Copyright in "The T...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Copyright in "The Treasurehouse Of Images"?  

  RSS

ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3223
17/10/2020 2:05 am  

There is a recent post over at the New Fruitcake Factory (aka reddit Thelema), by a person who appears to believe that The Treasurehouse Of Images is a Class A text written by AC.

This led me to take a look at this Class B work, written of course, not by AC, but by the Fascist lunatic, and inventor of modern tank warfare, Maj. Gen. JFC Fuller, a not-yet-expelled A.'. A.'. member when he wrote it.

As far as i know, Fuller was never a member of the OTO, and AC was only a III member of the OTO when Fuller broke off contact with him in 1911. Yet it appears that the (c)OTO claims copyright on Fuller's The Treasurehouse Of Images; see here, and here ["COPYRIGHT O.T.O. June 21, 1985 e.v."]. Is anyone aware that Fuller ever, in writing, assigned the copyright of this book to AC personally, or to the OTO? (the actual historical one, i mean; Fuller died in 1966, more than a decade before the Caliphate revival)

I doubt very much that he ever did; regardless, the fact that this work was first published before Fuller broke off contact with AC in 1911, means it is certainly in the public domain world-wide, and was also certainly in the public domain in 1985 when the (c)OTO claimed copyright on it, a work not written by Aleister Crowley.

Not a work of any very great value in my opinion, but kinda impressed by the (c)OTO's chutzpah in claiming copyright over it.

This topic was modified 1 week ago 2 times by ignant666

Quote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5200
17/10/2020 5:34 am  

I have noted previously, in my mind only, starting about about 20 years ago, that they pull(ed) this shit all the time. I first noted this dungly habit when a "Camp" (one of it's lowest forms of assembly when it comes to authority) of said Ordo issued a copy of The Book of Lies. Online. It said, "Copyright Ordo Templi Orientis." It (the real book) was published in 1913 in London.

Twenty years ago, we were operating under the pre-'23 is public dominion rule. In the USA. London didn't catch up 'til recently. It is my psychic impression [I hold my fingertips to my nose and right ear] that some low-ranking dork spun it off online and simply slapped the (c) on it because that was the official party line, or the proper thing to do to avoid punishment.

Your present case bears a (c) date right at the end of the McM dynasty, and the city cited is "Berkeley," That was his city. So I assume this was a Caliph production, though probably done by someone else as the Caliph was living his last year. In those says, there was no question in their minds - The OTO, as incorporated by McM, held the copyrights. Period. Others disagreed. The Queen really owned them.

It is the date of the (c) that throws this into another limbo. I seriously [I put my foot to my nose] doubt that Fuller assigned anything to anybody. I know of no Fuller-OTO linkage. Fuller was given a 5=6 just to fill in the Inner Order (A.'.A.'.). There was Crowley and Jones. "We need a third to complete the triad. Let's brevet Fuller to Tiphareth."  "Oh, Okay." I don't know who said which, but I can guess. Fuller was not an Adept. So, here at the very beginning of the A.'.A.'. on the physical plane, we see people making things up in order to produce an illusion of competence and a fully-staffed hierarchy. [I stroke my right fore-finger over my pointed left fore-finger and utter the mysterious cry ... Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! ]. That'll teach 'em.

I suspect I answered things higher up. They didn't know anything about copyrights in 1985. They were living in illusion and said It was printed in The Equinox, so it's ours.

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3223
17/10/2020 2:14 pm  

The idea that there are any current USA copyrights on AC's work is a myth, carefully cultivated by the Caliphornians, and their many lawyers.

Every book by AC published in his lifetime in the USA, or where copies of non-USA publications were sold in the USA (ie, all his work) has been in the public domain in the US since the mid-'70s at the latest.

During AC's lifetime, US copyright required that 1) works be published with a copyright notice in legally correct form, 2) that two copies be deposited with the Library of Congress, and 3) provided for a 28 year term, with one 28 year renewal period. Few to none of AC's works contain adequate copyright notices, none as far as i know were ever deposited with LoC, and no timely renewals were filed by the copyright owner. The (c)OTO was founded in 1978, well after all/most copyrights had expired (since 1978-28=1950, unrenewed works prior to 1950 were in the public domain at their formation).

In any case, any renewals by the (c)OTO (in case there are some i have somehow not found despite many searches) would have been spurious, as they in fact owned no rights whatever in AC's work until 1991, when they purchased the copyrights (such as they were) from the UK bankruptcy authorities.

Copyright in some public domain works was legislatively restored subsequent to this, but for reasons that are very complicated, that doesn't apply here.

