Talk:Nipper/Archives/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nipper. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Concept
Is there any evidence that Nipper actually ever listed to a gramaphone? The statement that the painting shows a dog on "his master's coffin with the dog listening to the recorded voice of his dead master" is unlikely, and unsourced. More likely it is simply a dog listening to "HMV", as the title suggests.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- No evidence whatsoever as far as I know. But then there is no requirement that a painting has to depict any scene that existed in reality. A trip to any exhibition of 'modern art' should reinforce that particular point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Application for copyright
The article contained a referenced statement that read, "On February 11, 1899, Francis filed an application for copyright of his painting "Dog Looking At and Listening to a Phonograph" <ref>Edge, Ruth & Petts, Leonard. (1997). A Collectors Guide to "His Master's Voice" Nipper Souvenirs. EMI Group Archive Trust, plc London. ISBN 0-9509293-2-8</ref>.". While I conceed that the reference may well make this claim, it cannot be accurate. Copyright is never applied for - it is automatic.
Copyright violation cases usually hinge around who copied from whom. To positively establish copyright status, it is only necessary to satisfy a court that your copy of the item existed in your possession on a certain date (which should, of course, precede the date of the unauthorised copy). A common way of doing this is to send a copy of it to yourself in a sealed envelope by registered post. The sealed envelope can then be handed to the judge in court where the dated postmark establishes the date of creation. In the case of a painting, you send yourself a photograph of it which was quite feasible in 1899. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)