Copyright

[chrispuzzle]

Well the City of Paris says it isn't trying to prevent people from publishin amateur pictures of their holiday on their website, it's trying to prevent the Eiffel Tower (at night) from being used in a way that's offensive to Paris.

I have no idea whether the rights are retrospective! But trademarks often are. MacDonalds forced a store in England called "MacDonalds" to close in spite of it being the shopkeeper's name and the store having been there foryears. Wasn't even a restaurant.

[Minnesota scroller]

Originally Posted by chrispuzzle

I have no idea whether the rights are retrospective! But trademarks often are. MacDonalds forced a store in England called "MacDonalds" to close in spite of it being the shopkeeper's name and the store having been there foryears. Wasn't even a restaurant.

That doesn't even make sense. Why not just force the shopkeeper to change the name of their business?

[chrispuzzle]

Mike -

I expect you are right and it was the name they were demanding be changed. However, drop the name or close the business is the choice.

Chris

[Janette]

The same type of thing exists in zoos. If a photographer takes a photo of an animal in the zoo they must obtain permission to sell that print and make an agreement to royalties if any are requested.

[Woodbutcher68]

There's a bar here called McTaverns. It was formerly a McDonalds and is on the site of the first McDonalds in this part of the state. McDonalds wasn't too happy about losing the lease since it is two blocks from a high school and even threatened to sue the bar owner, but they didn't have a case. They were claiming infringement, but decided it wasn't worth it.
I used to spend alot of money there under either name!

[PuzzledMoose]

Originally Posted by chrispuzzle

But trademarks often are. MacDonalds forced a store in England called "MacDonalds" to close in spite of it being the shopkeeper's name and the store having been there foryears. Wasn't even a restaurant.

Is this the case you meant, Chris? http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/pre...s_24sep96.html

I seem to remember that there was another one some time earlier where they forced a Scottish fish and chip shop owner - called McDonald - from using his own name on his business .. you can see how customers could be confused between fish and chips and a burger ....

If McDonald's took action against all the businesses in Nova Scotia with Mc in their names they'd be in court till Doomsday ..

[chrispuzzle]

I don't think it was that one, Ian, but there have been a number of "Mc" cases. I am relying on memory, which is erratic, but I think it was a hardwre business called "McDonalds" that was in the same street as a proposed new McDonalds burger joint. It may be that it never went to trial and therefore doesn't show up on the lists of McD's (extensive) legal actions.

Or I dreamed it.

I am now imagining the legal complications of selling intarsia patterns that might or might not be based on the image of a Big Mac with all the trimmings. What wood is best for the gherkins?

[CanadianScroller]

Originally Posted by chrispuzzle

What wood is best for the gherkins?

I believe Poplar

[Jediscroller]

In rereading Chris's comments about the French trying to protect a building viewable in public, that contradicts US and UK law (sorry Carl, not sure about Canada).
This story talks about the case where the law was reinforced that photos, paintings, drawings etc. of buildings were not prohibited by copyright law.

[shinzam]

I know this was a while ago but. Most of what has been said has gone completely over my head. what I basically want to know is, if I buy a book of patterns or magazine (scroll saw woodworking & crafts) which states "readers may make x amount of copies of these patterns for personal use" can I sell the finished x amount goods.
Sorry if I am a slow on the uptake.
Graham.