Even if all i say above is correct, anyone foolish enough to publish AC works will learn lots about what happens to the property of bankrupts, as the (c)OTO's attorneys will spend you into the ground in scorched-earth litigation.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE; this post does not create an attorney/client relationship between me and any reader. All persons should always obtain legal advice from an attorney admitted to legal practice in their jurisdiction before doing, or failing to do, anything whatever.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3223
17/10/2020 10:17 pm  

A further comment on the (c)OTO's "dog in the manger" copyright litigiousness (while publishing fewer works each year): it is my understanding that everything AC ever published in his life is in the public domain in every other English-speaking country except the USA.

If the (c)OTO actually owns any US copyrights, they will all expire in 2042, and three of the the most valuable works they claim US copyright on (MITP, first two volumes of Confessions, Moonchild) all go public domain January 1, 2029, four years and a few months from now. Although there are those lucrative Mexican rights; Mexico has the world's longest copyright terms, and the remaining AC copyrights (if any) subsist there through 2047.

After 1/1/2029, the only really exploitable copyright is The Book Of Thoth, and the Thoth deck, which, if they owned any rights (which they don't- there was no 1972 renewal, and they entered the public domain 1/1/1973) are good through 2039. So those are their cash cows after 2024.

Except Grady sold the Thoth deck rights in the '70s for the infamous "$150 beer money" (even though he actually owned no rights whatever, and the work had in any case been in the public domain for a few years already then), and the book doesn't sell a tenth as many copies as the deck (source: worked in bookstores a lot). The (c)OTO's many and very busy attorneys have been litigating this matter in a Jarndyce v Jarndyce-like suit for a very long time. They won't prevail.

So their unwillingness to publish the full Confessions, set in type and proofread more than a decade ago (unless they were lying about this? Can't be so!) is even harder to understand. Maybe those 4 unpublished volumes are full of gold ignored by Grant and Symonds (contrary to Shiva's recollections), and they can claim to own those works through 2042 (and they may- these unpublished works may have been purchased from the Crown (and of course may not have been, too)).

Of course, their in terrorem litigation fund is going to decline drastically after the three remaining cash cows besides Thoth go PD in four years, so things may change after that, as other prospective publishers grow bolder, and explore the arguments i have made above.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5200
17/10/2020 11:46 pm  
Posted by: @ignant666

During AC's lifetime, US copyright required that 1) works be published with a copyright notice

Oh, it was that way still in '67. You had to print it right up front ... well, usually on the second page. As a young man< i always noted that AC's works never bore that notice. 

Then they changed the rules and I became confused. "WTF?" I said. Sometimes to other people. Now, if you write something in an email, you hold the (c) without doing anything but continue to live.

Posted by: @ignant666

public domain January 1, 2029, four years and a few months from now.

Um, this now being 2020, you may wish to correct your math.

Posted by: @ignant666

Except Grady sold the Thoth deck rights in the '70s for the infamous "$150 beer money" (even though he actually owned no rights whatever

Yes, this is exactly the type of thing that pokes itself out for external display and (endless) review when it comes to jump-claimers who, for some reason, have come up in other threads.

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3223
18/10/2020 12:02 am  
Posted by: @shiva

Um, this now being 2020, you may wish to correct your math.

Oh sorry, for "January 1, 2029", and "1/1/2029", please read "January 1, 2024" (all these works were published in 1929; all 1929 works enter the US public domain 1/1/24).

I made a typo the first time, and mindlessly copied it the second time, instead of doing the arithmetic again. My legal mentor Harold The Horrible is laughing in his grave: "But [ignant], math could have changed in the meantime! Do the addition again." By hand, on a calculator, and on the computer on his desk (that he couldn't turn on and was terrified of), to make sure we got the same answer all three times. "We could have made the same mistake all three times, [ignant]. Go find another calculator in another office, just find one with no one in it; maybe they have a nicer calculator than we do."

If the same date came up a third time in whatever we were writing together, we'd review Nimmer On Copyright again (to make sure the US term of copyright hadn't changed since we checked it (each time) as we wrote the last two paragraphs), and do the addition, again, three times by three methods. i am not joking.

I got the words right at least

Posted by: @ignant666

four years and a few months from now.

I was a qualitative scientist after all, not a quant; as is well known, anthropologists always have to bring a math or stats person along to lunch, to tell them how to divide up the check. And lawyers are notoriously crap at math too, so i am doubly jinxed.


ReplyQuote
elitemachinery
(@elitemachinery)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 507
23/10/2020 4:09 pm  
Posted by: @ignant666

The idea that there are any current USA copyrights on AC's work is a myth, carefully cultivated by the Caliphornians, and their many lawyers.

