fair use and copyright decision

[+ECplus3]

 

i think if you check, copyright can be left to heirs. i am thinking of the weston's work, or ansel adams. that work is definitely not in the public domain.

 

You are most definitely right. I, and others who care about this, question whether that is a good idea. In the case of the Hobbit movie, the Tolkien estate, which is made up of the grandchildren of Tolkien caused serious problems in the movie going forward. Those grandchildren did not create the book and they do not know what their grandfather would have wanted. I think that the copyright should have died with him.

 

Please understand, I support the concept of copyright and I believe that artists should be rewarded for their work. I just think that passing on the copyright after death stifles creativity more than it rewards it.

 

Yes, you can will CONTROL of copyright to an heir, but that does not extend it.

 

As far as the Tolkien Estate is concerned, they do in fact know exactly what JRR's wishes were. He created the Estate long before his death and transferred the copyright control to them and various other companies with explicit instructions on their use.

[+ECplus3]

I know that this will make RedShoesGirl angry, but I do not like the idea of someone else having a right to my image. When I go to a studio, I am happy to pay the photographer for the use of their studio and their skill, but I do not think that my image belongs to them.

 

Regardless of the subject matter, it is the photographer who is producing the photo. Their knowledge and their equipment creates the image which they sell to you. That's their living. If you try to copy that image, your are infringing on their right to make a living from work they have produced.

 

 

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

 

I disagree. My uncle is a professional photographer and the only effect that improving technology is having on his business is that he is able to take on more jobs. The only changes that have been made to copyright law in recent years is to make it stronger, put more burden on the defendant to prove fair use, and to extend the period of copyright.

[GregsonVaux]

 

As far as the Tolkien Estate is concerned, they do in fact know exactly what JRR's wishes were. He created the Estate long before his death and transferred the copyright control to them and various other companies with explicit instructions on their use.

 

Can you give me a source for this information? I am curious to know what those explicit instructions were.

[+ECplus3]

 

As far as the Tolkien Estate is concerned, they do in fact know exactly what JRR's wishes were. He created the Estate long before his death and transferred the copyright control to them and various other companies with explicit instructions on their use.

 

Can you give me a source for this information? I am curious to know what those explicit instructions were.

 

I found this on a wikipedia page, so you can take it for what it's worth. And since the Estate, parent company, and charities he set up are all private entities, they aren't required to divulge them.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

 

that is so not correct. i am pro shooter. hardware technology, in this case cameras, has nothing to do with intellectual property laws.

 

how does it benefit more people by the relaxation of intellectual property laws? who does it benefit? it benefits the mundane artist who cannot create on his own.

 

gregson, let's see how you react when someone takes one of your coins you worked so hard on, makes a couple of changes, adds a gps unit to the picture and sells it as theirs.

 

i think until you walk a mile in my shoes and other professional artists, may i respectfully say, you have no idea what you are talking about other than thinking out loud with much verbosity.

Edited March 22, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+Jackalgirl]

Wouldn't it have been a shame if the Anne Frank estate has prevented the Tranquility coins from being made?

 

The problem here is that the Anne Frank estate didn't know and wasn't given the opportunity to support the project, either.

 

Here's the thing with quotes: ask. If they say yes, cite properly so that the right person gets the credit for the quote. If they say no, find another quote and repeat, or simply come up with a quote of your own (that is, written by you).

 

My mother, who is a calligrapher, runs into this all the time. Quotes are also protected works, and it is also copyright infringement to use someone's quote without permission if it is still under copyright.

 

Sorry if this has been addressed further down in the thread. Haven't gotten to the end yet! : )

[+Jackalgirl]

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

 

Out of curiosity, what's your take on the "Rising Sun Mint" and their duplication of the Knights Templar geocoin? Okay? Not okay?

[+dfx]

how does it benefit more people by the relaxation of intellectual property laws? who does it benefit? it benefits the mundane artist who cannot create on his own.

 

Not necessarily, it depends on the circumstances and can have much wider impact. It's not all about artist X creating something and person Y taking that and making money off it. I stumbled across the following video by accident, it's quite lengthy but fascinating and tackles this very subject with a single, but important example.

 

[+goosefraba1]

I know that this will make RedShoesGirl angry, but I do not like the idea of someone else having a right to my image. When I go to a studio, I am happy to pay the photographer for the use of their studio and their skill, but I do not think that my image belongs to them.

 

Regardless of the subject matter, it is the photographer who is producing the photo. Their knowledge and their equipment creates the image which they sell to you. That's their living. If you try to copy that image, your are infringing on their right to make a living from work they have produced.

 

 

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

 

I disagree. My uncle is a professional photographer and the only effect that improving technology is having on his business is that he is able to take on more jobs. The only changes that have been made to copyright law in recent years is to make it stronger, put more burden on the defendant to prove fair use, and to extend the period of copyright.

 

Ok... now I am beginning to see the real argument here. More or less.... "the ability to produce and sell the work" vs. "the ability to buy and reproduce the work". That makes it more logical to me.

 

I don't know if this is a worldwide phenomenon, but in my region of the United States we get Senior Pictures taken during the last year of high school. In my local area, this is the farthest that many students go in schooling. So, a professional photographer will be paid their fee for different sized packages of photographs with only a small quantity of different pictures. Also, for another fee, you can buy the cd with all of the different pictures on it (a digital copy). Now, would it be plagiarism to make a copy of any picture on that cd.... or is it only for say projector style sharing of the pictures?

 

I would have to say that technology is taking some money away from professional photographers in the case that now anybody with a digital camera can take a picture and then print it in minutes. Granted, the amateur photographer rarely has the skills as an experienced professional, but over years of practice these skills will sharpen. For example, instead of paying a professional photographer to take wedding and engagement pictures, my wife's cousin took all of ours. They look amazing! Tag on the photoshops extras and you can do just about anything. We have a cd that we can always copy a picture from if a precious picture is destroyed in a fire. On the flip side, I would never be mad if our photographer wanted to use any of our pictures commercially to advertise for business when she goes professional.

[+goosefraba1]

how does it benefit more people by the relaxation of intellectual property laws? who does it benefit? it benefits the mundane artist who cannot create on his own.

 

Not necessarily, it depends on the circumstances and can have much wider impact. It's not all about artist X creating something and person Y taking that and making money off it. I stumbled across the following video by accident, it's quite lengthy but fascinating and tackles this very subject with a single, but important example.

 

 

Wow... that video kinda makes me feel dirty. It is funny that the same types of companies that would be a stickler for copyright material would use a beat without paying any type of royalties. I bet if I used a Jeep logo to help sell say a mountain board... they would have their people all over it.

[+MoonCatKDT & Peanut]

I know that this will make RedShoesGirl angry, but I do not like the idea of someone else having a right to my image. When I go to a studio, I am happy to pay the photographer for the use of their studio and their skill, but I do not think that my image belongs to them.

 

Regardless of the subject matter, it is the photographer who is producing the photo. Their knowledge and their equipment creates the image which they sell to you. That's their living. If you try to copy that image, your are infringing on their right to make a living from work they have produced.

 

 

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

 

I disagree. My uncle is a professional photographer and the only effect that improving technology is having on his business is that he is able to take on more jobs. The only changes that have been made to copyright law in recent years is to make it stronger, put more burden on the defendant to prove fair use, and to extend the period of copyright.

 

Ok... now I am beginning to see the real argument here. More or less.... "the ability to produce and sell the work" vs. "the ability to buy and reproduce the work". That makes it more logical to me.

 

I don't know if this is a worldwide phenomenon, but in my region of the United States we get Senior Pictures taken during the last year of high school. In my local area, this is the farthest that many students go in schooling. So, a professional photographer will be paid their fee for different sized packages of photographs with only a small quantity of different pictures. Also, for another fee, you can buy the cd with all of the different pictures on it (a digital copy). Now, would it be plagiarism to make a copy of any picture on that cd.... or is it only for say projector style sharing of the pictures?

 

I would have to say that technology is taking some money away from professional photographers in the case that now anybody with a digital camera can take a picture and then print it in minutes. Granted, the amateur photographer rarely has the skills as an experienced professional, but over years of practice these skills will sharpen. For example, instead of paying a professional photographer to take wedding and engagement pictures, my wife's cousin took all of ours. They look amazing! Tag on the photoshops extras and you can do just about anything. We have a cd that we can always copy a picture from if a precious picture is destroyed in a fire. On the flip side, I would never be mad if our photographer wanted to use any of our pictures commercially to advertise for business when she goes professional.

 

I ran into this when booking our wedding Photography for September. Many wedding photographers hold all copyright to the photos of you and your new hubby, and if you want prints you have to go to them and pay their outrageous prices. There are a few out there that will offer 'shared copyright', they can use the photos however they want, and you get the disc with the 'digital copies' on it to do whatever you want with it.

[GregsonVaux]

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

 

Out of curiosity, what's your take on the "Rising Sun Mint" and their duplication of the Knights Templar geocoin? Okay? Not okay?

 

Definitely not OK. I have said in nearly all of my posts that I very much believe in copyrights; people should be rewarded for their creativity. However, when copyrights go on too long, such as after a person has died, creativity is stifled.

 

Copyright is not some sort of natural law, it was created by a government for a specific purpose and as culture and technology change, the law must change too. This is true for all law. The real purpose of the US Congress is to constantly write new laws because laws are imperfect and must constantly be tweaked. Most Americans are believers in copyright, because so much of our legal and economic system is based on the protection of property. In older legal systems, the king owned everything and could take away from the populace for any reason. In socialist legal and economic systems property is own by the collective. In a capitalist economic system, property is owned by individuals or corporations. Thus a capitalist system depends on strong property rights. People often complain about capitalism, but it has proved very successful in country after country.

[+Jackalgirl]

I think the problem I have with the "copyrights stifle creativity" argument is that there's something that's basically being overlooked: JUST ASK FOR PERMISSION. If it's "stifling creativity", it's doing so because the artist is 1) too lazy to ask or 2) doesn't want to be told no. But if you don't get permission, then guess what? You have another opportunity to BE CREATIVE.

 

It can be a hard lesson, especially when you're in a hurry or the image is burning in your head and you've got to get it out. But it's an important one.

 

With regard to the specific example of the Tranquility geocoin: the Anne Frank quote isn't, at least in my opinion, what makes the Tranquility geocoin such a beautiful design. The quote is almost impossible to read. Plus, if you google "tranquility geocoin" and take a look of those images that only show one side, it's not generally the quote side that's shown. No, if only one side is shown, it's overwhelmingly the other side (I count 21 non-quote sides on the first page of google image results, to four quote sides). So it's the other side that's engendering a reaction in people. In other words, the unattributed quote is a completely secondary design element and, as such, could have been done away with entirely if the Estate had refused to grant permission, or had asked for an unreasonable fee to use the quote, if asked.

 

Also, I have serious issues with your argument that (and I'm obviously paraphrasing here) because artists are inspired by the world around them, that their work belongs to the world. This is not true. The service that artists provide is the ability to extract or synthesize or otherwise distill those inspirations into something to which other people respond (broad generalization). In many cases, it is a skill that requires not only talent, but also considerable effort, education, practice, and time. I may sound a little short here, because I'm operating on very little sleep, but I am tired, tired, tired of people acting as if what artists do is somehow easy, or does not involve skill (or time).* As if I could take a paintbrush and paper and just toss off a masterpiece in 10 seconds. Yes, some artists can, but except in the case of freakishly talented savants (of whom I am insanely jealous), anyone who can do that got to that pinnacle by spending a lifetime building the pinnacle out of effort, brick by painful brick.

 

So it is incredibly annoying to me to see "work" such as that s--tuff "showcased" by this particular copyright case. You can just look at it and realize how very little work the "artist" put into it, and how much research and work the photographer put into the photos. It makes me grit my teeth with shame and frustration, not only that people would do that and claim to be creative, but that other people would hoover it up and pay millions of dollars for it. I guess I'm just not hipster enough.

 

*I have lost count of the times that people have approached my mother, a world-class calligrapher, and acted as if she should just give them their requested custom-calligraphed whatever it is they want because it's "just art". My mother puts an unbelievable amount of effort into research and design, even with stuff that most people would consider "toss-off" work, and even when she really does toss off an amazing piece of art (which she does with disgusting regularity**), it's because she has spent thirty years putting in constant, disciplined, extremely hard work in getting to that point.

 

**I love you, Mom!

 

Okay, I'm sorry if that was a rant. I really need some sleep!

[+Six Little Spookies]

This has been a fascinating read. Please, keep up the discussion.

[GregsonVaux]

Hi Kat,

 

We seem to be getting into issues that have less to do with copyright and more to do with the value society places on art. I have changed careers a number of times and have sometimes thought about trying to make a living being creative. My conclusion over and over is that it is VERY difficult to make a living in art and I think that it has nothing to do with copyrights. My conclusion is that most people like to be creative and because it is so pleasant they are willing to do it for little money. Thus, the supply exceeds the demand and prices drop. Kat, you may complain about the time you put into your art, but remember, you are basically doing it for free, which means that it gives you inherent pleasure. I used to be involved in musical theater and many of the lead actors/singers in the musicals had day jobs and they sang and danced at night for free. Some of the cast members were paid, but they made barely enough to survive. In my life, I have known many artists, musicians, and actors and although some of them were quite good, they were either poor, or had day jobs to pay the bills. In general, the kinds of jobs that pay well are the ones that most people would never do for free.

 

Getting back to the person who altered the photographs and sold them for huge sums, he reminds me of Andy Warhol. As I have said before, I consider Andy Warhol to be more of a businessman than an artist. He was able to find and exploit a market. He was able to sell himself and make people desire his work. Perhaps that is a sort of art, but it is not painting in the classical sense. My own feeling about the story is that the copyright laws worked as they should have and the original photographer received compensation as he should have.

 

Can someone make money at art? Yes, but it is not easy. Also remember, that nearly all of the great artists lived in near poverty for some or most of their lives. I could say why this is, but it would require a lengthy essay that might tire many people. What I really want to stress is that the difficulty in making money at art has little to do with copyrights. It is about supply, demand, business sense, and marketing. In nearly all cases, successful artists have paired themselves with a benefactor/patron or a manager who is astute in business.

 

Let's visit the story of the photographer one more time. He took some nice pictures but the article implies that he was not making any money off of them and probably never would have. It was the second person who did some drawing over the pictures that was able to make large amounts of money off of them. He may be a weasel, but he has a skill that the photographer lacked. In a better world, the two of them would have teamed up and both would have won.

[+farrtom]

I have been thinking about this topic recently as it relates to geocoins. I am new to geocoins and have been thinking about making some coins of my own (in fact I am making one right now for a non-profit groups fund raiser, but I digress). I have though up a couple of ideas, then to later be looking on ebay, in here or else where on line and find very similar designs already made. This got me to thinking about copyrights of a design and what would keep people from stealing mine (or anybody's) designs. I know the buying public (and this forum) would not support a design that "has already been done".

 

I know in my profession (architecture) there are alot of borrowed ideas that get used. In fact we study the "masters" in school a follow in their styles.

The courts (and our contracts with our clients) say the building owner own the building and can do what ever they want to it after it is completed, but that doesn't mean that if I desing a building for you that you can then go and take those plans and build additional buildings with out compensating me for them. This can be a touchy, and legal subject if you go and try and make minor changes then build the building. This is very clear cut when it comes to a specific, already built building. It becomes more difficult when it is just a plan. An example, my father-in-law is an architect (different firm) that provided a site and building plan to a client that was trying to decided between two architects on who they wanted to use on a project. Both architects have worked with this same client. One on the east side of the state and the other on the west. The client decided to go with the other architect because of there size, they are a much larger firm and could handle the size of the project better, but they ended up useing the basic plan of my father-in-laws instead of there own. The building changed in it's details (it went from 2 stories to 4) but they used the basic layout and site layout. I know this bothered my father-in-law even though it says it didn't. He also didn't recieve any compensaton for his ideas. I asked about him pursing some compensation but hed didn't want to rock the boat with a former, and hopefully a future client. Nor did he have the finaces to hire a lawyer. It would have cost him more in legal fees then he would have collected. I don't know that the client even relized thay were doing anything wrong, they liked his layout better, but the other architect should have known and gotten his permision to use his ideas.

 

I know this rambled on, but my point is that there are more to copyright issues then just in music and movies. I have often wondered about some of the designs on geocoin (and especially pathtags). I see alot of copyrighted images being used. I know Disney or the NCAA or other corporations may not come after the little guy for using an image on a personal item, but when these items start being sold it makes me wonder.

[+keewee]

I know that this will make RedShoesGirl angry, but I do not like the idea of someone else having a right to my image. When I go to a studio, I am happy to pay the photographer for the use of their studio and their skill, but I do not think that my image belongs to them.

 

Regardless of the subject matter, it is the photographer who is producing the photo. Their knowledge and their equipment creates the image which they sell to you. That's their living. If you try to copy that image, your are infringing on their right to make a living from work they have produced.

 

 

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

 

I disagree. My uncle is a professional photographer and the only effect that improving technology is having on his business is that he is able to take on more jobs. The only changes that have been made to copyright law in recent years is to make it stronger, put more burden on the defendant to prove fair use, and to extend the period of copyright.

 

Ok... now I am beginning to see the real argument here. More or less.... "the ability to produce and sell the work" vs. "the ability to buy and reproduce the work". That makes it more logical to me.

 

I don't know if this is a worldwide phenomenon, but in my region of the United States we get Senior Pictures taken during the last year of high school. In my local area, this is the farthest that many students go in schooling. So, a professional photographer will be paid their fee for different sized packages of photographs with only a small quantity of different pictures. Also, for another fee, you can buy the cd with all of the different pictures on it (a digital copy). Now, would it be plagiarism to make a copy of any picture on that cd.... or is it only for say projector style sharing of the pictures?

 

I would have to say that technology is taking some money away from professional photographers in the case that now anybody with a digital camera can take a picture and then print it in minutes. Granted, the amateur photographer rarely has the skills as an experienced professional, but over years of practice these skills will sharpen. For example, instead of paying a professional photographer to take wedding and engagement pictures, my wife's cousin took all of ours. They look amazing! Tag on the photoshops extras and you can do just about anything. We have a cd that we can always copy a picture from if a precious picture is destroyed in a fire. On the flip side, I would never be mad if our photographer wanted to use any of our pictures commercially to advertise for business when she goes professional.

 

I ran into this when booking our wedding Photography for September. Many wedding photographers hold all copyright to the photos of you and your new hubby, and if you want prints you have to go to them and pay their outrageous prices. There are a few out there that will offer 'shared copyright', they can use the photos however they want, and you get the disc with the 'digital copies' on it to do whatever you want with it.

 

We were so lucky that our photographer sold us the negatives for a low fee (Yeah - digital cameras weren't common yet when we got married so ours are on film). Most won't do that, or they charge an arm, a leg and a one ear!

[+dfx]

We were so lucky that our photographer sold us the negatives for a low fee (Yeah - digital cameras weren't common yet when we got married so ours are on film). Most won't do that, or they charge an arm, a leg and a one ear!

 

The question is, even if you buy the negatives off the photographer, does this give you the right to actually make copies from those negatives? Does it give you the right to sell the pictures to someone else? Maybe even collect royalties for them if you license them out for whatever purpose? Technically, the answer to all those questions should be no, because you didn't make the pictures and so you don't own the copyright on them. Unless the photographer also sells you a license to do some or all of those things, which may explain the commonly steep price. On the other hand, if you buy only the negatives but no license, then the photographer won't have an original any more, making the point kinda moot (practically only, not legally).

[avroair]

what's your take on the "Rising Sun Mint" and their duplication of the Knights Templar geocoin? Okay? Not okay?

 

Whereas the Templar seal is not copyrighted. The actual design of the Knight's Templar geocoin (front and back) is. So it's definitely not okay. This was a total breach of copyright laws. But having dealt with this sort of forgery for 20 years there is no recourse to pursue internationally.

[RedShoesGirl]

We were so lucky that our photographer sold us the negatives for a low fee (Yeah - digital cameras weren't common yet when we got married so ours are on film). Most won't do that, or they charge an arm, a leg and a one ear!

 

The question is, even if you buy the negatives off the photographer, does this give you the right to actually make copies from those negatives? Does it give you the right to sell the pictures to someone else? Maybe even collect royalties for them if you license them out for whatever purpose? Technically, the answer to all those questions should be no, because you didn't make the pictures and so you don't own the copyright on them. Unless the photographer also sells you a license to do some or all of those things, which may explain the commonly steep price. On the other hand, if you buy only the negatives but no license, then the photographer won't have an original any more, making the point kinda moot (practically only, not legally).

