[ANSTHRLD] Blazon

[tmcd at panix.com]

Masamune no Yahaki / <ravenrux at cox.net> wrote:
> Although the SCA College of Arms has authority within the SCA to
> enforce proper use of arms

There are some who would argue it, but I think the Corpora text with
"for establishing rules and making determinations regarding names and
armory" is indeed sufficient authority.

> does the SCA have any recourse to protect arms registered thereby
> from use of those outside the SCA?
...
> Now, it should be understood that [copyright protection] is not
> exactly the same as Arms infringement in the mundane world.

There are juristictions that have laws of arms.  I think the only one
with any teeth is Scotland.  Lord Lyon King of Arms has the authority
to yank a malefactor into his court, and frequently does.
"Malefactor" is defined, inter alia, as "anyone who bears or displays
armory in any way without those arms being matriculated with Lyon King
of Arms".  ANY armory, regardless of whether by Lyon's rules it has
twelve differences from anything ever matriculated in Scotland.  Or, I
really strongly suspect, whether you call it a "copyrighted artistic
design" rather than arms -- because if you could evade Lyon by calling
it "copyrighted art", his jurisdiction would collapse.  "Looks like a
duck; quacks like a duck; if you don't have a duck licence, you're in
big trouble."  (England theoretically has laws of arms, but the only
case in the last few centuries was the 1954 Manchester Palace of
Varieties case.  Considerable doubt was expressed then about whether
those laws of arms did exist or ought to exist without a statutory
basis.)

Brooke-Little, later Norry and Ulster King of Arms, attended KWHS in
the early 1980s.  He indicated in informal discussions that he viewed
the SCA as a game, rather like a play or movie.  Laurence Olivier bore
undifferenced arms of France and England in his 1940s version of
_Henry V_, but got into no trouble for it.  That can be done on the
stages of Scotland today.  We also go around calling ourselves kings,
barons, knights, and lords, and again nobody says "boo".

If we start to intrude on the real world, we open the door for the
real world intruding on us.  In the UK, there's not been a good
reception given to people (other the one who was anointed and crowned
at Westminister) waving swords, raising armies, and calling themselves
the rightful king of the land.  They're sort of down on that kinda
thing.  Our armory would cause a more serious problem, were we to call
attention to ourselves in Scotland.

> My answer is yes.  When you make and submit a device you release
> ownership entirely to the CoA.

That happens not to be the case.  To expand on what Blaise wrote, by
the Berne Convention (ratified byt he US in the 1970s, and I presume
in Canada, Europe, and Australia too), a person who creates a drawing
or text has copyright in it from the moment of its creation.  That's
why, when Jaelle of Armida, then Laurel Queen of Arms, unified the
kingdom submission forms, she added a paragraph to the armory forms
saying

    I understand that with my submission I automatically give
    permission for the Society for Creative Anachronism to use my
    artwork and armory for any and all internal heraldic and scribal
    purposes.

Without that permission, we could not put mini-emblazons on letters of
intent and in theory we could not scan it for Laurel files.

> it is clearly covered by copyright law which protects unique graphic
> designs for their creators and assigned owners.

As I understand it, that's "or", not "and".  There's one copyright
owner, and if you assign your rights, you don't have them any more.
(But I assume there's a way to have joint ownership in some way.)

Even if the SCA got granted rights, that protection isn't worth much
in SCA terms.  I don't know what standards that national copyright
offices use, but I really doubt they require two differences from all
other copyrights.  I think that identity, or close to it, would be
required.

> If they do not, then they cannot sue for infringement until such a
> time that it is a registered work.

As I recall, that is false in the US: since you have copyright, you
can ask a court to squash someone else's use and get damages, but you
can't getpunitive damages unless you register.  (That's based on
memory; I don't have a citation now.)

But fundamentally, I think this looks like a solution to something
that I don't see as a problem.  I've never heard of a complaint in the
SCA about someone outside the SCA using their design.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For further copyright information, one can see

<http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>
    Brad Templeton
    "10 Big Myths about copyright explained"

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

<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/webcopyr.html>
     Jukka "Yucca" Korpela
     "Copyright basics for Web authors and users"
     Lots of links from this one

Daniel de Lincolia
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address