From:    Don Allen                              
To:      All                               Msg #30, 12 Apr 94 21:50:00
Subject: Letter regarding Gulf Breeze

 * Forwarded from "INFO.PARANET"
 * Originally by Michael Corbin
 * Originally to All
 * Originally dated 25 Mar 1994, 22:36

Barbara Becker of the UFO Research Network in St. Louis, Missouri, has asked me
to post a letter to ParaNet which was also sent to Vicki Cooper of UFO 
Magazine concerning the copyright issues and the photos of the Gulf Breeze 
UFO.  ParaNet applauds UFO Magazine for re-opening the Gulf Breeze case in the 
pages of the magazine.  Barbara Becker raises some interesting questions about 
who the real authors of the "Jane" and "Bill" photos may be.

                               February 9, 1994


To the Editor:

Since you have decided to re-open the Gulf Breeze case in the pages
of UFO Magazine there is a question I would like to throw out for
your readers to ponder and Ed and Frances Walters to answer.  How
did the Walters legally use the "Believer Bill" and "Jane" photos
and  letters in THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS when they did not  hold
the copyright...or do they?

The Bill and Jane photos were submitted to Duane Cook as Editor of
the  Gulf  Breeze  Sentinel.   While  neither  photographer  gave
explicit   permission  in  the  accompanying  letters  for   use,
submission  alone, is construed to mean the Sentinel could  print
the  photos.  Title 17 of the United States Code - Copyright  Act
of  1976, Section 201 (c) specifically says that in a  collective
work, such as a newspaper, the copyright vests initially with the
author  of the contribution.  In the absence of the  transfer  of
copyright, the owner of the collection, in this case the Sentinel
and  Cook,  "is presumed to have acquired only the  privilege  of
reproducing  and  distributing the contribution as part  of  that
particular collective work..." Simply said, Cook had the right to
print  and distribute those issues containing the Bill  and  Jane
photos (and letters) and any revision of, or any work in the same
series.  Did Cook have the right to turn them over to Ed Walters?

Section  202  states  that  the  ownership  of  a  copyright   is
distinctly different from the ownership of the material object in
which  the  work  is embodied.  "Transfer  of  ownership  of  any
material object, including the copy...in which the work is  first
fixed,  does not of itself convey any rights in  the  copyrighted
work  embodied in the object;..."  This means that Cook  probably
could give Walters the actual photos and letters, since they were
in his possession, but Walters could not use their content.

Do  Bill  and  Jane  own the  copyright,  afterall,  the  letters
and  photos were submitted under a pseudonymn?  Yes. Section  201
(a) states that the copyright vests initially with the author  of
the  work.  And Section 302 (c) states that the copyright on  any
pseudonymous work "endures for a term of seventy-five years  from
the year of its first publication, or a term of one hundred years
from  the  year of its creation, whichever  expires  first."   So
there is no doubt that whoever Bill and Jane are they could  hold
the copyright for a very long time.

Did  Bill and Jane have to register their copyright prior to  the
publication  of  the photos in the Sentinel for it to  be  valid?
No.     Section 404 (a) states that a "separate contribution to a
collective work may bear its own notice of copyright...however  a
single  notice  applicable to the collective work as a  whole  is
sufficient  to satisfy the requirements of Sections  401  through
403:  Copyright  Notice,  Deposit and  Registration.   When  Cook
published  the Bill and Jane photos they became registered  under
this "blanket" copyright clause.

Could  Bill  and  Jane have transferred  their  copyright  to  Ed
and  Frances Walters?  Yes, however, Section 204 (a) states  that
the  transfer  must  be in writing and signed  by  the  copyright
holder  or  his  authorized agent.  Do the Walters  have  such  a
document?   Will  they produce a written  transfer  of  copyright
notarized prior to 1990, the date of publication of their book?

Could the Walters invoke the "Fair Use" clause?  Fair Use  allows
certain materials to be used without permission of the  copyright
holder. It generally applies to works in the public interest such
as  news  reports,  commentaries, criticisms, or  works  used  in
research or education.  A famous case will illustrate "fair use".
In  Time, Inc., v Bernard Geis Associates, (293 F.  Supp.  130.),
Time  being the copyright holder of the Zapruder film sued  Geiss
in  U.S.  District Court for copyright  infringement...and  lost.
Geiss  claimed  that the artistic rendering of 22 frames  of  the
Zapruder  film used in a book fell under the Fair Use  clause  of
the  code.  The court agreed and ruled that the  renderings,  the
only pictorial representations in the book, supported the  theory
presented and made it easier to understand.  The renderings  were
an  integral  part  of the book and the book was  in  the  public
interest, subsequently there was no copyright infringement.

Does  this apply to THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS?  Yes.   While  the
Walters  might argue that their book was in the  public  interest
the  validity of their claims did not rest on the Bill  and  Jane
photos and letters.  Walters used 38 of his own photos.  He had a
foreword  written by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, an introduction by  Budd
Hopkins  and  endorsements by Walt Andrus, Bob  Oeschler,  Robert
Nathan,  Dr. Mark Carlatto, Vincent DiPeitro, Joe Greco  and  Dr.
Brian O'Leary.  If that isn't enough he had the  "authentication"
of his photographs by Harro Limbo of the Polaroid Corporation and
Richard  Vandenberg.   If the preceeding list  of  experts  isn't
enough  to  support  Walters' claims then what  do  two  covertly
submitted  photos  and letters substantiate?   Nothing.   In  the
Geiss  case, the pictures were used to clarify a theory and  were
integral to the work as a whole.   The Bill and Jane photos  were
not  an  integral part of THE GULF BREEZE  SIGHTINGS.   It  seems
doubtful  that the Walters could claim Fair Use as a defense  for
using copyrighted materials.

Additionally,  in  Fair Use cases where the copyright  holder  is
unknown, the person wishing to use the copyrighted materials will
give notice, usually in a newspaper, announcing the intention  to
use  the work. This gives the copyright holder a chance  to  come
foreword.   Since  we know that both "Bill" and "Jane"  read  the
Sentinel, this would have been a reasonable way to proceed.   Did
Ed  Walters  place  a  notice  in  the  Sentinel  announcing  his
intentions  to  write a book using the Bill and Jane  photos  and
letters?    Wouldn't  you think Bill and Jane would  have  wanted
some of the royalties from the use of their photos?

Finally,  in  Inter-City Press, Inc. v Craig  Siegfried  (172  F.
Supp. 37.) the court affirmed that, "A picture or drawing,  which
is   an   author's  own  production,  cannot   be   copied,   and
acknowledgment  of the authorship of an article or  drawing  does
not exculpate the copier of infringement when it is done  without
the consent of the owner of the copyrighted material."  In  other
words,  giving  Bill and Jane credit for the photos  and  letters
does not release Walters from copyright infringement.

What  does  all  this mean?  It means that  for  Ed  and  Frances
Walters  to have used the Bill and Jane photos and letters,  they
would  need  a  written transfer  agreement  to  avoid  copyright
infringement...or it could mean that Ed Walters is the author  of
the  Bill and Jane photos and letters, and he was  never  worried
about infringing on the copyright because he owns it.


Sincerely,

Barbara Becker

UFO RESEARCH NETWORK
St. Louis, Mo. U.S.A.