Hawkwind : take a vote

[Keith Barton]

Paul Mather wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Keith Barton wrote:
>
> => Arin Komins wrote:
> =>
> => > I vote b, but only with the band's permission.
> =>
> => and, I assume, artwork approval prior to distribution.
> =>
> => Imagine the can of worms that would be opened if the poster
> => infringed any copyright.
> =>
> => The band/management could end up getting dragged through the
> => courts through no fault of their own.
>
> I don't see how someone distributing his or her own "fan art" could
> cause a band to become liable for that fan art.  If a band says "we
> don't mind people making posters for their own noncommercial
> edification" and a person happens to include some copyrighted material
> in his or her endeavour in that regard, why would the band be liable for
> that person's breaking the law?

You're correct, assuming the the artwork is for 'personal use' but what
would happen if the posters were freely distributed in a public place but
with the intention of financial gain, i.e. flyposting runs with the
intention of promoting a concert? Sure, we've all seen loads of flyers etc,
of this type, usually featuring unsigned local bands, but I'd like to bet
that the legal goalposts would move if someone produced (albeit with the
best of intentions) promotional goods for a major band which infringred
copyright. Sorry if I'm going off on a tangent but I bet this has happened
in the past e.g. bootleg T-shirt sellers outside gigs - copyright is there
for a very good reason. Hawkwind has probably had more fan art than any
other band, some of which the band has approved and used for album artwork
etc, (the recent T-shirt competition springs to mind) and then of course
there's Trevor's Hawkfrendz, Brian's Hawkfan and Adrian's Hawkeye - all of
which, in my opinion, have played an important part of the whole Hawkwind
spirit for years - and long may it continue.


B gets my vote anyway!

Keef