms of the art we produce.  If we're just
posting images like out of some exploratory space flight, it's okay to
omit any personal info.  But if we're serious artists, we'll safeguard
our (best)work, like artists of old, with a personal imprint.    

> The best fractals that I have ever seen, have been created by JP
> Louvet and Les St Clair. Both of these artist are incredibly generous
> with their work. Les St Clair has made his par files available to all
> who care to download them. JP Louvet has posted his images in the
> native Fractint file format, so if you care to further explore them
> you can just load them into Fractint.

As good and generous as JP Louvet and others are, it should be clear by
now that fractal art isn't just exploratory fractal creation.  Fractal
artists aren't under any obligation to give away their life's work, or
dilute it by providing access to people who would flood the net with
variations of the artist's work.  (This is a very real situation --
pictures have been posted to abpf that are minor revisions of someone
else's original work.) 

> Les St Clair's and JP Louvet's approach seems to me to be in the
> spirit of Fractint which is made available free to all. I'm just not
> sure about copyright on Fractint images, it seems unnecessarily
> commercial.

It wouldn't seem commercial to any artist wanting to safeguard his work,
or if you read a while back a certain notice in abpf that asked that
artists whose pictures someone had downloaded and no longer knew who had
done what to contact him with ownership info before he used them (in a
commercial form?)  So I would now recommend that serious artwork that is
posted to abpf, or displayed on net pages, contain author info and a
general copyright notice.  

Note: I'm including an option to annotate pictures in the latest version
of ZPlot 24(true color).  True color fractal art seems now(after
rendering a hundred of these from my past work) the minimum requirement
for public exhibits.  To compare a 256-color version with a finished
true-color version would show this immediately. 

Terry 

-----------	*********------------

To: "'fractal-art@aros.net'" <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: RE: Gallery and copyright info
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:11:23 +0930

On Sunday, June 29, 1997 9:05 AM, Terry wrote:

> One important consideration not mentioned is that as artists we have a
> right and probably a responsibility to the art community to make sure
> people know who we are in terms of the art we produce.  If we're just
> posting images like out of some exploratory space flight, it's okay to
> omit any personal info.  But if we're serious artists, we'll safeguard
> our (best)work, like artists of old, with a personal imprint.

Agreed, but if you look at most paintings, the artists imprint is 
usually a small stylised signature hidden away in a corner somewhere, 
often completely off the image. I've seen too many fractal images, in 
effect vandalised by unnecessarily large titles, signatures and 
copyright notices.

If you publish your work on a Web site it's relatively easy to protect 
your work with a small (c) symbol hyperlinked to a page with your 
copyright notice. For examples of this type of protection check out 
some of the large commercial sites.

It's a difficult enough task to attract people to your Wed site to view 
your images with out putting them off by treating every visitor as a 
potential plunderer of your work.

Think about this: On this list we are all interested in fractals but 
how many fractal galleries do we have bookmarked. I have two, my own 
and one other. I visit most of the sites that are publicised on this 
list once, but I rarely return a second time because there are just too 
many other sites out there on the Web competing for my time.

To get people to visit your site, wait for the images to download, and 
look at your work is a difficult trick. You have to understand that the 
visitor to your site is special. You are not being generous by 
exhibiting your work and making it available to them. They are being 
generous with their time by being there at all.

If a visitor stays long enough to download just one of your images 
you've done well. If they then use your image as wallpaper or a 
screensaver be grateful. Your skill as an artist has just competed 
successfully with literally millions of other free images and 
screensavers out there on the Net. Remember that most people prefer 
flying toasters or  the Simpson's on their machines to a few nice 
fractals.

One final point, beware of self delusion, remember that although you 
might think your work is pretty good, it may in reality be fairly 
ordinary. If you are publishing your work on your own Web site, then 
you probably haven't had to persuade a gallery owner to hang your work 
in their commercial gallery. Your fractals most likely haven't been 
subjected to serious criticism [friends and family are not renown for 
being brutally honest] If the visitor to your Web site is not a fractal 
enthusiast they may only see your image a just another interesting 
image on the net.

Most of the images that I have been seen via this mailing list and 
posted to the fractal newsgroups fall into the fairly ordinary 
category. Nothing wrong with that, as that's also of true of all art. 
But large titles, signatures and copyright notices on ordinary images 
can look like self delusion on the part of the artist.

SteveR

-----------	*********------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 01:11:40 -0700
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Gallery and copyright info

Hi Steve,

We obviously have very different viewpoints, perhaps 180 degrees away,
but that's okay.  I try hard not to insult anyone's opinion of their
work, but having worked with fractals for nearly 10 years, I know a lot
of my work is quite different from the average "fractal."  It is
purposely that way, or I would have given up on ZPlot a few years ago. 
If you think this is self-delusion, all I can say is that we all grow. 
And as we grow what we once considered good pales in comparison to what
it's possible for us to do today or will do tomorrow.  So as long as
we're doing that much better than yesterday, it would be hard to say
that we're not doing something special, if it continues to look
special...
 
SteveR wrote:
> On Sunday, June 29, 1997 9:05 AM, Terry wrote:

> > One important consideration not mentioned is that as artists we have a
> > right and probably a responsibility to the art community to make sure
> > people know who we are in terms of the art we produce.  If we're just
> > posting images like out of some exploratory space flight, it's okay to
> > omit any personal info.  But if we're serious artists, we'll safeguard
> > our (best)work, like artists of old, with a personal imprint.

> Agreed, but if you look at most paintings, the artists imprint is
> usually a small stylised signature hidden away in a corner somewhere,
> often completely off the image. I've seen too many fractal images, in
> effect vandalised by unnecessarily large titles, signatures and
> copyright notices.

I'm not sure what you consider a large signature, etc. but I think given
the medium we work with, you should be able to read it at least, since
it's not exactly something you can hide and expect people to recognize
your work.  That's where the parallel with paintings ends.  I too
accummulate a lot of pictures off the net and later can't remember who
did them.  So it isn't necessarily an evil thing to provide this
reminder, though titling a fractal does seem unnecesary.    

> If you publish your work on a Web site it's relatively easy to protect
> your work with a small (c) symbol hyperlinked to a page with your
> copyright notice. For examples of this type of protection check out
> some of the large commercial sites.

It's far too easy to download an image off the net and later not
remember where it came from, commercial site or not.  So a copyright
notice like this is no protection at all.

> It's a difficult enough task to attract people to your Wed site to view
> your images with out putting them off by treating every visitor as a
> potential plunderer of your work.

Personally I think a small signature/copyright notice in a lower corner
of my pictures enhances their professionalism.  It's a matter of taste,
but it's not like you can turn over a picture on the net to see the
copyright notice that appears on most art prints for sale.  If we don't
start to take our work seriously, who else will?  

> Think about this: On this list we are all interested in fractals but
> how many fractal galleries do we have bookmarked. I have two, my own
> and one other. I visit most of the sites that are publicised on this
> list once, but I rarely return a second time because there are just too
> many other sites out there on the Web competing for my time.

Since I don't surf the net much, I have bookmarked about ten fractal
galleries, all out of the ordinary.  I may not visit them much, but the
connections are still there for future reference.
 
> To get people to visit your site, wait for the images to download, and
> look at your work is a difficult trick. You have to understand that the
> visitor to your site is special. You are not being generous by
> exhibiting your work and making it available to them. They are being
> generous with their time by being there at all.

I guess I have a strong enough ego to say that it really feels like I'm
providing a service to visitors and not vice versa.  I know I always
feel priveleged to visit an inspiring site like one of Paul Carlson's
galleries.  It's just that lately my hard drive has become crowded with
true-color pictures, so I don't have the space to permit any permanent
collection of net pictures.  It's hard to visit a good site without
regretting the transitory nature of the images appearing on my screen.  
 
> If a visitor stays long enough to download just one of your images
> you've done well. If they then use your image as wallpaper or a
> screensaver be grateful. Your skill as an artist has just competed
> successfully with literally millions of other free images and
> screensavers out there on the Net. Remember that most people prefer
> flying toasters or  the Simpson's on their machines to a few nice
> fractals.

Fractal haters need not surf to my site.  Seriously, wallpaper wasn't
what I had in mind as an end product of my net gallery.  If I open a few
eyes, fine.  If I make more converts to ZPlot, better.  But in the end
the gallery is there for its own net worth(pun intended.)  Art for art's
sake and all that.  You have to believe that or there's no reason to be
47.  
 
> One final point, beware of self delusion, remember that although you
> might think your work is pretty good, it may in reality be fairly
> ordinary. If you are publishing your work on your own Web site, then
> you probably haven't had to persuade a gallery owner to hang your work
> in their commercial gallery. Your fractals most likely haven't been
> subjected to serious criticism [friends and family are not renown for
> being brutally honest] If the visitor to your Web site is not a fractal
> enthusiast they may only see your image a just another interesting
> image on the net.
> 
> Most of the images that I have been seen via this mailing list and
> posted to the fractal newsgroups fall into the fairly ordinary
> category. Nothing wrong with that, as that's also of true of all art.
> But large titles, signatures and copyright notices on ordinary images
> can look like self delusion on the part of the artist.

See above.  One of my professors once said if you could look at
something you did, without cringing, it was done right.  I'll extend
this to say that if your signature looks right on a picture, it is
appropriate to put it there(but don't obscure essential details in the
picture.)  And putting ego aside, you need to be able to read the
signature or it's too small(eight-point text is about the smallest text
that is legible on a 800X600 picture.)  A hand-signed print is
different, as you should know then what you're getting and who you're
buying it from... 

Terry

-----------	*********------------

SHORT HIATUS HERE.  THEN THE NEXT RE-HASH

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:25:54 -0500
Subject: Re: (fractint) Colors!
Message-ID: <19971015.123027.3446.2.leenewsted@juno.com>
References: <88256531.005A84DE.00@notesgw.nosc.mil>Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,6-7,9-10,15-16,19-22
From: leenewsted@juno.com (Merle L Newsted Jr)
Sender: owner-fractint@xmission.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: fractint@mail.xmission.com

Hey Jay,

I did a lot of zooming on Sunglasses and didn't have the problem you are
describing. However, I don't know how to rotate a fractal in the formula
the way you did in Sunglasses-r, What I did is simply press "page up"
once to get a zoom box and then rotate the box with the mouse (hold right
button).

I didn't know people wanted a par file with a frm file I'll be sure to do
that in the future.

Q. Why do you want a par file? Can't you just use the frm file, or is
there an easy way of using a par file to view an image. So far I've had
to load the .frm and the .par to view the fractal .par. Why not just run
the fractal from formula and save the image you like or don't like (of
course with Nuker fractals "not-like" is impossible-right?).

Q2. Why did Sylvie put a copyright on the par file posted yesterday?
Isn't Fractint free? I don't see how you could claim it as original.
Sylvie?

Thanks, 
Nuke 

-----------	*********------------

Subject: (fractint) Copyright law
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:39:39 -0400 (EDT)

   Since the topic's been brought up, I'd like to ask: what does 
everybody think of copyright law as applied to fractals? That is, there 
exists a sense in which no fractal image is 'written' by anyone (except 
perhaps the inventor of the original formula) but only discovered inside 
a mathematical construct. One can envision legions of artists 
copyrighting every section of the Mandelbrot set at, say, zoom 4x.
   At the same time the rights of the artist who makes a real effort in 
searching, varying parameters and so on to produce an image would seem to 
be more comprable to the work of a sculptor finding the statue within a 
rock. For the first time in history, however, the law must draw a rather 
fine line between these two cases; fractals are infinitely reproducable, 
after all, so while a person on the street picking up a rock and calling 
it his copyrighted piece of art is no particular problem- who wants his 
rock?- doing the same for a fractal has worldwide implications. Where or 
how do we define the line between "random area of zooming in a public 
image" and "original work of art"? Ideas?
 
Ian

-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: fractint@xmission.com
Subject: Re:  (fractint) Copyright law

Sunspot activity caused Ian to utter:

>   Since the topic's been brought up, I'd like to ask: what does 
>everybody think of copyright law as applied to fractals? That is, there 
>exists a sense in which no fractal image is 'written' by anyone (except 
>perhaps the inventor of the original formula) but only discovered inside 
>a mathematical construct. One can envision legions of artists 
>copyrighting every section of the Mandelbrot set at, say, zoom 4x.

I don't feel qualified to give a definitive answer (if there is one) but as
an electronic book publisher, an observer of the alt.religion.scientology
copyright legal battles, etc., I've learned a little about copyright law,
both U.S. and international (e.g., Berne).  But note, IANAL.

To summarize, current philosophy regarding copyright is that when a person
*fixes* in a tangible medium any artistic, literary, or musical work, it
becomes copyrighted automatically -- it is born copyrighted.  The exception to
this is if the person specifically gives the work to the Public Domain, or
that the created work is in essence a whole copy of another copyrighted work.
Note that ideas, databases (though this may change), and processes cannot be
copyrighted -- it is only the tangible expression of those things which are
copyrighted (e.g., the data in a phone book is Public Domain, but wholesale
photocopying of pages from a phone book in excess of Fair Use allowance is a
violation of copyright).

In the case of fractal art, it can get a little fuzzy because of what
constitutes a "copy".  For example, if I take a Fractint parameter file (a
type of "process"?) and duplicate the image, but I alter the color map, is it
a new work, or is it a copy of an existing work (say in excess of Fair Use
allowance)?  Maybe there are legal precedents where the courts have figured
this out, maybe in related cases, but I bet for fractal art it has not been
tested to the point where courts have given precedent-setting decisions.  If
it has we'd be posting that information here.

I would hope that others here who have a better handle of the copyright of
Fractint-derived fractal images can post their thoughts here.  I do recognize
that the Fractint community may have come to a consensus, but note that until
the courts rule definitively, a consensus means nothing legally.

Jon 

-----------	*********------------

Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:38:54 -0400 (EDT)

Jon wrote:
> 
> Sunspot activity caused Ian to utter:

no, no, it was the phase of the moon...
[snip me]
[snip you]

[aside- I'm concerned in part about the definition of 'in essence identical'
as applied to fractals... rather vague. Hell, maybe patent law is more 
applicable. 'Spark of genius', as the phrase goes, at least has some 
caselaw defining it.]

> Note that ideas, databases (though this may change), and processes cannot be
> copyrighted -- it is only the tangible expression of those things which are
> copyrighted (e.g., the data in a phone book is Public Domain, but wholesale
> photocopying of pages from a phone book in excess of Fair Use allowance is a
> violation of copyright).

   Right. So-- is the formula and parameter set for a fractal image not 
an idea? if it is an idea, just what is the tangible expression that is 
being copyrighted? if it is a tangible expression, well, gosh, 
"Mandelbrot set corners x1 x2 y1 y2" doesn't quite seem enough to be 
called an expression...

> allowance)?  Maybe there are legal precedents where the courts have figured
> this out, maybe in related cases, but I bet for fractal art it has not been
> tested to the point where courts have given precedent-setting decisions.  If
> it has we'd be posting that information here.

   Mathematical images as copyrighted art have never been the subject of 
real amounts of money, hence no court cases... I suppose I hope they will 
be...

> I would hope that others here who have a better handle of the copyright of
> Fractint-derived fractal images can post their thoughts here.  I do recognize
> that the Fractint community may have come to a consensus, but note that until
> the courts rule definitively, a consensus means nothing legally.

   Oh, of course, it was just my curiosity speaking. Of course, when it 
does come time for a court to rule, one might expect it to take the 
opinions of the population of fractal artists as to what constitutes an 
original work under advisement, and a fair fraction of that community 
does read this listserv... :)

Ian

-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:47:54 -0400
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

Ian,

Let me first state that I'm not a lawyer.  I am not qualified to give legal
advice.  And all too often, what makes sense to real people doesn't
necessarily line up with the way laws are written.

 - That is, there exists a sense in which no fractal image is 'written' by
 - anyone (except perhaps the inventor of the original formula) but only
 - discovered inside a mathematical construct.

I would think that this is just one of those grey areas that we'd all just
as soon would go away. :-)  I look at it this way: when I make a fractal
image, I own that image.  The image is composed of the shape and coloring
that I have chosen, and perhaps the actual formula used as well.  AFAIK,
though, US copyright law doesn't let you copyright mathematical expressions
or formulae, which would rule out the use of owning the base fractal shape
itself.  This leaves you with the particular artist's choice of shape,
location, and color.  Duplicate these exactly, and there is little trouble
in proving the image is copied.

Where it gets a little more problematic is when someone changes your image
somewhat and tries to pass it off as their own.  Maybe they zoom a little
bit, in or out, or they change the colors.  This falls into the area of
"derivative works", and would also be a copyright violation.  However, if
you zoom far enough into someone else's copyrighted image that the features
are no longer recognizable as a detail from the original image, it would be
harder to prove that it is a derivative work.  In short, the more work put
into it, the more likely you can establish that it is your own work--in the
same way that musicians can be inspired by other musicians, and produce
similar (but not identical) music.  I think drawing the line between
infringement and inspiration will very difficult.  Some things are
obviously one or the other, but I'm pretty sure there will be cases where
the difference is not so clear-cut.

These copyright questions are not academic.  Within the past few days I had
someone copy an image from one of my web pages and use it in their own web
page, without credit.  Only the colors were different (and only a hue shift
at that).  In this particular case, I think the person was simply unaware
of the copyright infringement they were doing, but it illustrates the need
to inform people about what is and is not proper.

Damien 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:57:05 -0400 (EDT)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

Excerpts from mail: 15-Oct-97 (fractint) Copyright law by Ian 

>    Since the topic's been brought up, I'd like to ask: what does 
> everybody think of copyright law as applied to fractals? That is, there 
> exists a sense in which no fractal image is 'written' by anyone (except 
> perhaps the inventor of the original formula) but only discovered inside 
> a mathematical construct. One can envision legions of artists 
> copyrighting every section of the Mandelbrot set at, say, zoom 4x.
>    At the same time the rights of the artist who makes a real effort in 
> searching, varying parameters and so on to produce an image would seem to 
> be more comprable to the work of a sculptor finding the statue within a 
> rock. For the first time in history, however, the law must draw a rather 
> fine line between these two cases; fractals are infinitely reproducable, 
> after all, so while a person on the street picking up a rock and calling 
> it his copyrighted piece of art is no particular problem- who wants his 
> rock?- doing the same for a fractal has worldwide implications. Where or 
> how do we define the line between "random area of zooming in a public 
> image" and "original work of art"? Ideas?

You can copyright just about anything.  Of course, if someone can
reproduce your image using "clean room" techniques, they can use the
image without your permission.

For example, let's say someone copyrights their formula for a fractal. 
You just happen to stumble upon the same fractal by playing with
formulae.  You can also copyright the same fractal.  The same thing with
zooms.

However, someone could patent their formula or zoom, and then even when
someone else finds it, they are bound by the original patent.  If you
can patent the genes in my body, you can also patent the numbers of the
mandelbrot set. 

Evin

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:30:23 -0700
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

Ian wrote:

>copyrighting every section of the Mandelbrot set at, say, zoom 4x.

Don't get me started!

If you look in the archive of this list or the fractal art list, you will
see a post of mine where I remark about par files can only
have 2000 max images.

I created giant files with every midget through period 16 (nearly
65000) and many thousands more through period 64. I viewed
many of these with Fractint which draws them at a pace of a
second or each.  It can get hypnotic.  Anyway, I could post them
and copyright the whole lot!  It is stupid, I agree.  As for copyrighting
formula - the Mset equation was published in copyright
articles by Mandelbrot himself. So there we are.

I do respect work of others, as anyone who reads my
publications will see,  but some of the fractal artists seem
to get too caught up in it, it seems to me.

My $.03 worth.  Oh my, you got me started.  :-)

Jay

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law 
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:42:48 -0600

I think lots of people here are confusing copyright with patents,
trademarks and other so-called "intellectual property" restrictions.

Yes, Mandelbrot published the formula in a copyrighted work, but that
doesn't mean that I am infringing Mandelbrot's copyright when I write z
:= z^2 + c.  Before you go and get all bent out of shape about
copyright, please take the time to understand what copyright IS and
what it ISN'T.

 Rich

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:09:58 -0400
Subject: Re: (fractint) Colors!

Hi Nuke,

>> Q2. Why did Sylvie put a copyright on the par file posted yesterday?
>> Isn't Fractint free? I don't see how you could claim it as original.
>> Sylvie?

  Though the tool I used (Fractint) is free, the pars I posted yesterday
are my creations (coordinates, coloring schemes, palettes...) and I don't
put them in the public domain.

Sylvie

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:43:38 -0500
Subject: Re: (fractint) Colors!

So... if I create a fractal and par I can copyright it?

Nuke

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Colors!
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:03:58 -0400

>So... if I create a fractal and par I can copyright it?

No, because it's already copyrighted.  (Ain't life grand?)  But you can
notify people that it's copyrighted, by using the little notices people put
on their things.  (ya know, some people,...) lol

BKNambo 
-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:25:28 -0400
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Colors!

Nuke,

 > Q. Why do you want a par file? Can't you just use the frm file,

It is easier to start with a PAR file, particularly if your formula
requires good values for p1, p2, or p3, or a particular location.  With a
PAR, you can set these parameters up to good "default" settings, and let
people play from there.

 >Q2. Why did Sylvie put a copyright on the par file posted yesterday?
>Isn't Fractint free? I don't see how you could claim it as original.

FractInt is free, sure.  But the images that you produce with it are
*yours*.  The ones I make are *mine*.  They have a copyright simply by
being created, and if someone wants to retain that copyright, they're
perfectly entitled to.  So while FractInt may be free, do NOT assume that
every image you see produced with FractInt is also free.  Many are not.

Think of it this way.  If you created a piece of artwork with Adobe
Photoshop, does that mean Adobe owns the art?  Of course not.  Now let's
say you got Photoshop free with your flatbed scanner.  Does that mean
artwork you produce with it is now free, too?  Of course not.  The
copyright or distribution rights of the tool used have little bearing on
whether what is produced is freely distributable or not.

I hope this clears things up.  Sylvie, didn't mean to butt in here (I know
you can speak for yourself), but as someone who also copyrights their art,
I felt compelled to speak. :)

Damien

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:59:36 +0200 (EET)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Ian wrote:

> it his copyrighted piece of art is no particular problem- who wants his 
> rock?- doing the same for a fractal has worldwide implications. Where or 
> how do we define the line between "random area of zooming in a public 
> image" and "original work of art"? Ideas?

I recall seeing aninterview with a fractal artist who called himself a
fractographer.  He likened fractal art to photography, saying that if you
put 20 people (or any number ) to take a picture of the same building,
most would be fine, a couple of photos would be really good, and may be
one or two would be art.  Fractal art, he argued, was similar, in fact,
the fractal universe might be considered by some to be infinitely larger.
Furthermore, when you watch fractal art, you come to note the emergence of
style. This has more bearing to the question of art than to the question
of copyright.

Uri

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@xmission.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:44:38 -0500
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

Shooooo WEE!!!!
I didn't mean to get such a fuss started. The main reason I asked about
copyrights was to avoid infringement or just plain ol' bad edicate.
There was a par file put out the other day, I can't remember who just
now, but it had a beautiful (really , hats off) par called Vivid. I saved
the color map so I could use it on one of my fractals when I stopped and
thought "Maybe this guy worked on this map?" and I wouldn't want to steal
it! So, I ask my question. 

Is it ok to use some ones .map on my fractal? Should I make sure to give
credit? If these are foolish questions please forgive me. But, I am not
an artist, just an amateur math-guy.

Thanks to everyone who put in a answer.
A bonus Nuker Fractal WITH the par will be coming!!!
Just see if you can stop me! HA HA HA HA HA !!! (maniacal laughter!)

Nuke

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law 
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:46:08 -0600

Jon, thanks for the interesting viewpoint.  Here's a question for
everyone to ponder.  If I take the PAR/FRM files distributed in the
fracxtra package and make batch files to generate all the images and
them make the images available for others to browse on the web, would
I be violating people's copyright?  Presumably they published the
FRM/PAR files in fracxtra to share in the first place.  Many of the
images in that collection take many hours to compute even on my P90
machine.  People always say "distribute the par file and let the
person recompute the image if they want", but as image computation
time increases, it becomes less likely that people will even SEE the
more heavy duty images.  Lots of people are impatient and abort the
image if it takes too long.  I know that I wouldn't have seen even
half of these images if I didn't batch render them and browse later.
Thoughts?

Rich

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

<< Since the topic's been brought up, I'd like to ask: what does 
 everybody think of copyright law as applied to fractals? That is, there 
 exists a sense in which no fractal image is 'written' by anyone (except 
 perhaps the inventor of the original formula) but only discovered inside 
 a mathematical construct. One can envision legions of artists 
 copyrighting every section of the Mandelbrot set at, say, zoom 4x. >>

It applies. Several of us fractal artists have been involved in a suit with
someone using images without permission. The case was settled out of court,
but the take home lesson is that intellectual properties laws, including
copyright, do apply. That's why many of us include copyright notices in our
par files.

Ron 

-----------	*********------------

Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:47:54 -0400 (EDT)

Ron wrote:
> 
> It applies. Several of us fractal artists have been involved in a suit with
> someone using images without permission. The case was settled out of court,
> but the take home lesson is that intellectual properties laws, including
> copyright, do apply. That's why many of us include copyright notices in our
> par files.
> Ron 
> 
   Oh, I never intended to suggest that copyright didn't apply. I'm just 
looking for clarification of exactly what is copyrightable and what isn't...

Ian

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

In a message dated 97-10-16 14:55:37 EDT, Ian wrote:

<< Oh, I never intended to suggest that copyright didn't apply. I'm just 
 looking for clarification of exactly what is copyrightable and what isn't...
>>

Ian,
My option (not necessarily the correct legal), which came out of much
discussion on the afore-mentioned matter, is that formulae are probably not
copyrightable while PAR file probably are copyrightable. If the color scheme
of the image is changed enought to look uniquely different, it probably is
not a clear violation of a copyright. <g>.

Ron

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law 
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:33:43 -0600

My advice to anyone seriously concerned about copyright theft of their
fractal images is to only published them in print.  Don't publish the
FRM file, don't publish the PAR file, don't publish the image --
especially not on your web page!  However, this means that the
audience for your work is severely limited since only those people who
physically walk by the printed works are going to see them.

There are also technologies for adding "digital watermarks" to image
files so that you can prove they violated your copyright.  I haven't
looked into the details of how these work and I've always wondered if
a 2x2 pixel gaussian blur filter over the image wouldn't remove
them, but I've never had a sample to work with.  Also, GIF and JPEG
files have the ability to add text comments to the image, so you
should add a "Copyright (C) 1997, Elmer J. Fudd" to the image in the
text block.  (You can see this information if you view the image in
Netscape and do "View Document Info".)  Personally I don't like the
copyright notice attached to the pixels, I think its ugly, but that's
just me :)

Rich

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law 

In a message dated 97-10-16 12:56:38 EDT, you write:

<< I be violating people's copyright?  Presumably they published the
 FRM/PAR files in fracxtra to share in the first place.  Many of the
 images in that collection take many hours to compute even on my P90 >>

If the PAR has an imbedded copyright notice, then the image in GIF89a fromat
will have the imbedded notice. From a practical point of view, the way most
of us from the old graphdev compuserve forum have approached the matter is to
allow free use UNLESS SOMEONE INTENDS TO MAKE MONEY OFF THE IMAGES!!

Ron 

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law 
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:49:29 -0600

Ron  writes:
> If the PAR has an imbedded copyright notice, then the image in GIF89a fromat
> will have the imbedded notice. From a practical point of view, the way most
> of us from the old graphdev compuserve forum have approached the matter is to
> allow free use UNLESS SOMEONE INTENDS TO MAKE MONEY OFF THE IMAGES!!