Posted by: @ignant666

During AC's lifetime, US copyright required that 1) works be published with a copyright notice in legally correct form, 2) that two copies be deposited with the Library of Congress, and 3) provided for a 28 year term, with one 28 year renewal period. Few to none of AC's works contain adequate copyright notices, none as far as i know were ever deposited with LoC, and no timely renewals were filed by the copyright owner. The (c)OTO was founded in 1978, well after all/most copyrights had expired (since 1978-28=1950, unrenewed works prior to 1950 were in the public domain at their formation).

I think this is a valid argument. If AC never claimed copyright during his lifetime and was a publisher then these works should be and remain in the public domain. Once in the public domain, they cannot be re-copyrighted in their original form.

Posted by: @ignant666

Oh sorry, for "January 1, 2029", and "1/1/2029", please read "January 1, 2024" (all these works were published in 1929; all 1929 works enter the US public domain 1/1/24).

Not too far away...only 3 years...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
23/10/2020 7:01 pm  
Posted by: @elitemachinery

I think this is a valid argument. If AC never claimed copyright during his lifetime and was a publisher then these works should be and remain in the public domain. Once in the public domain, they cannot be re-copyrighted in their original form.

Perhaps Crowley didn't realise that he needed to claim copyright in the USA. In the UK, the copyright of an author, artist etc in their work is automatic; it doesn't need to be claimed.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5200
23/10/2020 7:41 pm  
Posted by: @elitemachinery

I think this is a valid argument. If AC never claimed copyright during his lifetime and was a publisher then these works should be and remain in the public domain.

Ignant was referring to the Law during AC's lifetime, which happened to overlap part of my lifetime, and I grew up in this era where one was supposed to PRINT a (c) NOTICE, and submit a book.

Somewhere in my travels, while I was running around in the burning zone, the USA changed the (c) Law. Probably an act of Black Magic. The new Law threw out the baby, the bathwater, and the need to ever type a (c) again. It also overruled and retroactively reduced anything in the old Law to rubble.

Today, one may ignore whether AC put the (c) in, or me too when we published books in the '60s, because the new law treats old books like they were new. Today, one merely needs some sort of "proof" to defend their implied copyright. The usual "proof" is a copy of the book mailed to one's self with a legible postmark date ... and, of course, you must not open the package delivered to yourself or it becomes suspicious, tainted, and is no longer any form of "proof."

Todayier (the Real Today), email messages are automatically copyrighted to the typist. The effective dates and lengths of time from then to when have abrogated any Old Aeon form of copyrighting and copywriting.

 So, it is interesting to refer to the old ways, especially since my brain was formed in those days, but one cannot base an arguement on them, because they no longer exist and have no bearing on who gets the money or the rights.

I believe the new laws were erected by copyright attorneys and barristers/solicitors who, under the new game plan, get all sorts of extra business.

I also wonder? Did McM "sell the copyright" of Thoth? I suspect US Games thought they would publish the deck and saw Grady as a possible (the only possible) contender for copyright litigation (OTO and all that). I suspect they got him to waive any interest in such mythical ownership for a few cases of Beer.

 


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1626
23/10/2020 11:54 pm  
Posted by: @ignant666

After 1/1/2029, the only really exploitable copyright is The Book Of Thoth, and the Thoth deck, which, if they owned any rights (which they don't- there was no 1972 renewal, and they entered the public domain 1/1/1973) are good through 2039. So those are their cash cows after 2024.

Except Grady sold the Thoth deck rights in the '70s for the infamous "$150 beer money" (even though he actually owned no rights whatever, and the work had in any case been in the public domain for a few years already then), and the book doesn't sell a tenth as many copies as the deck

Posted by: @shiva

I also wonder? Did McM "sell the copyright" of Thoth? I suspect US Games thought they would publish the deck and saw Grady as a possible (the only possible) contender for copyright litigation (OTO and all that). I suspect they got him to waive any interest in such mythical ownership for a few cases of Beer.

I can remember reading somewhere that Lady Frieda Harris (the original artist-executant behind the Thoth Tarot) in discussing the matter with A.C., stated that she had no problem whatsoever in the slightest with passing any copyrights in the proceedings over to him, but that she would rather they would go to almost anybody else in the entire world apart from "those bunch of idiots" (or somesuch) that compromised comprised the actual O.T.O. overseas abroad in America at the time.  Such was the tenor of her communication (if not the actual verbatim wording used itself), however unfortunately I am not able to research the actual reference itself at the present time.  (Maybe some other kind soul could provide?) 

Posted by: @ignant666

[T]he Fascist lunatic, and inventor of modern tank warfare, Maj. Gen. JFC Fuller

This may very well be the case, but he was also the producer of various art works on magical themes himself which, dare I say it (and dash it all, I will do) really weren't too bad at all, and especially if the viewer's tastes should happen to incline towards a more classical, orthodox (rather than say surrealist, cubist) type of composition.

Art critically yours,

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Share: