UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Miscellaneous Dagger Forum Information on internet (correct or ?? )

I'm a big believer in doing your own research and investing time and money in pursuing this hobby..
Be it a reference book , internet sites or forums one has to remember where did the author or poster find his information or images...
Are they writing or posting correct information ? And if not is it because they do not have personal experience in this subject or the people supplying them with information have a agenda or ??
There are many great reference books out there on the subject of edged weapon collecting are they 100% correct in the information contained in them (no) but this can also be said about internet reference sites and forums that seem to be the rage now..

I posted on a thread on this forum to prove a point but what I posted was also (incorrect) (inaccurate)... I posted that all original art done by Paul Casberg is (NOT ) signed in pencil..
In my rush in responding to the post thread I made a error as there is original art in city archives and museums signed in pencil. I looked back in photos I took in public archives in Europe..
How do I know this? By researching original art in museums and city archive collections, untainted by collector or dealer embellishments.
Also by having access to original documents NOT available to public and in private collections as to who printed and did the artwork for Eickhorn catalogs.
As some of the artwork was done by Arthur Eickhorn.
Original art done by Paul Casberg WILL be signed in pencil.... But here is a fly in the ointment ,or issue.. Many pieces of original Casberg art were NOT signed... As Time has gone on and different pieces of his art has changed hands on a few now a signature has appeared ,some art not even done by Casberg's hands.. Always the same style rigid, not flowing post death signature..
YES original (prints) (not original Art but limited prints) are signed in pencil this is known
Again I apologize for posting incorrect information on the internet ..

I'm always learning and researching this hobby and will never be done with my quest to find the answers and correct information. Be it in public archives or private..
I'm still a big believer in books and printed documents as some websites have disappeared along with all images and information posted be it correct or not..
What is posted on the internet is not permanent or remain available to view.. This is a fact and has been proven many times...
Regards: James

James
I'm always of the opinion each person should do there own homework before asking for opinions, there is both good and bad information out there, there are times when I have relied on other articles or posts on certain subjects but I have always tried to find my own evidence rather than relying on others before I ask anything, original reference material is out there, it's all about how much you want to know for sure yourself rather than relying on others, generally I pass on information when asked, sometimes it's just my opinion based on my experience, other times it is from my own period reference which as you well know more than anybody on this forum it does not come cheap, that being said, I am now becoming a little bit picky over who to help, there are a number of forum members not only on GDc but on other forums as well who I know do not bother with any research, these I am beginning to question, they seem to be more of the investor type rather than a true collector, it is a bit frustrating. As we have both said many times buy the books, no doubt there is incorrect information within the books relating to our collecting sphere but most is correct and a lot can be learnt from them, period reference is another matter, everything you see is guaranteed from the period and so much can be gained from acquiring a good selection of period reference and it is available for all if you just value it enough for your own personal enlightenment.

Nice post

Gary

Right on, Gary,

Books truth or not.

The estimable James raised an interesting topic on what we should believe in our time. I absolutely agree that to develop a site is easier than to print a book. But how the form of information representation can affect the essence of information? In any case it is all about the source. If your source is reliable and proved by documents, it makes no difference what way you choose to convey your research ? to publish a book, to do a movie or a website. The wheels of progress never stop turning and what seemed to be difficult to implement even 5 years ago, nowadays is less time and money consuming. In olden days making a good photo required not only a good camera but certain skills to print these shots and you could not see what you had done until the film development and printing. Now you can make good images within 5 seconds even with your cell phone and instantly see all these shots and their quality. Just recall the quality of the first books, they were full of faults and low quality photos, though at those times there were more material available for research. But these books are very important, if we did not have them, we would not have great reference books now. I can give many examples of misleading information published in them. And it is not only about the book by Atwood. New technologies give more opportunities and expand the outreach. You can print a book (you need a proofreader, typesetter and the most important a printing office and distributors) or to make a website (you can use ready-made templates, though it will not look very professional, but the information will not be worse, and you can even enjoy free hosting services). Thus, to spread information has become much easier. Sometimes scams make use of availability of information, but the power of the community is in opportunity to express your opinions and probably correct mistakes of authors. In this very case internet enables better possibilities to edit information without considerable financial resources (as to have the book reprinted). So for me it makes no difference which medium of information is used, what is more important is the source and who is the author or contributor.
I would like to enumerate points I strongly disagree with James. Any information uploaded to the Internet stays there forever in the form of shares, repost, citation, Google cache and archives. Big Brother is watching you . Though there is another saying from Russian literature ? Manuscripts do not burn. But in practice, because of the fact that manuscripts and archives are all subject to many factors, we have many blind spots even in our hobby, although it developed relatively not so long ago, and there are still many photos, videos and other documents that have come to our times. Therefore, the more digital information and the larger its outreach, the better for the hobby.

PS James, I again invite you to make a website on Casberg better, to make corrections according to your experience and a part of information which you can share. Again, I do not pursue any financial goal from this website. If you give it a go, it will be helpful for everybody: from ordinary collectors to both of us. My project on Casberg is one of the first, previously, there were only occasional small articles and mentions in different publications. That is why my work might have inaccuracies, but it can inspire for a new study, which will be better than mine. I guess I know what works you mean by saying wrong attributed works on the website. I suspect that a number of works for the Eickhorn catalogue were probably done by Arthur Eichorn, not Casberg. It is supposed to be this way, but I am not confident of it. Some designs from the catalogue were made by Casberg, but he seems to be not the only artist to this catalogue. These works unfortunately are void of any signature neither by Casberg, nor by A.Eichorn. If you have more accurate information, please, make it available.