Cool... I wasn't planning on charging for access to the web site! <g>

Rich
-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:12:21 -0500
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law

Ian wrote:
>
> Since the topic's been brought up, I'd like to ask:  what does
> everybody think of copyright law as applied to fractals?
>

US COPYRIGHT LAW:
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United
States (title 17, U.S. Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/) to
the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary,
dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.  This
protection is available to both published and unpublished works. 
Section 106 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) of the
Copyright Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/overview.html)
generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to
authorize others to do the following:

   -- To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

   -- To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

   -- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work
      to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
      rental, lease, or lending;

   -- To perform the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of
      literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
      pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

   -- To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of
      literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
      pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works,
      including the individual images of a motion picture or
      other audiovisual work. 

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the
Act to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited
in scope.  Sections 107 through 119
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/107.html) of the Copyright Act
establish limitations on these rights.  In some cases, these limitations
are specified exemptions from copyright liability.  One major limitation
is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in
section 107 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html) of the Act. 
In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory
license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are
permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with
statutory conditions.  For further information about the limitations of
any of these rights, consult the Copyright Act
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/overview.html) or write to the U.S.
Copyright Office (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/)....


LINKS TO RELATED WEB SITES:

Active Copyright Law:

     The U.S. Copyright Office 
          http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

     Electronic registration at the Copyright Office 
          gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright

     The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
          http://www.uspto.gov/

     The Library of Congress 
          http://www.loc.gov/

     The Copyright Society of the U.S.A 
          http://www.csusa.org/research/index.html

     Trademark Law Materials from Cornell Law School 
          http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html

New Laws, Bills, and Changes:
     US Supreme Court Intellectual Property Decisions
          http://www.law.cornell.edu/syllabi?copyright+patent+trademark

Intellectual Property Web Sites:
     Copyright Clearance Center 
          http://www.openmarket.com/copyright/

     The ILTguide to Copyright 
          http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/copyright/index.html


INTERNET LAW SIMPLIFIED:
          http://home.earthlink.net/~ivanlove


For advice and current information about US copyright law, please
contact a qualified legal professional.

PaulL

-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:15:55 PDT
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law
To: fractint@xmission.com

Permit me to throw in my 2 penny worth;

I work in a major UK University library. One of the concerns that has dropped onto 
my desk of late is the question of the practicalities of copyright in electronic 
formats. basically this boils down to the problem of discerning who really does 
hold a copyright, given the ease of editing of electronic media, and the question of 
priorities. 

If I take a file, which has an embedded copyright message, and 'file it off' by 
editing, then repost it, how does any subsequent party know about the original 
copyright? The practical upshot for us is that we will not accept electronic media 
for inclusion in the collection; precisely because we cannot tell if it has been 
edited. 

Watermarking of images is possible, but I don't see how you can do this 
successfully for text, such as fractint PARs and FRMs. I respect copyright, but I am 
also quite sure I have unwittingly infringed because someone else has removed a 
message further down the line. Many times I have seen graphic files, which 
claim to have been by X, and have seen them elsewhere as being the property of 
Y.

It is very hard to establish who genuinely wrote a file first, and so establish the 
real copyright holder. I can change the date of creation of a file, and so make it 
appear that I wrote a file -before- someone claiming they are the creator. This is an 
issue the university legal-eagles  are currently debating (at great expense). UK 
courts have emulated the action of the ostrich over electronic media, and so case 
law has lagged badly. What we need is someone to really get their 'code caught in 
the grinder' so we have some established case law to guide us - any volunteers?

Nigel 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 06:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: fractint@xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright law
 
Ian wrote
>Ron  wrote:

>> It applies. Several of us fractal artists have been involved in a suit with
>> someone using images without permission. The case was settled out of court,
>> but the take home lesson is that intellectual properties laws, including
>> copyright, do apply. That's why many of us include copyright notices in our
>> par files.
>> Ron

>   Oh, I never intended to suggest that copyright didn't apply. I'm just 
>looking for clarification of exactly what is copyrightable and what isn't...

As I said before, IANAL, but I think common sense with some lay knowledge of
IP law tells me the current thinking that using somebody else's PAR file to
regenerate and use without modification an image without permission (implicit
or explicit) is a copyright violation.  And the PAR file itself can, I
believe, be protected by copyright so if I reproduce somebody else's PAR file
without permission, for example in a book, it would probably be considered by
the courts to be a copyright violation totally separate from the image it
represents.  However, the information contained in the PAR file *cannot* be
copyrighted -- it is only the tangible expression of the information which
can be copyrighted.  (The same goes for formula files -- the information is
not copyrightable -- mathematical formulas cannot be copyrighted (I believe,
but they might be patentable!), but the tangible expression of the formulas
is -- everything in copyright law boils down to "tangible expression".)

But taking somebody else's PAR file, and then modifying it so as to make a
"new work" image which is different enough from the original (what constitutes
a "new work" is something for the courts to decide), would be considered Fair
Use.  After all, it is recognized in the philosophy of copyright that
no work truly stands alone, but has been influenced by and stands atop other
works, which is one of the reasons for the Fair Use allowance since the
purpose of copyright is to "promote the arts and sciences" and having too
draconian of a copyright law would not meet this fundamental Constitutional
and simply common sense requirement.

In my perspective, substantially changing the color map so as to make the image
*clearly look different* than the original may be allowed by the courts (but
editing one color to improve an image's appearance but otherwise leaving the
general image look similar would probably be a copyright violation.)  And
the same could be said of zooming and coordinates -- small changes to enhance
the image may be a violation, but significantly changing the zoom/coords to
create a clearly new work, even with the same color map, may be allowable.
The bottom line is -- is it a "new work", or is it "Memorex".  :^)

I don't think the courts have tackled fractal or similar images yet but when
they do, it is important that we of the fractal art community make sure that
we educate the court as to the process and nuances of creating fractal images,
otherwise the courts may set incorrect precedents -- for example, the
Communications Decency Act (CDA) was thrown out partly because those opposing
the CDA *made sure* the courts fully understood the many nuances of the
Internet which make it unique, and from this understanding the courts were
able to correctly apply Constitutional principles.  As it stood, the CDA was
drafted by those who had *no idea* of what the Internet was, how it worked,
and its various nuances.  They do now.

Just a lay perspective.  If you have real questions on Copyright law, go find
a good IP attorney and don't rely on what I wrote.

Jon 

-----------	*********------------

VERY SHORT HIATUS HERE; THEN ON TO THE NEXT RE-HASH

-----------	*********------------

Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 18:05:53 -0500
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

At 01:00 PM 11/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
>What are people's opinions here on someone printing and using your
>fractals on t-shirts, greeting cards, etc? I'm curious what the general
>attitude would be. Please note that I'm not the one who plans on doing
>this, so don't jump me. I've found out someone else plans on doing this
>with at least one of my fractals.--Alice

Guilty!  (is me)

This is what I am doing, and this may be a good time to bring this up since
some fractals have already been sold to a calander publishing company:

I have printed out in a small greeting card size some fractal art work, the
majority of which is mine. Some images were not mine and were attributed on
the back to the artist involved, such as Alice's "Snowstar", and Linda's
Epic 1-21 (or was it 1-16?) Anyway, I took them in to where I work to use
the sophisticated cutter there for trimming to size and all comments were
uniformly complimentary etc.

I was asked the usual questions: where obtained, did you do these, etc. And
I even sold a batch of ten cards with =my image=, "Luna" to one of the
people there at work. The key point comes in with art work by others.

I was asked if they also were for sale, and my answer was:  =Under no
circumstances would I sell someone else's art work. Besides being illegal,
it would be immoral, and I would not want someone else selling my stuff.=

However, personal usage is ok under copyright laws so far as I am aware. I
may give some away - with suitable attribution - as Christmas gifts. For
instance a box of ten cards with maybe five designs, or two, or whatever.
This also is ok under copyright laws, so far as I am aware. (BTW, those
planned gifts are for my children...)

And the more people see and become aware of this kind of material, the more
likely they are to be looking and asking for it in various stores.

As I have mentioned, I use other's for personal use only, and an occasional
gift. If anyone objects to my using their fractals in this manner, please
advise me and I will not do so; I will not be upset either.

For my part, if anyone has seen fit to use my attempts for personal usage
such as the above, I have no objection. I would object if someone were to
be selling my attempts without my knowledge.

david

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:14:31 -0500
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

>What are people's opinions here on someone printing and using your
>fractals on t-shirts, greeting cards, etc? I'm curious what the general
>attitude would be. Please note that I'm not the one who plans on doing
>this, so don't jump me. I've found out someone else plans on doing this
>with at least one of my fractals.--Alice

Alice,
The only opinion that matters in this instance is yours.
There is no problem if you do not object but the other party
involved might be well advised to get your permission in writing
before printing any of your work. Of course, this hinges on whether
or not your work is a "creative work". If so, it is automatically
copyrighted regardless of whether or not you attached such a notice.
A copyright, of course, gives you *exclusive* control over any copies
of it.

A lot of people don't understand copyright law and often confuse it
with trademark law. A common false belief is that it is legal to make
a copy of a work for personal or non-commercial use. I suspect this
is a misunderstanding of the "fair use" provision.

You have a lot more legal protection for your work than most people
realize. Of course, whether you have the personal and financial
resources to protect those rights in court is a completely different
matter.

- Jack

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:14:45 -0500
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

Hi,
Please don't take this as an attack or flame, but you might want
to investigate copyright laws a little more closely.

>I have printed out in a small greeting card size some fractal art work, the
>majority of which is mine. Some images were not mine and were attributed on
>the back to the artist involved, such as Alice's "Snowstar", and Linda's
>Epic 1-21 (or was it 1-16?)

Owning a copyright gives the owner *exclusive* rights to all copies of
a work. The fact that you have attributed the work to them is irrelevant.
Please don't think that this is the same thing as attributing a brief
literary quotation in a written work. It is worth noting that copyright
is automatically granted to the originator of creative work. Legally,
such work does not have to be accompanied by copyright notices although
these certainly help clarify matters and reduce confusion.

>The key point comes in with art work by others.
>I was asked if they also were for sale, and my answer was:  =Under no
>circumstances would I sell someone else's art work. Besides being illegal,
>it would be immoral, and I would not want someone else selling my stuff.=
>
>However, personal usage is ok under copyright laws so far as I am aware. I
>may give some away - with suitable attribution - as Christmas gifts. For
>instance a box of ten cards with maybe five designs, or two, or whatever.
>This also is ok under copyright laws, so far as I am aware. (BTW, those
>planned gifts are for my children...)

Again, whether your use is personal or commercial you do not have the right
to copy. It is true that many people do make copies of printed materials,
musical tapes, videos etc for personal use and get away with it. But the
mere unlikelihood of prosecution does not confer legal status.

>And the more people see and become aware of this kind of material, the more
>likely they are to be looking and asking for it in various stores.

You may or may not be correct in this point, but regardless, it is not
up to you to determine how someone else should market their work. If your
"gifts" conflict with the owner's marketing plans, they may have financially
suffered and you might be the target of a law suit. Actually, they don't
even need a financial loss to "suffer". It is just that w/o such a loss,
the courts are unlikely to award losses. It seems that our
society and laws are only capable of measuring things in financial terms.

>As I have mentioned, I use other's for personal use only, and an occasional
>gift. If anyone objects to my using their fractals in this manner, please
>advise me and I will not do so; I will not be upset either.

I'm sure you have the best of intentions and that you generally behave
quite ethically. But this statement disturbs me. Essentially you are
saying that you are willing to appropriate the work of others for your
use unless they explicitly contact you to object. In other words, the
onus is upon them to protect their work from you. Should not the onus
be upon you to request their permission? If this onus of protection is one
of the things you believe about copyrights, you are confusing copyright
with trademark.

>For my part, if anyone has seen fit to use my attempts for personal usage
>such as the above, I have no objection. I would object if someone were to
>be selling my attempts without my knowledge.

This is consistent with the views you have outlined but because they
are agreeable to you, you should not assume a reciprocal agreement
from others about their work.

As I said at the beginning, I am not attacking you and don't believe
for a moment that you have any malicious intent. But for what it is 
worth, such unilateral actions are *not* legal and contrary to your
belief, explictly contravened by copyright law. For further info on
this very confusing and evolving subject you might want to start
with the Copyright Website at:
http://www.benedict.com/

I should also say that I am not a lawyer and profess no great expertise
with copyright law. However, as a former art photographer and writer
I was forced to deal with it frequently. While it is true that Canadian
and American laws differ, they are similar in many respects.

Jack

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 05:48:03 -0500
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

At 12:14 AM 11/4/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi,
>Please don't take this as an attack or flame, but you might want
>to investigate copyright laws a little more closely.

Just took a look at the web page you listed. I was under the impression
from what little I read that so long as I utilized the material for
personal usage only and not for commercial purposes then that would not be
deemed a violation.

It appears that any usage would be a violation...

So..........

Those cards I had printed will be trashed today. 

davides

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:32:25 -0500 (EST)
From: aq936@freenet.carleton.ca (Michael Traynor)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com

>Just took a look at rthe web page you listed. I was under the impression
>from what little I read that so long as I utilized the material for
>personal usage only and not for commercial purposes then that would not be
>deemed a violation.
>
>It appears that any usage would be a violation...
>
>So..........
>
>Those cards I had printed will be trashed today. 

Unless I missed something, before you destroy anything, you could contact the
artists involved and ask their permission for the specific use you want to
make of their images, even if the permission is retroactive, though it is
better to get permission in advance (doing first and asking later often
ticks off folks who'd have been happy to say yes if asked first).

It is always a good idea to check out any copyright notices when folk send
out stuff or have a web page.  Most fractal artists whose sites I've seen
give permission for personal use and passing stuff on (with attribution
- keeping the copyright notice with the material is also a good idea) but draw
the line (entirely reasonably) at efforts to make money off their work,
without their permission.  The key thing is to have the permission of the
copyright holder, and the best thing to do if in doubt as to what is
permitted is to ask the copyright holder.  This is usually easy to do
since the source is likely a list, newsgroup or website.

Mike

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:23:08 -0600
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

I have to disagree with anyone copyrighting fractals.
Except for those who actually wrote Fractint. (TO whom I am very
grateful.)
Fractals are not artistic designs although they are quite beautiful. It
seems to me to be rather arrogant to claim a particular algorithim as
original. Unless, of course, we are now allowed to copyright science.
Which fractal are. aren't they?

Plus!
Didn't we already have this discussion?

Nuke

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing 
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:45:43 -0700

Nuke writes:
> Didn't we already have this discussion?

Yes, but it seems that you still don't understand copyright...

Rich

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:44:35 -0600
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing 

Oh I think I do. I just don't see how you can copyright a fractal.

I think it's kind of like Jackson Pollock's art. To me he just threw
paint on a canvas. Not art. Just paint. Now he was able to convince
someone to buy it, so in that way I guess he was an artist. But! The
patterns that the paint made when it hit the canvas could probably be
described as a fractal set of some type. So, if I happen to stumble upon
the right formula that produces a copy of his work, can I copyright it?
And if fractal are supposed to describe natural systems, the copyright
has already been claimed.

I wrote a very nice L-system fractal formula which made a nice tree. And
it looks like some trees I have actually seen before. Now can I copyright
it? If so, does that mean I copyright the actual tree? You may think I
being ridiculus but I can't help but think that most (not ALL) fractal
artists are produceing work by trial and error- "Pollockian" art. Luck.

Further more.
Are Fibonachi numbers copyrighted? Prime numbers? The Quintic?
What if I use the Quintic as a form for a formula?  Do I own the Quintic?

Silly?

Yes!

(Please remember that this is a family posting, so keep all hate mail in
that form please.)

Nuke

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 19:42:08 -0700
To: fractint@xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

Nuke wrote:
> Oh I think I do.
> I just don't see how you can copyright a fractal.

I agree.  Any fractal generated by fractint is basically boiled down to
a mathematical formula given limits (the screen size) and a color
palette.  I think anyone would be hard pressed to copyright a
mathematical formula, I'm not sure anyone ever has.  Mathematical
theories, yes, but strict formulas?  Furthermore, adding a color
palette, no matter how ingenious, is not enough IMHO.  If I scanned in
some artists' painting and changed the colors around before reselling
it, I doubt that would protect me in the court's eyes from copyright
infringment.

That being said, I'm sure if I wanted I could find a lawyer willing to
test the waters on this one if enough money was involved.  More than
likely, the outcome would depend more upon the relative skill of the
lawyers involved then what is stated above.

> Silly?
> 
> Yes!

Agreed.
chad

-----------	*********------------


Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:32:28 -0500
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

Nuke  wrote:
>> 
>> Oh I think I do.
>> I just don't see how you can copyright a fractal.
>> 
>
>I agree.  Any fractal generated by fractint is basically boiled down to
>a mathematical formula given limits (the screen size) and a color
>palette.  I think anyone would be hard pressed to copyright a
>mathematical formula, I'm not sure anyone ever has.  Mathematical
>theories, yes, but strict formulas?<snip>

This argument  reminds me of the skeptic who
would not recognize a sculptor's skill. After all, did the sculptor not
just take a piece of marble and simply chip away everything that didn't
look like an elephant?

But having said that, I do agree that it is questionable to copyright
a fractal mathematical formula as art.

I cannot speak for others but I do *not* simply plug in a formula and
wait for something interesting to appear. Rather, I start with the
numbers and the real work doesn't begin until the *potential* of
something interesting to me appears. Then begins a series of formula
adjustments (sometimes minor, sometimes not) intermingled with different
colouring methods and pallete choices. If the result is close but
not quite right, I then continue to work with it in an image editor.
More often than not, the results are relegated to that great hard
disk in the sky for I too frequently do not achieve my vision.

The final result is hardly the simple calculation of a formula. Nor
is it the formula I lay claim to but rather my particular and unique
interpretation of that formula. And that is what copyright is about-
not the idea, for ideas are specifically excluded by copyright law,
but the individual's own interpretation and implementation.

If you peruse the many personal fractal galleries on the web, two
things become immediately apparent. Some fractal artists consistently
produce beautiful images while others are erratic. (I am not
speaking here of the simple personal likes or dislikes of the
viewer.) Also, despite the rather impersonal origins of the fractal
formula, a number of these artists have also developed their own
style which becomes recognizable with repeated viewings. It is not
that you can immediately identify the creator of a particular image.
Instead it is that, upon discovering the artist's identity, you think
"Yeah- that looks like something she'd do..." This certainly suggests
that there is more involved than cold calculation.

An interesting experiment would be to post a mundane formula
and have the readers of this list plug it into Fractint, work with
it in their normal fashion and then post the results. I predict that
each will be different but that many will be very similar- a strong
family resmblance, if you will. However, I also expect that some
will look so radically different that it would be difficult to
believe they share the same formula. In other words, art may be
calculating but it need not be mere calculation.

There is nothing wrong with your logic as stated, but you have simply
set up a straw man. You cannot succeed in diminishing the validity of
fractal art by refuting what it is not.

Personally, I cannot imagine sitting in front of a computer
running Fractint and simply watching what appears. I might as well
watch television or listen to yet another radio show host who
has nothing to say but insists upon saying it.

I realize the foregoing makes me sound like a pompous ass but,
what the hell, it's fun! Assuming that tempers are not lost and
personalities do not clash, I would be interested in reading
other's views on this subject. (or is that outside the boundaries
of this list, Tim?)

Regards - Jack

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:23:23 -0500
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing
To: fractint@xmission.com

>Jack
>You have a lot more legal protection for your work than most people
realize. Of course, whether you have the personal and financial
resources to protect those rights in court is a completely different
matter.<

You did a good job of explaning copyrights-thanks for posting it here.

Alice wrote
>What are people's opinions here on someone printing and using your
>fractals on t-shirts, greeting cards, etc? I'm curious what the general
>attitude would be. Please note that I'm not the one who plans on doing
>this, so don't jump me. I've found out someone else plans on doing this
>with at least one of my fractals.

Alice,
If someone wanted to put my fractal on a tee shirt or a card for children -
i would be delighted :-) IF they had asked.  I enjoy them  being shared. 
Its not dificult to ask and even if not required by law - good manars
demands it.
-kirsten

-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:21:19 -0800
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Misiurewicz points

At 01:35 PM 11/4/97 -0800, Jay  wrote:
>;  Misiurewicz points are values of c for which the iteration has a
>;  delayed settling into a periodic pattern. These are located at
>;  the focus of (usually) spirialing patterns of components or the
>;  ends of filaments.

	So Misiurewicz points are the same as preperiod points, points whose
orbits eventually become periodic? Can you, or anyone, tell me if the
midgets associated with particular classes of Misiurewicz points (23-cycle,
or whatever) have any particular characteristics differentiating them from
other midgets. For example, could one analyze a midget, visually or
otherwise, and determine, for example, if it is associated with a 23-cycle
Misiurewicz point. I am curious, because the midgets in Jay's par files are
pretty stunning for their variety; I cannot discern any common
characteristics but a lot of variety; but I wonder if I am missing some
order to the whole thing. And I've been looking at a whole lot of them;
this occupation is way cooler than any commercial entertainment I can think
of (although Starship Troopers opens this weekend).

	This kind of brings me to a second point. I find it depressing to see
discussions of copyright law here. A number of people on the list (for
example, Paul Derbyshire, Damien Jones, Kerry Mitchell, and Jay Hill) are
kind enough to occasionally post their formulas and par files here, for
free, and I guess all some of these people want (and I am not speaking for
anyone but myself; hope it is not bad netiquette to mention people's names)
is that their not insignificant mathematical, programming  and artistic
achievements are recognized or respected. I have spent more time exploring
and learning from Damien's formulas and Paul Derbyshire's Nova formulas and
Kerry Mitchell's two variations thereon posted here recently in the last
weeks than I have sleeping. I work at an office during the day, and at
night I come home and this is what I *do*. Platonism is fine, but I don't
think it is too much to ask to respect individuals' wishes about what can
be done with their creations in exchange for the considerable
(noncommercial) pleasure these creations afford. Copyright law has got to
be among the least interesting subjects I can think of; I mean, compared
with the M-set, well there is not comparison. Gnarly, I'm sounding like a
sap-head; and I don't even know anyone here. And too many bytes; so back to
Sedgewick's Algorithms in C it is

Peter

-----------	*********------------

Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:10:25 -0500 (EST)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Printing

In a message dated 97-11-05 00:16:52 EST, you write:

<< Fractals are not artistic designs although they are quite beautiful. It
 seems to me to be rather arrogant to claim a particular algorithim as
 original. Unless, of course, we are now allowed to copyright science.
 Which fractal are. aren't they? >>

The nature of art is highly debatable, and it has been debated extensively on
fractal-art@aros.net. The bottom line is that art is in the eye of the
beholder. Your opinion is not a universal one, by any measure. I hope we do
not subject ourselves to another long drawn out debate on aesthetics on this
list.

Ron

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:56:53 -0700 (MST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: artist's organization, revisited

Over on the Fractint mailing list, a challenge was issued to see who could
come up with the best images, all using the same formula.  While I was
composing my entries, some thoughts came to me about the idea of a Fractal
Artists Guild, which was discussed here a while back.  I think such a
group should be formed, and here's why.

0.  Validation.  No, probably not.  An organization does not grant an
individual validation or credibility; just look at Congress (rimshot!).
Seriously, the organization should serve to support and encourage its
members, not to impress the rest of the world.

1.  "What is art?"  This group could gather together and draft a
definitive statement about why fractal images can be art.  I think this
would be very useful as a FAQ answer for the mailing lists and newsgroups,
also for those artists who chose to do gallery exhibits and art shows and
have to deal with a skeptical public.

2.  Copyright.  Another FAQ answer would deal with copyright.  Fractal
artists own their works, just as other artists own their works.  There's
probably enough material on this on the web already, but if not, the dues
paid to the Guild might go to hiring an intellectual property attorney to
write a clear, concise statement.  A short version could answer those
recurring challenges that pop up.  The extended disco version, complete
with 17 choruses of, "it's mine and besides the Berne Convention said so",
would be good background for all of us to have.

3.  Resource information.  Including math background, programming issues,
coloring techniques, printing information, service bureaus, etc.  Some
organization should be archiving this stuff.

4.  Self-promotion.  Let's do a book!  Or, con (er, entice) a gallery to
do a show of our works.  Or our own juried show.  Or, continually letting
others know about opportunities and openings.  Or, let's do a book!

5.  All those other good reasons that I didn't mention (like fun!).

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  What are yours?

Kerry

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:44:54 -0500 (EST)
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Misiurewicz points

Regarding copyright, all I ask is that the wishes expressed in the
comments in my PARs and such be respected. As for discussions of such,
mostly I killfile those subjects ;-)

(Issues not related to copyright snipped)

PaulD

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractint@mail.xmission.com>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Aboutt the (c) debate
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:17:38 -0500

[snip a bit too much (oops)]

That's somewhat how I feel.  There are things you copyright and things you
just don't.  My personal assumption was that Science (tools to create) is
_patentable_, while Art (the creations) are _copyrightable_. (this is wrong,
but i overgeneralize on purpose.)  The main problem with this is that
fractals take it upon themselves to straddle the line.  Should it be that we
patent .frms and copyright .pars? Or is that just silly?

BKNambo

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:30:16 -0800
Subject: Re: (fractint) Aboutt the (c) debate

BKNambo
wrote:

>That's somewhat how I feel.  There are things you copyright and things you
>just don't.  My personal assumption was that Science (tools to create) is
>_patentable_, while Art (the creations) are _copyrightable_. (this is wrong,
>but I overgeneralize on purpose.)  The main problem with this is that
>fractals take it upon themselves to straddle the line.  Should it be that we
>patent .frms and copyright .pars? Or is that just silly?

You can't patient a formula, e.g. E=mc^2, so no patient on a frm file. Your
par file, on the other hand, is a process for generating the image, so it
should be patented. Fractint, a product, could have been issued under
license.  The final image is copyrighted automatically.  But  its name
could be trade marked.

How is that for adding to the _chaos_.    ;-)

Jay

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:51:19 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: (fractint) Art? Contest?
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com

On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 Ron  wrote:

<formulas snipped>
> Kerry,
> Just an FYI. This is the Ikenaga function which was described several years
> ago in Dewdney's "The Armchair Universe." I have used the function
> extensively since 1993 (it's in REB001.FRM in the Compuserve graphdev forum)
> and is now in Fractint.frm. I do start the iteration at the critical point as
> shown in you formulae. There are some examples on my web site using the
> function.
> Ron
> 
DOH! I posted the original.  I thought I had come up with something 
completely original, random, and perhaps interesting.  Well...  2 out of 
3 ain't bad; however, when weighted the way I intended, the score is more 
like .0002 out of 3 <VBG>.

The problem here is that it's getting SO hard to come up with original formulas
(especially simple polynomial ones) because there are sooooooo many!  I 
don't want to discourage you all from using it in the contest, though.

(Devilish aside: Would claiming this formula is all mine violate 
Dewdney's copyright??????)

HHJJ.

Justin

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:23:49 EST
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Art? Contest?

In a message dated 97-11-06 16:28:40 EST, you write:

<< DOH! I posted the original.  I thought I had come up with something 
 completely original, random, and perhaps interesting.  Well...  2 out of 
 3 ain't bad; however, when weighted the way I intended, the score is more 
 like .0002 out of 3 <VBG>.
 
The problem here is that it's getting SO hard to come up with original
formulas  (especially simple polynomial ones) because there are sooooooo many!  I 
don't want to discourage you all from using it in the contest, though.
 
 (Devilish aside: Would claiming this formula is all mine violate 
 Dewdney's copyright??????)
  >>

Ouch! I get the dunce hat here! The formulae are different, and besides, I
feel formulae a tools that should be freely distributed, and are almost
certainly not copyrightable, etc. My only concern is to avoid duplication in
formula organizers like Orgform, and maybe a little history <g>. I just can't
seem to do algebra anymore. The only thing that is important is creating
beautiful images -- that is where the art lies.

Ron

-----------	*********------------

Subject: (fractint) Aboutt the (c) debate
To: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:58:22 -0500 (EST)

	Concerning the debate about copyrighting formulas...


	isn't our physical body only a generation of a pre-established
	formula (DNA)?

	when the time will come when we'll be able to 'play' with this
	DNA, won't our own DNA code become copyrighted?

	the musician who copyrights a song doesn't own the scales,
	nor the instrument sound, nor the notes.  He owns the
	complexification of simple bits.

	No one has the patent for Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen or
	Aluminium ;) but you can have the patent for a specific
	combination of them... ;)

		all thoughts... I could as well copyright this text,
though I don't own the language... ;)

Wayne 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:42:21 -0500
From: Jack Valero <jval@globalserve.net>
Subject: Re: artist's organization, revisited

Re Kerry Mitchell's ideas on reasons for a fractal guild:

>0.  Validation.  No, probably not.  An organization does not grant an
>individual validation or credibility; just look at Congress (rimshot!).
>Seriously, the organization should serve to support and encourage its
>members, not to impress the rest of the world.

Simple support & encouragment are probably adequately provided by the
fractal-art and fractint mail lists. As an obligate contrarian :) I
think impressing the rest of the world *is* the point. Only thus can
we introduce fractal art to those who do not even know it exists. This
would serve to bring "new blood" into the ranks and thereby foster
greater diversity, growth and artistic evolution. Only once
fractal art becomes legitimized will the really interesting things
happen. Yes- an organization cannot bestow validation/credibility
on its members. But it will mean that otherwise uninterested parties
may take that all important first look at the genre.

>1.  "What is art?"  This group could gather together and draft a
>definitive statement about why fractal images can be art.  I think this
>would be very useful as a FAQ answer for the mailing lists and newsgroups,
>also for those artists who chose to do gallery exhibits and art shows and
>have to deal with a skeptical public.

The general public is not the one to be convinced. You'd have to sway
the art gallery owners and critics as they :( are the ones who
determine what the general public will buy. This public will buy
what it damn well pleases when it comes to simply decorating
their homes. But ART is mostly bought as an investment or prestige
item and for that they look to the afore mentioned "experts".

I think we should forget about explaining why fractal images can be
art. This approach is too apologetic and pleading to get much notice.
It might be more effective to demonstrate how fractal art is no
different than the more established art forms. After all, if it looks
like a chicken and sounds like a chicken...

>2.  Copyright.  Another FAQ answer would deal with copyright.  Fractal
>artists own their works, just as other artists own their works.  There's
>probably enough material on this on the web already, but if not, the dues
>paid to the Guild might go to hiring an intellectual property attorney to
>write a clear, concise statement.  A short version could answer those
>recurring challenges that pop up.  The extended disco version, complete
>with 17 choruses of, "it's mine and besides the Berne Convention said so",
>would be good background for all of us to have.

A lawyer is probably not needed. All we need is a succinct explanation
with, perhaps, a few examples. A bibliography of books and web pages
could be provided. We need simply provide an overview with the usual
disclaimers. The biggest problem is everybody already seems to think
they know copyright law. Unfortunately, they usually only know what
they would *like* it to be.

>3.  Resource information.  Including math background, programming issues,
>coloring techniques, printing information, service bureaus, etc.  Some
>organization should be archiving this stuff.

Agreed. Wouldn't it be nice to have one source for everything <sigh>?

>4.  Self-promotion.  Let's do a book!  Or, con (er, entice) a gallery to
>do a show of our works.  Or our own juried show.  Or, continually letting
>others know about opportunities and openings.  Or, let's do a book!

I *really* like the idea of a book but doubt the feasibility unless
the guild self publishes it. High quality colour printing is
*expensive* and you'd have a tough time convincing a publisher to
produce it. The publisher's primary goal is to make money, not publish
books. As the costs would be the same, the publisher would find it
more profitable to sell expensive colour books about society's current
spoiled brat than a tiny niche topic such as fractal art.

For those seriously interested in marketing and publicly showing
their work, it might be worth self publishing a book as a group.
This book would contain several works by each artist, artist's
statement, bio, etc. They could try to sell them but the greatest
benefit to having such a book would be as a tool to get into
galleries, etc. The credibility  gained by being published is
truly amazing and incomprehensible. But I have no qualms about
using others' foibles for my benefit.

A CDROM would have a much greater chance of success but its market
is much much smaller than a book's. This is why I once suggested
a "super" fractal collective web site as a possibility. It wouldn't
make any money but is probably the cheapest, fastest and easiest way
to reach the largest audience. But the response I received would
have been less than zero if mathematically possible.
I think that was shortsighted but... (no- i'm *not* crazy- it's
the rest of the world i tell ya...)

A juried show could be useful but only if attended by the public.
Galleries or shows aimed at the fractal artist would simply be
preaching to the converted and would likely be reduced to
a mutual admiration society.

Re promotion, I hope to add a "But is it Art?" section to my
web pages using others' work as examples of the art form. I'll
write and include a brief article using the approach I mentioned.
But who looks at our pages anyhow? Only, I suspect, people already
interested in fractal art. I've got to discover how to attract the
people with a general interest in art but who are unaware of the
fractal variety.

>5.  All those other good reasons that I didn't mention (like fun!).

Fun is a very good reason but not one for which I'd pay dues.
A self serving sort, I'd want to know what the guild would do for
me or my interests before I'd part with money or a great deal of
personal effort. But having said that, I'd be very willing to
actively participate if I thought it might produce actual results
as opposed to being a mere "club" (nothing wrong with clubs- I'm just
not a clubby type).
Regards - Jack

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: fractal expert for script 
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:39:58 -0800

I think that "Alice in Fractaland" was the title of Alice Kelley's
homepage months ago.  So she may have copyright over that name.

Linda

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: fractal expert for script 
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:59:12 -0500

Hi,

Linda wrote:
>>I think that "Alice in Fractaland" was the title of Alice Kelley's
>>homepage months ago.  So she may have copyright over that name.

Unlike content, you cannot copyright titles.

Sharon

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:18:58 -0800
To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: fractal expert for script

> and if I used it now I would be the thief. :( --Alice not in
>Fractaland

I don't think so, titles are not copyrighted. You see duplicates all the
time.  If a title is very long and unique, that may be different.  It might
be
traded marked or registered, however. Since Carol was the originator
of the Alice stories, it would be him you'd tangle with.   A trade mark
holder can defend close look alikes if he chooses to.  Even then only
if it is applied to a product close to his.  Apple computer was
attacked for using 'Apple' (the Beatles TM) only when they put
music capability in their computer.  I'm not sure what the status
of that one is now.

My $.01 worth.  My wife had to look into this stuff when her book title
and cover  TM symbols were in for registration.  Amazingly there
was a near look alike in Texas.  She wrote to them and they did not
contest her.

Jay

-----------	*********------------

Subject: copyright for par files?
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:18:40 -0800 (PST)

	What is the opinion on the copyrights of fractals, or of
their formulas?  Are the images copyright only if the formula is
not known (otherwise, anyone can generate it)?  Ie, if I take
someone's formula and make posters, or someone takes my image and
puts it on a web site..   I'm not asking for legal opinions (legally,
this has not been settled, I assume), I'm asking for the opinion
of the "fractal guild".

Jonathan

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: copyright for par files?
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:21:27 -0800

This has been discussed to the nth.  In a nutshell, if you take someone
elses image and make posters, or use it in anyway without their
permission, you have infringed on their copyright.

If you use someone's formula, but enter your own parameters, colormap,
magnification, etc., that's probably ok.

If you want more info, you might get the archive files from this mailing
list of the Fractint mailing list and review the lengthy discussions
there.

Linda 

-----------	*********------------

To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: copyright for par files? 
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:53:24 -0700

In article <8825654F.006675E5.00@NOTESGW.NOSC.MIL> ,
    Jay  writes:
> only URL not found.  I did find the fractint archive site and went up
> the directory where there are many other lists archived.. I did not
> see this one there. Would someone please post the current archive
> site address.  Thanks.

<URL: http://www.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractint/archive/>

The raw messages are archived as the huge text files (one per month),
and the vNNN.MMM files are the archives of the digest (volume NNN,
issue MMM) version of the list.  I think the copyright thread is in
the messages with the subject of "printing" (don't ask me why, I
didn't start that thread :)

Rich

-----------	*********------------

To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: copyright for par files? 
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:41:40 -0700

In article <8825654F.006B1F0B.00@NOTESGW.NOSC.MIL> ,
    Jay  writes:
> There is so much cross posting between fractart and fractint lists that it
> is not surprising to be confused but Rich, if you know the URL for the
> FractalArt list, that is the one I can't find.  I already found the
> Fractint one with all the others up the directory tree.

Ah, well it helps if you're specific in your request :)

<URL: ftp://ftp.aros.net/pub/users/noring/fractal-art/>

Rich

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:07:52 -0800
To: fractint@xmission.com
Subject: (fractint) Contest Grading

What are we being graded on???  I assumed it was the best "set" of
fractals....not individual images.  Oh well.....I therefore tried to submit
a range of images which showed a mastery of the techinique in general.  

I read some of the discussion about "fractals" not being art.  Yes...the
raw images out of Fractint are not likely to be categorized as art. I
submit to whoever stated that fractals are not art cause they are based on
math... that Shakespere is not literature cause he used the alphabet.
Silly discussion....if people like it...it's probably art. The comments on
copyrights were really good.  Personally I think fractal "art" can be
copyrighted.  I also note that some of the stuff I developed can look very
similar to what I know to be original art by another fractaler.  I was
looking at Linda Allison's essays in the barnsley set....they are
remarkably similar to what I did some time ago.  Knowing Linda.....I know
darn well her stuff is original and was developed as she examined the
Fractint barnsely sets.  Bottom line....where fractals are
concerned....copyrights are appropriate but iffy when it comes to
enforcement since we could all arrive at nearly the same image.  The real
question is.....do we all have the patience??  I might go after Mr.
NetJoeBlow if he was marketing my stuff....but would not worry if a
Fractint buff came up with images very similar to mine.  I NEVER copied
when I was starting with Fractint.....but I did use many of the wonderful
.par files as a starting point for learning and my own stuff.  I also used
Linda Allison's great color maps when I started.  Now I have my own. 

Part of the fun of Fractint is sharing.  I say go for it!!!! If anyone
likes my images...they are welcome to them at

http://wizzle.simplenet.com/fractals/fractalintro.htm

Happy fractaling

Angela 

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:22:58 -0800
Subject: Re: (fractint) The MAN(delbrot) in a bronze mask...

>Carr3357           { ; The Man(delbrot) in a bronze mask.
>                     ; This image is copyright protected !

The copyright is in danger!  You must include your name and date!

Scary picture!

Jay

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:16:48 -0800
To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) The MAN(delbrot) in a bronze mask...

Actually....

There is no need to assert a copyright at all to have a copyright.....one
just does, if the work is original and is one of the thingys which can be
copyrighted. Note that a math formula can NOT be copyrighted....so assert
away....it doesn't help.  Works of art....books, pictures, etc. are
copyright-able.  Recently, an algorithm sufficiently complex to be called a
program appears to be copyright-able. But there are oodles of grey zones in
the intellectual properties arena.....which is why lawyers who specialize
in this area are so very well paid and have job security.

Anyway....a copyright has been cleverly characterized as "the right to
sue." So, unless one is willing to sue and can show that they have been
harmed, asserting a copyright is a waste of time.  

I do think that trying to collect for infringement of a copyrighted fractal
would keep the lawyers arguing for ages since the fractal is, on one
hand....the product of a mathematical formula and an algorithm which is
most likely in the public domain. However, a Good fractal does not appear
to be the product of math alone......hence the great Fractint contest of
1997.  

When is the next contest, btw?? That was great fun.

Angela .....I manage contracts for a major corporation and we do a lot of
thinking about intellectual properties...but I am not a lawyer  

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractint@lists.xmission.com>
Cc: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re copyright and FotN
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:31:51 -0800

Hi wizzle,

> From: Wizzle
> To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
> Subject: Re: (fractint) The MAN(delbrot) in a bronze mask...
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 9:16 PM
> 
> Actually....
> 
> There is no need to assert a copyright at all to have a copyright.....one
> just does, if the work is original and is one of the thingys which can be

Well, we should not do this all over again, I just might note that my 
wife is a publisher, with about a dozen books now.  There is a specific 
way you should note your copyright, it is

(c) name, date.

A copy right is good for 70 years, so you need to date it. And if you 
don't state your name, how can anyone ask permission for copying? 
You could not defend an no-name posting.

How about that, Fractal of the Night (and Fractal of the Day) were 
mentioned by PC World, way cool!  Paul Lee posted a notice that 
the Fractal-Art list got a review in their Tip of the Day, itself 
another list sponsored by PC World.

One more thing. You may be following Dr. J's crazy adventures over in 
Fractal-Art, (the parent of Fractint list). While Dr. J may have all the 
time in fractal space to explore, I am finding less time to follow him 
lately. Back here in the real world, I am a real rocket scientist. You 
may have noticed some of my posts hail from nosc.mil, when I'm 
taking a quick brake, of course. Well, that is the Navy lab here in 
San Diego where I work as a contractor. During the month of March, 
I am testing our product for delivery and will be working graveyard shift, 
10 hours a day 7 days a week. So, likely, I'll see you only fractaly in 
the duration. 

It has been pretty tough getting the posting out the last few nights. 
We had a power outage one night (in a storm) and my long hours have 
already begun. My computer sits on a board with ends resting on two 
other tables. The other night, one edge dropped off, sending the 
computer face down on the carpet and the monitor into my lap. 
External ZIP drive, key board, speakers, mouse and Internet 
connection box flying.  Without crashing Win95,  I closed everything 
down and shut it off, then put it all back!  Lucky this time.

Anyway, Jim Muth deserves a big hand for his FotD for about a year 
now.  It has been a real challenge keeping pace with him. I have 
learned a lot working with Dr. J and it has been fun.  

Stay dry, warm and healthy,
Jay

-----------	*********------------

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:41:35 -0800
To: Fractint@xmission.com
Subject: (fractint) Colormaps Received and Evaluated

<snipped non-relevant info>

Tim reminded me to remind you that any map submitted will flounder into the
public domain.....so don't submit anything you think you could copyright. I
suspect that after the upcoming nomenclature debate is done....the maps
will lose any sense of identity. I too like maps I can identify easily.
Won't it be nice when we have long filenames some day? <<hint hint to the
programming division>>.

Angela

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: matted and framed prints
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:07:52 -0500

Alice wrote:
>Sharon, do you sign the front of the print in the white area? What's a
>Digimark? And one last question, I take it the quality of a laminated
>print is not the same as a glossy print?

I sign directly on the picture...down in one corner.

Digimark is a plug-in that is included with several graphics programs, such
as Corel's Photo Paint 7, and Micrografx' Picture Publisher 7---to name two
prgs. I have.  Digimark is a digital watermark, an invisible mark that adds
your unique registered number to any image.  The idea is to help defend
copyright of your image.  This water mark can survive quite a lot of digital
monkeying, such as file type changes, and still show up.  It can be used to
mark files meant for print as well as files displayed on the internet.
Digimark used to charge for everything, but now you can register free and
get your unique number.  If you want to get more of their services, such as
hooking your number into their database so that people can get your address
and purchase info, then the service runs about $20/month.  Here is their
URL:

                                http://www.digimarc.com/

I haven't sold any laminated prints...nor plan to.  I had a few laminated
for my own use.  The glossy prints are printed directly on glossy film and
are not laminated.


Sharon

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:51:53 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images
To: Fractint@xmission.com

Paul,

In my opinion, you have a valid case for copyright infringment.  There's
nothing gray about copyrighting fractal images.  The final needlework
piece is a separate, individually-copyrightable work, but it's existance
depends on your original work.  To me, that is clear.

However, the next question is what to do now.  I think that I would see if
this person is worth dealing with.  If so, I would push for a business
relationship wherein you either sell them a flat license or get royalties
for the use of the image.  Or, take it directly to the needlework company
and identify yourself as the copyright holder of the image, and deal with
them.  In any case, you deserve to be compensated for the use of your
image, should you desire compensation.  At the very least, you deserve to
have your wishes respected as to how the image is used.

Push for compensation or demand that they stop using your work.
Kerry

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:53:22 -0600
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images

Paul,

My gut feeling would be that converting any of your fractal images to
needlework would be a derivative work (protected by your copyright), and
that if you don't want it done, it shouldn't be done.

Personally, I would be flattered if someone wanted to do this, but I'd also
insist on a share of the money if there's to be any.  While it is true that
the needlework pattern would not be created if not for the person doing the
conversion, it's also true that the pattern would not be created if not for
the original artist.  Thus it seems only sensible to require a share of
profits.

But hey, what do I know--I haven't made a dime off my fractal art, and
precious little off my fractal programming.

Damien 

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:09:32 -0500

Paul,

You must, I think, protect your copyright here.  For the sake of all of us.
Are you aware that there can be big money...very big money indeed...to befrom the sale of such hobby kits as needleworking?  If the money is to
be made, it should be made by the creator of the original image.

There is nothing to prevent you from going to the needle-work/craft
manufacturers and hawking your own wares.  You would not be considered
simply the "copyright" owner, but the designer.

BTW, if you want to pursue this, you don't need any special expertise to do
it.  There are several computer programs that automatically do this type of
conversion...even down to printing out a sheet telling how many strands of
Coats and Clarke's blue # 12 you need to made the thing.   This, I suspect,
is what the lady is doing.  Don't let her steal this from you.

Sharon

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:05:23 -0500
To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images

At 05:41 PM 3/26/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>Greetings,
(>I received an email today that stated the following:

            (Snippage in here)
Recently, I have had some nibbles from two different needlework companies
interested in buying my designs for sale as kits and/or pattern leaflets in
the public domain.

At a minimum, I feel obligated to give credit to the creator of the
original image source and, at worst, realize you may wish to prohibit me
from proceeding
altogether. Please let me know how you feel about my use of your images to
create products for sale.  I realize the copywriting of fractal images is a
grey area.<<

I do not think there is any grey area in here at all. We have covered this
before; personally, for personal usage I would have no objection, but as I
learned from reading up on the copyright laws, even that can be considered
an infringement. _For sale_ is an entirely different matter. Consider the
reaction  of, say, the Walt Disney company if someone were to start
needleworking images of Mickey and selling them...Or likewise, the Boy
Scouts, or Coca Cola, and so on...but this should be enough said.

Run, do not walk, to that needlework company, and advise them of your
ownership. And advise the person that this would be better settled with a
three way written contract (if there is such a thing) between you, the
needlework company, and her/him.

-----------	*********------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:08:01 -0800
To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images

I fully agree with all of Kerry's points. A copyright is good for
prohibiting any sort of use of the image, no matter what the format the
image is converted to (movies, needlework, painting, etc.). A royalty from
the needlework company would seem the most workable arrangement.
Establishing the date of your copyright is easy and can be based on the
file date of the image.

Angela

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Subject: (fractint) Copyright?
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:41:34 -0700

        Quoting from the introduction to Fractint, (Fractint Homepage):
        "Fractint may be freely copied and distributed in unmodified form
but may not be sold.  (A nominal distribution fee may be charged for media
and handling by freeware and shareware distributors.)  Fractint may be used
personally or *or in a business* - if you can do your job better by using
Fractint, or *using images from it*, that's great!  It may not be given away
with commercial products without explicit permission from the Stone Soup Group."
        Asterisks mine.  Does this have a bearing on the subject?
                                        Ray

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:55:55 EST
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images

Paul,

I have to agree with everyone else that in no way is someone allowed to use
your images without your permission.  I do not agree with the person that sent
you the message that copyright of Fractals is a gray area.  I think there have
been cases in which legal decisions have been made supporting copyright of
fractal images.  I seem to remember someting to that regard posted here in the
past.  Can anyone add anything about what court decisions have been made
regarding fractal copyright?

Julian

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright?
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:51:08 -0800

Hi, Ray!  You asked:

>         Quoting from the introduction to Fractint, (Fractint Homepage):
(snipped copyright info)
>Does this have a bearing on the subject?

Not really.  You've missed out on the Great Copyright Debates on both the
Fractint mailing list and the Fractal-Art mailing list.  The bottom line is
that an image is copyrighted at the time of creation, regardless of whether
the artist does or does not register the image as copyrighted.  All rights
to use of the image are held by the creator of the image.

The Stone Soup Group has very generously made Fractint available as
freeware, for which we are all grateful.  (Deep bow to Tim, here.)  But
that doesn't have any impact on whether the artist does or does not freely
grant rights to his or her images that are generated in Fractint (or any
other freeware program).

You can probably get copies of the original debates from the archives of
either mailing list if you want to wade through them.

Linda

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractint@lists.xmission.com>, <>, fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:54:53 -0800

I agree with everyone else, Paul.  This is not a gray area.  Some of Jody
Bergsma's watercolor's (she's a local artist) have been published as
needlework kits, as have the works of a number of other artists.  David's
comment regarding Disney images is right on target.  The creator of the
image has all rights to any use of the
image.  In the above cases, you'd better believe the artist is compensated!

I do needlework, and Sharon is correct.  It is a VERY lucrative business! 
It's not unusal for a pattern to cost $10 or a kit to cost $75 or more. 
And hundreds of thousands of them are sold!

For the sake of every fractal artist who aspires to sell their work, please
step forward and tell this person that she can't proceed without your
approval.  And without reasonable compensation as well as proper credit.

Linda

-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 03:23:08 -0500 (EST)
To: <fractint@lists.xmission.com>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images

If they were willing to share royalties...great... if not... I would not
mind if they did credit me as the source. :-)

PaulD

-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:50:20 -0600
To: <fractint@lists.xmission.com>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images

davides wrote:

> Run, do not walk, to that needlework company, and advise them of your
> ownership.

Be careful here.  The copyright is clearly yours, but remember that the needle
pointer is both a fractal enthusiast, and consciences enough to ask Paul for
permission.  They even closed with:
> "I feel I must defer to you as the 'owner' and accept your wishes in this
matter."

IOW, try not to offend or discourage someone who seems to be doing something
creative and original with fractals.

 Andrew 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:08:12 -0700 (MST)
To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images

> >Push for compensation or demand that they stop using your work.
> 
> Hold on a minute, what about the Fractint authors?  Surely they deserve 
> something too?

[snippage]

> --
> Ed 

Strictly speaking, they don't deserve anything *in the context of this
thread*.  (In general, they of course deserve our thanks, praise, and
spare change!)  Images that are produced with a tool are the property of
the artist, not the toolmaker.  Just like Adobe can't claim copyright on
anything done with Photoshop, or Grumbacher can't claim copyright on
anything painted with one of their brushes.  Tim et al have repeated made
clear the difference between Fractint, which is copyrighted by the Stone
Soupers, and the images produced using Fractint, which are owned by the
individual artists.  Otherwise, Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa would own all
photography, Microsoft would own all poetry written using Word, etc.

Kerry Mitchell

-----------	*********------------

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:13:39 -0500
To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: (fractint) Use of Fractal Images

At 08:50 AM 3/27/98 -0600, you wrote:

[Run, do not walk, to that needlework company, and advise them of your
ownership.]

{{Be careful here.  The copyright is clearly yours, but remember that the
needle pointer is both a fractal enthusiast, and consciences enough to ask
Paul for permission.  They even closed with:
"I feel I must defer to you as the 'owner' and accept your wishes in this
matter."
IOW, try not to offend or discourage someone who seems to be doing something
creative and original with fractals.}}

I have to disagree; you may want to re-read what I wrote.
I have no objection to _personal_ usage of my fractals (Others feel
differently). However, when it comes to selling them, that is an entirely
different matter and enters a completely new area. Re-read the following
portions of my previous post:

"... We have covered this before; personally, for personal usage I would
have no objection, but as I learned from reading up on the copyright laws,
even that can be considered an infringement. _For sale_ is an entirely
different matter. Consider the reaction  of, say, the Walt Disney company
if someone were to start needleworking images of Mickey and selling
them...Or likewise, the Boy
Scouts, or Coca Cola, and so on...but this should be enough said."

"... And advise the person that this would be better settled with a
three way written contract (if there is such a thing) between you, the
needlework company, and her/him."

IOW, when an individual begins selling patterns of someone elses' original
art work, regardless of being an enthusiast, it has become a business
arrangement. 
If someone wants to do something creative and original with one of my
tinkerings, such as making personalized stationery for private/personal
use, fine. If that someone wants to sell it, I want a piece of the profits.
And if a company decides to start selling one of my tinkerings, that
company is going to pay me. (Now ask me if I expect that to happen...  :) )
With the real artists out there, this may become a good portion of their
possible income...

and re: another post:
>[about selling fractal-based needlework products]

{{Hold on a minute, what about the Fractint authors?  Surely they deserve 
something too?}}

No. To quote from the docs:  "Fractint is freeware. The copyright is
retained by the Stone Soup Group." The program has/is being given away
free; the copyright belongs to the program itself, not what is created with
it. Consider a well known photographer, such as the late Ansel Adams (Name
correct?) Would Kodak be expected to be given a portion of the proceeds
from his extraordinary photographic artwork? 

Besides, another quote from the docs: "Contribution policy: Don't want
money. Got money. Want admiration." (p.9)

-----------	*********------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:04:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images

Paul..this is YOUR stuff man!....if the guy that thinks that fractal images
ownership is a "grey" area...suuuuuure..it is,... about as grey as the ownership
of the CASH he gets for it... It's Your image.!.You da Artist!..."Bonk that sucker
on da head"...send 'em an xploding fractal!!    ahem,...um..sorry bout that
outburst
                                            sincerely  Eddie

JulianPA wrote:
> I have to agree with everyone else that in no way is someone allowed to use
> your images without your permission.  I do not agree with the person that sent
> you the message that copyright of Fractals is a gray area.  I think there have
> been cases in which legal decisions have been made supporting copyright of
> fractal images.  I seem to remember someting to that regard posted here in the
> past.  Can anyone add anything about what court decisions have been made
> regarding fractal copyright?
>

-----------	*********------------

To: fractint@lists.xmission.com
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:54:52 -0600
Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright?

Ray wrote: 
>         Quoting from the introduction to Fractint, (Fractint Homepage):
(Fractint legalese deleted)
>         Asterisks mine.  Does this have a bearing on the subject?
>                                         Ray

This has no bearing on the subject. That Fractint language just says, 
we, the Stone Soup folks, claim a copyright on Fractint itself but 
don't claim copyright for any new images you might create WITH 
fractint.

The fractint program's legal language certainly does not mean that 
fractal images made with fractint are not copyrightable. Most fractal 
images are copyrightable by the artists.

Tim

-----------	*********------------

Subject: Re: (fractint) Copyright? 
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:02:39 -0700

In article <199803272355.RAA05968@virtual4.c-com.net> ,
    Tim writes:
> Most fractal images are copyrightable by the artists.

I've said it before so many times I'm sounding like a broken record.

The most recent revision of the copyright law says that EVERYTHING
ANYONE makes is instantly copyrighted the moment they make it,
including this mail message :).  It used to be that you had to
specifically claim copyright in order to obtain the benefits of
copyright.  Now everything is copyrighted the moment you create it.

Rich

-----------	*********------------

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:35:50 -0500 (EST)
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images

What if two people come up with similiar or identical fractals.  More
realistically if one person exposes the formula used to produc the image
and another takes it and slightly mutates it generating "their own" 
fractal is that a copyright infringement?  Consider that software
designers (who aren't netscape) generally try to keep people from getting
at the code.  There is really no way to blame someone for changing the
code to fit their preferences.  If it differs from the original only
visually there's probably no way to catch them either (assume no
additional evidence).  By the same token fractals that differ slightly
from the "stolen" formula can be considered somewhere between "inspired"
and stolen. 

Robert

-----------	*********------------

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:09:51 EST
To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images

In a message dated 98-03-28 00:38:25 EST, ROBERT writes:

>What if two people come up with similiar or identical fractals.  

I think the question is copyright of IMAGES not FRACTALS.  If two people come
up with 2 images of any kind that can be alleged to be the same, there should
be a copyright issue.  If someone copyrights an image, no matter how it was
drawn, painted or otherwise rendered there is some legal basis for protecting
that image.  It is then up to a court, and one cannot predict exactly how a
court may rule on such matters.  I remember at least one posting to this group
about a fractal(s)  being successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement. 

>More
>realistically if one person exposes the formula used to produc the image
>and another takes it and slightly mutates it generating "their own" 
>fractal is that a copyright infringement?  

I believe the court ruling on the case that was previously disused on this
list said that formulas, could NOT be copyrighted, but fractal images could.
Color maps was not definitively decided. 

>Consider that software
>designers (who aren't netscape) generally try to keep people from getting
>at the code.  There is really no way to blame someone for changing the
>code to fit their preferences.  If it differs from the original only
>visually there's probably no way to catch them either (assume no
>additional evidence).  By the same token fractals that differ slightly
>from the "stolen" formula can be considered somewhere between "inspired"
>and stolen. 

If someone could prove that the second image was only a little bit different
from the original, then there is still a case for copyright infringement.  For
example, George Harrison of the Beattles was found in violation of copyright
for his song "My Sweet Lord", which was said to be a clone of the doo-wap
classic "He's So Fine".  In the opinion of many this was stretching it to say
the least.  How courts would react to fractal copyright, is harder to say.  It
is a harder line to draw with ABSTRACT art of any kind.  But on the basis of
George's ruling, two pieces of work do not have to be IDENTICAL for there to
be a copyright case.  

I have one image I like a lot that started out as another person's.  I merely
re-zoomed it, leaving all the parameters and color map in place, rotated the
color map slightly, anti-aliased it and then added some post fractint editing
and cropping to it.  It had a much different look when I was finished with it,
but since I left so much the original artist's signature in it, I felt I could
not claim it as my own.  I eventually decided I wanted to post the image on my
web page, but I first contacted the original artist and asked his permission
to show this work.  I credited him for the original on my page.  Recently I
was asked permission from a third party to use this image, and again, I asked
permission of the original artist and requested that both of our names be
listed as co-creators. 

All of this is rarely worth pursuing legally, unless there is money to be
made.  Lawyers are expensive.  In Paul's case, there was at least the
potential of money being made by someone else using his fractal.

Julian

-----------	*********------------

To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 18:47:49 -0800

Robert wrote: 

>>>What if two people come up with similiar or identical fractals.  More
realistically if one person exposes the formula used to produc the image
and another takes it and slightly mutates it generating "their own" 
fractal is that a copyright infringement?  Consider that software
designers (who aren't netscape) generally try to keep people from getting
at the code.  There is really no way to blame someone for changing the
code to fit their preferences.  If it differs from the original only
visually there's probably no way to catch them either (assume no
additional evidence).  By the same token fractals that differ slightly
from the "stolen" formula can be considered somewhere between "inspired"
and stolen.<<

I don't think I'd want to try and push the envelope when it comes to
copyright infringement.  Take a book - any book.  Delete the 1st chapter
and the last chapter.  In there places, put some of your own anecdotal
verbiage.  Publish it (if you can find a publisher that will).  Wait for
the lawsuit.  I doubt you'd have to wait long, and I doubt the argument
that the original book and yours aren't the same would win.

With a couple of specific formulas, it's possible that two people could
enter the same parameters (all 1s?) and in the absence of any zooming or
skewing, end up with the same fractal.  I don't know what a fact finding
result would be.  But personally, I wouldn't try to engineer that situation
to find out.

Linda

-----------	*********------------

From: PIMorris
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Subject: RE: Use of Fractal Images
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:38:08 +0100

HI,

Is Infinity too small to share?
What copyright can anybody have on such an entity?
Could you copyright the unique pattern of veins in a leaf?
Or the spots of a jaguar?
Or the stripes of a Zebra?
Or your own fingerprint?

Why doesn't somebody think about copyrighting something that is a true
product of human imagination? How about an 'all-in-one' shareware
product that builds the needlework template straight off from the
fractal source?

Here's another question: If I generate exactly the same image as one
that Sharon Webb has generated and sold, am I infringing her copyright?
and when..... when I generate it and it's on the screen, when I save it
to disk, when I print it, or only if I sell the print?

Who's got the copyright for pictures taken of famous landmarks... e.g.
The statue of liberty.
If you take a picture and then sell it, are you infringeing the
copyright?

Seriously, I would have thought that a true, freshly generated fractal
image was un-claimable for copyright. One that image has been
'transformed' into a needlework template, it is the product of
somebody's work, by their process, and is therefore copyrightable.

I have no real basis for these comments except personal opinion, but I'm
sure there's plenty of legislation that could be readily applied should
somebody wish to protect their interests... even if they are based upon
naturally occuring phenomenon.

Thanks to anyone who bothered to listen to my waffling!

-----------	*********------------

From: Sharon 
To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: RE: Use of Fractal Images
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:51:06 -0500

PLMorris wrote:
>>Here's another question: If I generate exactly the same image as one
that Sharon Webb has generated and sold, am I infringing her copyright?
and when..... when I generate it and it's on the screen, when I save it
to disk, when I print it, or only if I sell the print?>>

Yes, you are infringing.  There was a time that I did not add a copyright
notice to my fractals.  At that time I posted the params---which all came
from my own formulae.  I have stopped posting params, and now all my
fractals carry copyright notices.  Why?  Because I am selling these fractals
along with the 3D pictures that I call Fractalscapes.

Now, let me ask you a question.  If I create a formula, zoom for hours or
days through it, carefully choose, compose and color an image culled from
perhaps a hundred, and then do post-processing work on it, why do you think
that you or anyone else should be entitled to sell it?

Just because the desert and  the ocean are natural phenomena doesn't give
you or anyone else the right to rip off somebody's photograph of it.
Fractals, in my opinion, fall into this category.  Because of my work with
fractals, which led to other areas of graphic art, I have been offered
professional contract work in computer graphics.  If you choose to give your
fractals away, that's your business.  But don't steal mine...'cause they're
my business.  :-)

Sharon

-----------	*********------------

From: PIMorris
To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: RE: Use of Fractal Images
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:55:43 +0100

Hello again,

Of course, sharon, you are right.

You are more than entitled to copyright and sell whatever you have spent
your time and effort to produce. This is what the issue is all about.

But, how about, if totally unbeknownst to each other, you and I were to
both spend hours, or days zooming through and picking, processing and
colouring a particular image, only to find that against infinite odds we
have produced an almost identical product?

Your params may be quite different from mine, yet the image quite
similar, as is the nature of fractal images.

I daresay I could answer my own question. i.e. It's the first one to get
there as it is with many other types of innovation.

The point is being avoided, what I was trying to get at is that the
infinite nature of a fractal image ridicules the idea of possession of a
certain 'view' upon it.

But as you quite accurately say, it is not the image itself, more the
artistry, effort and skill required to produce that image to a
high-marchantable quality.

As with photography. In my previous post I mentioned taking pictures of
the statue of liberty. Now If I am standing side to side with a
proffesional photographer, and I take a quick snap with a disposable
camera, who has the copyright on that picture.

The pro, just 'cos he is a pro and his work is of better quality, or me
'cos my shutter opened a second before his?

I don't dispute the quality of your work. By the sound of your process
you have thought long and hard about how to bring these images to a
saleable standard, almost or actually to the point where they are a work
of art.
What I am trying to point out is that copyright has very little to do
with the issue, only the quality of what is being sold, and if your
quality is higher then no-body can take that away from you, only try to
better it.

As it is, I'm waiting until I visit 'Uni so I can use their Internet to
get a look at your stuff, and I'd be interested myself in purchasing
high-quality fractal images. 
I've had large posters in my time, but the images are always so
run-of-the-mill and usually poorly coloured.

To to make the point clear, I've no intention of stealing anybody's
intellectual property, and I would love to have the time to persue such
interests more avidly, alas no such luck.

Cheers!

-----------	*********------------

From: Sharon
To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:32:08 -0500

PL Morris,

>>As with photography. In my previous post I mentioned taking pictures of
the statue of liberty. Now If I am standing side to side with a
proffesional photographer, and I take a quick snap with a disposable
camera, who has the copyright on that picture.>>

You own the copyright to your picture, and the pro owns the copyright to
his.  And you can both offer your respective pictures to Reuters.  But whose
do you think they will buy?  :-)

Sharon

-----------	*********------------

From: Mike and Linda
To: <fractint@xmission.com> and <fractal-arts@aros.net>
Subject: copyright - let's stop the ongoing debate!
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:48:05 -0800

The copyright issues have been beaten to a pulp on both mailing lists.  To
quote Agatha Christie (with no intent to infringe on her copyrights :))) ),
there is nothing new under the sun.  And it is STILL under debate in the
fractal-arts mailing list.

I've culled all the copyright related messages I could find from messages
I've saved, and put them all together in order, more or less (288K so far). I
sent a copy to the last person who posted a copyright question on the
Fractal-Arts List, in hopes of answering his questions on the issue.  I'll
be sending copies to anyone else who asks or answers theoretical copyright
discussion questions on either list, and also to anyone who writes and asks
for a copy.  I really hope that everyone's new questions will be answered
by everyone's old answers, and we can stop debating this question!

Linda

-----------	*********------------

From: Linda
To: <fractal-art@aros.net> and <fractint@xmission.com>
Subject: Use of Fractal Images - copyright
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:45:16 -0800

The copyright issues have been beaten to a pulp on both mailing lists.  To
quote Agatha Christie (with no intent to infringe on her copyrights :))) ),
there is nothing new under the sun.

I've culled all the copyright related messages I could find from messages
I've saved, and put them all together in order, more or less (288K so far).
 I
sent a copy to PIMorris, in hopes of answering his questions on the issue. 
I'll be sending copies to anyone else who asks or answers  theoretical
copyright discussion questions, and also to anyone who writes and asks for
a copy.  I really
hope that everyone's new questions will be answered by everyone's old
answers, and we can stop debating this question!

Linda

-----------	*********------------

From: Bill
To: fractal-art@aros.net
Message-ID: <852565D7.0063AF62.00@csc.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:25:34 -0400

With all the talk about how sci.fractals is becoming a wasteland for the
infantile and Linda's good points below, perhaps there should be an
effort to put together a FAQ for the two lists. (I'm not sure if mailing
lists traditionally have FAQs or not, but since these lists are now
filling the need caused by the trashing of sci.fractals ...)

Of course copyright is only one of the topics that newbies could come up
to speed on quickly if there were such FAQ. (The message footer added by
the fractal-art and fractint majordomos could also point to where it
could be found.)

Sounds like Linda has a good start on the copyright topic, even an
unculled pile of messages is better that hearing the same questions
time after time.

Bill 

-----------	*********------------

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:42:02 -0500
To: fractal-art@aros.net
From: Jack 
Subject: RE: Use of Fractal Images

At 01:38 PM 30/03/98 +0100, PIMorris wrote:
>HI,
>
>Is Infinity too small to share?
No it's not. But what has this to do with someone wanting to keep
their interpretation of a small part of it?

>What copyright can anybody have on such an entity?
The one that our laws allow them.

>Could you copyright the unique pattern of veins in a leaf?
>Or the spots of a jaguar?
>Or the stripes of a Zebra?
>Or your own fingerprint?
People in labs are rearranging naturally occuring genetic
patterns into their own compositions and using this to create
their interpretations in organic and living form. The result
is that we now have varieties of mice and bacteria that are
copyrighted. So, depending on the circumstances the answer
may be yes.

>Why doesn't somebody think about copyrighting something that is a true
>product of human imagination?
People do every day. That is what copyright is about. The natural
source of inspiration is irrelevant. It is what you personally do with
that inspiration that counts.

A mind can only function in the presence of data. This data can
only originate outside the mind and inevitably must be natural
in ultimate origin. Of course, the interpretation of this data will
be skewed by personal proclivities and quirks- things which make
up what we call the individual. Data is nothing but noise. It doesn't
become information until order is imposed upon it. It is this order,
which will vary from person to person, that may sometimes lead
to copyrightable (is there such a word?) work. If this premise is
correct there is nothing legally, philosophically or morally wrong with
Sharon or others wanting to protect their efforts by copyright.

>How about an 'all-in-one' shareware
>product that builds the needlework template straight off from the
>fractal source?
Shareware is commercial and copyrighted although the program you
suggest manipulates "naturally" occurring forms. Doesn't this speculation
contradict your stance?

>Here's another question: If I generate exactly the same image as one
>that Sharon Webb has generated and sold, am I infringing her copyright?
Yes. Personal originality in the implementation is not the only
requirement of copyright. The copyright holder must also be the *first*
to copyright a thing. Once the copyright is granted *no-one* else may
have that right until the copyright runs out or the holder grants it
to others.

>and when..... when I generate it and it's on the screen, when I save it
>to disk, when I print it, or only if I sell the print?
You have contravened the copyright in all cases if the copyright holder
has not specifically given you permission to do so. The fact that
you are unlikely to be caught (ie when drawing on the screen) does not
alter the legality of the action.

>Who's got the copyright for pictures taken of famous landmarks... e.g.
>The statue of liberty.
In most cases, nobody. Instead photographers have rights to their
own photographic interpretations.

>If you take a picture and then sell it, are you infringeing the
>copyright?
However, in some cases one may own a copyright to the overall likeness
of a thing. Try to market your interpretation of a Star Wars character
and you will quickly see what I mean.

>Seriously, I would have thought that a true, freshly generated fractal
>image was un-claimable for copyright. One that image has been
>'transformed' into a needlework template, it is the product of
>somebody's work, by their process, and is therefore copyrightable.
You may have thought so, but incorrectly (btw I am not trying to
be aggressive here). I use a screen to display a fractal pattern.
The needlework artist presumably uses some type of drawing output
device. We must both start with a mathematical formula of some sort.
Both of us must use a generating program for neither of us
will have the luxury of infinite time to hand draw things. My final
output will likely be to film or paper while the needleworker's output
will be to cloth and thread. If there is an essential difference
between the two approaches I fail to see it so why do you find one
acceptable but not the other?

Your questions properly belong to the world of philosophy or
ethics but they can only be answered by the world of law. It
is easy to casually dismiss these answers as immoral or too
commercial. But they are the laws of our society. As long as
you avail yourself of society's benefits, such as personal
computers and internet email :), you must also accept those
aspects that you may find personally distasteful. I think this
is called "life".

>I have no real basis for these comments except personal opinion, but I'm
>sure there's plenty of legislation that could be readily applied should
>somebody wish to protect their interests... even if they are based upon
>naturally occuring phenomenon.
Oil is a geological phenomena. Food grows naturally. Water originates
in lakes, oceans and rain- not bottles. The sun is the original source
of all our energy. So why does it cost me so much just to live?

Yes, copyrights and commercialism are aesthetically displeasing. But
without them I would be living in a far different, and less pleasant,
world.

Like many of us, you have probably viewed a number of fractal galleries
on the web. I suspect that you will agree that some of them are pretty
good- some of them are not so good. IMO, Sharon's images are amongst
the better ones out there. Displaying her individual touch, they are
also often very different in styling. The fact is that most people are
unlikely to produce fractal images consistently reminiscent of her work.
I would think that this alone, rather than any amount of debate, would
indicate the validity of copyrighted fractal imagery.

>Thanks to anyone who bothered to listen to my waffling!
Next time, please remember I prefer strawberry jam with mine,
copyrighted or not.

Regards - Jack

-----------	*********------------

From: WH Prince 
Message-ID: <701df1ea.352032e0@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:03:41 EST
To: fractal-art@aros.net

The Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com
All things copyright are discussed here, from copyright basics to "Bleeding
Edge" Internet and software issues and "Fringe" concepts of fair use and
public domain. This site endeavors to provide real world, practical and
relevant copyright information useful to anyone writing, promoting,
composing, or doing business on the Net -- which pretty much covers
everyone. News, references and links ensure that content is as up-to-date
as possible. Be sure to bookmark it so that when copyright issues come up,
you know just where to go.
HTH

Windon

-----------	*********------------

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:27:45 -0600
From: Bob 
To: fractal-art@aros.net
CC: fractint@mail.xmission.com
Subject: (fractint) Re: Copyright Myths FAQ: 10 big myths about copyright explained

Hi Team Fractals:

There's been some talk lately on these two fractal list servers about
copyrights. Here's an FAQ I gleaned from news.answers. Hope it clarifies
some things for you.

Brad Templeton wrote:
> 
> Original-author: brad@clari.net (Brad Templeton)
> Archive-name: law/copyright/myths/part1
> Last-change: 16 Oct 1995 by netannounce@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
> Changes-posted-to: news.misc,news.answers
> 
>                 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
>                         By Brad Templeton
> 
>         1)  "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not
>         copyrighted."
> 
>         This was true in the past, but today almost all major
>         nations follow the Berne copyright convention.  For example,
>         in the USA, almost everything created privately after April 1,
>         1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
>         The default you should assume for other people's works is that
>         they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
>         otherwise.  There are some old works that lost protection
>         without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
>         you know for sure.
> 
>         It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
>         warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
>         different damages, but it is not necessary.  If it looks
>         copyrighted, you should assume it is.   This applies to pictures,
>         too.  You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them
>         to the net, and if you come upon something unknown,
>         you shouldn't post that either.
> 
>         The correct form for a notice is:
>                 "Copyright <dates> by <author/owner>"
>         You can use C in a circle instead of "Copyright" but "(C)"
>         has never been given legal force.  The phrase "All Rights
>         Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now
>         not needed.
> 
>         2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
> 
>         False.  Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
>         court, but that's essentially the only difference.  It's still a
>         violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
>         heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
>         property.
> 
>         3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
> 
>         False.  Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
>         owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).  Explicitly,
>         as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
>         this to the public domain."  Those exact words or words very
>         much like them.
> 
>         Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
>         permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
>         wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
>         forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
>         done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
>         poster.  This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
>         former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
>         it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
>         granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
>         when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement
>         of material into the public domain.  Furthermore it is very
>         difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly
>         stated licence that the copier was aware of.
> 
>         Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post
>         the item in the first place.  If the poster didn't, then all
>         the copies are pirate, and no implied licence or theoretical
>         reduction of the copyright can take place.
> 
>         (*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting someting
>         into the public domain, and there are some fine points on
>         this issue regarder older copyright law versions.  However, none
>         of this applies to an original article posted to USENET.
> 
>         Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete
>         abandonment of all rights.  You can't make something "PD for
>         non-commercial use."  If your work is PD, other people can even
>         modify one byte and put their name on it.
> 
>         4) "My posting was just fair use!"
> 
>         See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
>         the following in mind:
> 
>         The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow
>         things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
>         education about copyrighted works without the permission of the
>         author.  Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the
>         work are important considerations.  Are you reproducing an
>         article from the New York Times because you needed to in order
>         to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you
>         couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your
>         readers to have to pay to log onto the online services with the
>         story or buy a copy of the paper?  The former is probably fair
>         use, the latter probably aren't.
> 
>         Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
>         attributed.  (One should not use more of the work than is
>         necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the
>         commercial value of the work (which is another reason why
>         reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)
> 
>         Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for
>         commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial
>         value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it
>         is fair use.  Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either.  The
>         court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright
>         on an indidvidual basis in each case.  There have been cases
>         that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general
>         they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
>         It's a risky defence to attempt.
> 
>         5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it."
> 
>         False.  Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless
>         explicitly given away.  You may be thinking of trade marks, which
>         can be weakened or lost if not defended.
> 
>         6) "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
> 
>         You can't "copyright a name," or anything short like that.
>         Titles usually don't qualify -- but I doubt you may write a
>         song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
>         me and my monkey." (J.Lennon/P.McCartney)
> 
>         You can't copyright words, but you can trademark them,
>         generally by using them to refer to your brand of a
>         generic type of product or service.  Like an "Apple"
>         computer.  Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to
>         computers, even though it is also an ordinary word.  Apple
>         Records owns it when applied to music.  Neither owns the
>         word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't
>         mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on
>         this law for details.
> 
>         You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
>         unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
>         make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
>         which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
>         For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
>         would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
>         like "mtv."  :-)
> 
>         7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
> 
>         Copyright law is mostly civil law.  If you violate copyright
>         you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
>         "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
>         law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  Sorry, but in
>         copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all.
>         It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or
>         jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based
>         on the type of infringement.  In civil cases you can even
>         be made to testify against your own interests.
> 
>         8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
> 
>         Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
>         violation involving more than 10 copies and value over
>         $2500 was made a felony.  So watch out.  (At least you get
>         the protections of criminal law.)  On the other hand, don't
>         think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting
>         your E-mail.  The courts have much better things to do than
>         that.  This is a fairly new, untested statute.
> 
>         9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
> 
>         It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
>         not.  If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
>         Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
>         them.  Usually that's not too hard to do.  Time past,
>         ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
>         large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some
>         person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
>         caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
>         pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
>         enjoyed it.  Even if you can't think of how the author or
>         owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
>         hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
>         technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.
> 
>         10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
> 
>         To have a copy is not to have the copyright.  All the E-mail
>         you write is copyrighted.  However, E-mail is not, unless
>         previously agreed, secret.  So you can certainly *report* on
>         what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says.  You can
>         even quote parts of it to demonstrate.  Frankly, somebody
>         who sues over an ordinary message might well get no damages,
>         because the message has no commercial value, but if you want
>         to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first.  On the
>         other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts your E-mail. If
>         it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal
>         commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all
>         E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them.
> 
>         -----------------    In Summary   ---------------------------
> 
>         These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they
>         are written, and no copyright notice is required.
> 
>         Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not,
>         only damages are affected by that.
> 
>         Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and
>         don't grant you any permission to do further copying except
>         *perhaps* the sort of copying the poster might have expected
>         in the ordinary flow of the net.
> 
>         Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable
>         social purposes.  Ask yourself why you are republishing what
>         you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it

>         in your own words.
> 
>         Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's
>         a concept from trademark law.  The ownership of names is
>         also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name
>         copyrighted.
> 
>         Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights
>         of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply.
>         Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright
>         violation into the criminal realm.
> 
>         Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder;
>         often it's not that hard to ask permission.
> 
>         Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing
>         facts from E-mail isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail,
>         nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it.
> 
>         -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                 Permission is granted to freely copy this
>                 document in electronic form, or to print for
>                 personal use.  If you had not seen a notice
>                 like this on the document, you would have to
>                 assume you did not have permission to copy it.
>                 This document is still protected by you-know-
>                 what even though it has no copyright notice.
> 
>         It should be noted that the author, as publisher of an
>         electronic newspaper on the net, makes his living by
>         publishing copyrighted material in electronic form and has
>         the associated biases.  However, DO NOT E-MAIL HIM FOR LEGAL
>         ADVICE; for that use other resources or consult a lawyer.
>         Also note that while most of these principles are universal
>         in Berne copyright signatory nations, some are derived from
>         Canadian and U.S. law.  This document is provided to clear
>         up some common misconceptions about intellectual property
>         law that are often seen on the net.  It is not intended to
>         be a complete treatise on all the nuances of the subject.  A
>         more detailed copyright FAQ, covering other issues including
>         compilation copyright and more intricacies of fair use is
>         available in the same places you found this note, or for FTP
>         on rtfm.mit.edu in pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/law/copyright/faq.
>         Also consider gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright for
>         actual statutes.  Another useful document is
>         http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ip-primer
> 
>         This FAQ can be found at http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html

-----------	*********------------

From: PIMorris
To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: An end to the copyright issue?
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:41:21 +0100

Hi again listers,

First, thanks to Mike and Linda Allison for the copy of the previous
copyright discussions... I never realised it REALLY HAD been done to
death!

That's the trouble with these mailing lists, unless you take the time to
dredge through the archives, you've gotta start from scratch.

I still don't feel that my point was appreciated, but I will certainly
let it drop at this point. I personally fall more on the side of the
artist in this respect, and feel their work SHOULD be protected by
default. Unfortunately, the law seems reasonably undecided.

Cheers for an interesting, (if a little heated at times) debate.....
keep fractaling!

P.S. Alien writing..... Perhaps we should make more effort on this
planet to be ready to decode alien communication..... with a superior
race (possibly heavily armed) arriving on neutral terms into our solar
system, wouldn't you like to be sure you were saying the right thing?

>bye!

-----------	*********------------

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:11:49 -0800
To: fractal-art@aros.net
From: John
Subject: RE: Use of Fractal Images, (again)

Jack wrote:

>>Here's another question: If I generate exactly the same image as one
>>that Sharon Webb has generated and sold, am I infringing her copyright?

>Yes. Personal originality in the implementation is not the only
>requirement of copyright. The copyright holder must also be the *first*
>to copyright a thing. Once the copyright is granted *no-one* else may
>have that right until the copyright runs out or the holder grants it
>to others.

This subject is as bottomless as a fractal ... I have a BIG problem with
this statement.  I'm a newbie to this group, and am still exploring the
pages mentioned herein.  Until I looked at Sharon's page a few days ago,
I had never seen her fractal images, but recognized instantly one of them,
(early images), which I generated several years ago, using an old version
of Fractint.  (Overnight, on a Tandy 1000).  Of course, I can't be sure
that the two are absolutely identical, from memory only, but there is 
certainly a very close similarity.  I'm not even sure of who was *first*.
If *I* was, I wasn't aware of the fact that another existed until last week.

Now my question is ... has Sharon infringed MY copyright, or am I infringing
HERS, by dragging out my piece of history?  I do not mention *which* fractal
I refer to, as I don't want it.  If it's mine by default, I hereby gift
it to Sharon.   :-)

John Wilson.

-----------	*********------------

From: Sharon
To: <fractal-art@aros.net>
Subject: Re: Use of Fractal Images, (again)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:01:28 -0500

Hi,

Gee, folks...sorry...but I gotta answer this one:

John  wrote:
>>Until I looked at Sharon's page a few days ago,
I had never seen her fractal images, but recognized instantly one of them,
(early images), which I generated several years ago, using an old version
of Fractint.  (Overnight, on a Tandy 1000).  Of course, I can't be sure
that the two are absolutely identical, from memory only, but there is
certainly a very close similarity.  I'm not even sure of who was *first*.
If *I* was, I wasn't aware of the fact that another existed until last week.

>>Now my question is ... has Sharon infringed MY copyright, or am I
infringing
HERS, by dragging out my piece of history?  I do not mention *which* fractal
I refer to, as I don't want it.  If it's mine by default, I hereby gift
it to Sharon.   :-)

John, to reiterate: nobody owns the rights to photograph the Statue of
Liberty or the Grand Canyon. Nobody owns the exclusive rights to render a
view from a fractal either.   You own the copyright to your fractal
rendering, and I own the copyright to mine.  You own ONLY your particular
version/rendering of that fractal: ie., the file you created, or the paper
on which you printed the file.  You do not own the fractal.  The same is
true for me.

Now, as to particulars.  You rendered yours several years ago on a Tandy
1000 using Fractint, eh?  Unless your Tandy (not to mention your version of
Fractint) was capable of truecolor, and unless you entered the exact formula
I did (my original, as far as I know) and zoomed to the exact place, and
unless you used the same program(s), coloring methods, and filters that I
did---which I very much doubt---then I suspect your memory of your fractal
may be a bit impaired with time.  :-)  In any case, I would be happy to take
a look at it.

A year or so ago, I noticed some similarities in a fractal I generated from
an original formula to a fractal a Fractal Art list member rendered (he uses
a Mac for his fractals).  The similarities were quite interesting and we
were both intrigued with them.  There was no dispute whatsoever over the
origin of these fractals.  Instead, it was of interest to us how fractals,
like nature, sometimes repeat the same design.

On the other hand, I recently received, via email, a fractal of mine (it
still bore my name and copyright notice).  Without my permission, the sender
had inverted the colors in a paint program and then overlaid my image with a
graphic.  THAT was a copyright infringement.  See the difference?

Sharon

***************************