P. P. S.
I invite all who wants and can help in improving the content both in already existing project on Casberg and in a new project on the DLV daggers. I will be thankful for any help from photos, documents, newspapers and magazines, and high-quality photos of the daggers from your collections.

Please read my post again for your answers about books..
Key is on internet sites and posts that no longer are out there (it may be out there But can the general public see it..
That answers is no..

The books you posted here are copyrighted.. And this just proves your pirating of information right or wrong that does not belong to you.
Copyright.. Or will you say there is no international copyright? There have been many reference books that have been reprinted in old eastern block countries that are violating copyright laws.. This you do know.. I just do not like that attitude of what is yours should be mine or ours..
You should know the saying in the U.S. { There is no free lunch..}
I guess also I should just not care about your images posted on your site and just consider the source of many.. (The internet )

You are probably aware that the Copyright law not only restricts use of material, but also includes clauses when use of protected material is acceptable and provides instructions how to use the copyrighted material. Under certain circumstances limited use of the original work, quotes from books even without asking permission is acceptable. Reprinting of books is often motivated by a desire for commercial gain and it is definitely the infringement. My website on Casberg is not the case. This website is designed for non-commercial use. Casberg`s artworks displayed there partially were taken from open sources, the other were uploaded upon their legal owners consent. To strike the balance between copyright and fair use I state again if the legal owner of Casberg`s artwork does not want the item to be displayed on the website, it will be immediately removed upon his/her request. Again, James point out Casberg`s works that belong to you and they will be removed from Casberg`s website in order not to violate your owner`s right.

Posting copyrighted materials online
Current copyright law protects nearly all text, images, audio-visual recordings, and other materials, even if the original works do not include any statement about copyright. Copying and posting copyrighted works online, even for instructional purposes, may violate the legal rights of copyright owners. Nevertheless, instructors have several legal alternatives for teaching with protected and other works online, including:

Securing permission from the copyright owner
Linking to materials on other sites, rather than copying and posting
Using material in the public domain
Lawfully using protected materials after a fair use analysis..
This is the law not my opinion...
As I said look at the pictures you just posted on the forum post # 340114... This does not fall under fair use... This forum is a for profit site and does require $$ to post pictures here.
You on your site also ask for (donations) wink wink..

https://citl.indiana.edu/files/pdf/fair_use_checklist.pdf
You violate a few of the fair use here and on your website..

As the owner of this site, I disagree with the above statement. While we appreciate collectors who find the site useful and become Premium Members to support our efforts, we do not require $$ to post pictures.

Thank you for the post Vern...
Thank you for reminding me. I was thinking of another forum out there..That forum requires a premium membership to post pictures..
Regards:
Copyright is another issue and is a big can of worms...

No problem Copyright is definitely a can of worms and not really well understood. I think the biggest misunderstanding is over who actually owns the copyright for old photos and drawings. Many collectors believe that when they purchase a photo or drawing that the copyright comes with it. This is not the case. Under copyright law, the copyright is vested with the original creator and remains with the creator unless specifically transferred. Unless there is documentation attached and signed by the original creator, you only own the photo or drawing, not the copyright. Trying to find the creator of a pre-1945 German photo or drawing can be very difficult, if not impossible. Studio portraits or signed drawings can be identified, but you still need to find the creator or their estate to obtain the copyright. To add to the can of worms, there are many thousands of photos and drawings collected by the US and now in the National Archives which have all been released into the public domain. This effectively eliminates any copyright considerations. Now, photos used in published works is a different story altogether, provided the author/publisher obtained valid copyrights before publication. Overall, copyrights are quite a convoluted subject and need to be considered by any website using photos or drawings

Vern,

Does a copyright last forever ?

Do they automatically pass to the closest descendant on the death of the original owner and/or are they assignable in a will ?

In other words, is there a relative of Mathew Brady or Paul Casteberg who owns the right to the pictures ?

Also, I own some daggers which I have photographed and posted here. Do I own the copyright ?

I always heard life of author plus 70 years

In general Yes..
I had a lot of experience with this as my parents owned a music publication business also..
Yes most of this copyright information is available.. It is just that it is not policed much except by the owner of copyright..

A copyright lasts the life of the creator plus 70 years unless re-registered by the estate/assignee.

Copyrights go to the estate and can be assigned in a will. You can also sell or transfer the copyright to another individual or company. This action does not change the copyright expiration date and it is their responsibility to re-register the copyright when it expires.

Potentially, there are relatives that own rights to the drawings/photos, but they should be registered with the copyright office in the country of residence so they can be contacted for permission to publish. Publishers are expected to perform due diligence in identifying copyright owners. They can loose the entire publication investment in a successful copyright lawsuit.

You own the copyright to any photos you take unless you transfer the copyright. You can grant permission for a photo to be published and still retain the copyright. Just carefully read anything you are asked to sign to ensure the form is for permission and not a transfer I have allowed the use of photos from the GDC Reference Gallery in publications but the photos must be attributed to GDC and we do not transfer ownership of the copyright.

An interesting point, if you take a photo of an item which the owner does not want displayed, he has no legal grounds to suppress the photo even if he refuses permission to take the picture. This is the provision of the copyright laws that the paparazzi use to publish their shots of celebrities