 

some photographers do not want to be bothered with making prints so will sell the negatives and the copyright. others will want to hold on to the negatives, or digital files so they may make money off the prints. yes, that is where photographers make much of their income.

 

look at it this way. wedding photography is much more than showing up and shooting the wedding, getting ready, reception etc. then they have to go back to their digital darkroom and edit the images. toss the junkers, out of focus pics and uncle ernie barfing into the punch. this takes TIME!

 

then, after doing that, they have to do the retouching. every photo will need something done to the basic image. erase dark circles from under the brides eyes, wipe the drool ofd old uncle ernie, get rid of the telephone pole coming up through the back of the flower girl's head because that is the only shot where her eyes weren't crossed and she wasn't sticking her tongue out at the photographer.

 

it is all about the time spent. most wedding shooters do not charge very much, at least when you think of the hours spent doing the actual job.

 

all top of it all you have operating costs. do you know what a professional digital camera and lights cost? and maybe an assistant because it is a big gig?

 

yep, once in a while your cousin can shoot the wedding and get great stuff, but is often not the case. so in order to predict the outcome you pay a professional to do the job.

 

walmart will not reproduce wedding pictures with the photographer's name stamped on the back or the name of the studio, citing copyright infringement.

 

this has gotten away from the original topic.

 

lara

[RedShoesGirl]

... On the flip side, I would never be mad if our photographer wanted to use any of our pictures commercially to advertise for business when she goes professional.

 

in order to do that, she would have to have signed model releases for every person in the photo. just because a photographer owns the copyright does not mean they can use the image for commercial reasons without a model release. and in many cases a property release. editorial work or art work is a bit more lenient, but more and more publications are asking for model releases of recognizable people.

Edited March 22, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

Let's visit the story of the photographer one more time. He took some nice pictures but the article implies that he was not making any money off of them and probably never would have. It was the second person who did some drawing over the pictures that was able to make large amounts of money off of them. He may be a weasel, but he has a skill that the photographer lacked. In a better world, the two of them would have teamed up and both would have won.

 

the photographer didn't lack any skill, other than maybe marketing HIS BOOK of the images. he was a published photographer. the photos were his vision and should not have been hacked up by some jerk trying to make money off work he didn't create. they were more than just "nice" photos. to say that tries to invalidate the importance of the work.

 

as for teaming up - nah, ain't gonna happen even in a better world. like i said, a photographer has a vision, what he creates is important to him in every detail. if he had wanted cutout pics of guitars in his subjects hands, he would have put them there. he certainly doesn't want someone else doing that. it was not part of HIS VISION. his alone.

 

as for money, the court was pretty clear on this:

 

Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market for or Value of the Copyrighted Work

 

Defendants’ protestations that Cariou has not marketed his Photos more aggressively (or, indeed, as aggressively as Prince has marketed his Paintings) are unavailing. As the Second Circuit has previously emphasized, the “potential market” for the copyrighted work and its derivatives must be examined, even if the “author has disavowed any intention to publish them during his lifetime,” given that an author “has the right to change his mind” and is “entitled to protect his opportunity to sell his [works].”

 

so he may not have been actively marketing the work other than book sales but who is to say what he decides next year. especially if a gallery comes calling and says "let's make prints to show and sell."

 

he has the right to protect his work and any derivatives.

 

and that gets us back to coins. that is a derivative of the original art and simply can't be used.

 

i am not sure why we are even arguing about this. what is it that some folks don't get? the way the law is written is NOW, not in some imaginable future, but now, the law we live by says don't infringe on copyright.

 

just as laws in the past have changed with the times, i.e. women voting, etc, if the time comes for a change then it will happen. right now is not the time.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

We were so lucky that our photographer sold us the negatives for a low fee (Yeah - digital cameras weren't common yet when we got married so ours are on film). Most won't do that, or they charge an arm, a leg and a one ear!

 

because built into the income is sale of prints and negatives. most wedding photographers don't make much, so income from prints and negatives is crucial.

 

not matter the income, i don't do weddings. not even weddings where i would gladly hand over the digital files. have you ever had to deal with folks at a wedding? it is not a pretty picture. you could not pay me enough to do a wedding.

 

because even after the wedding is shot, all the other work to the image still has to be done. and no one is ever happy.

[+farrtom]

Another thought as it relates to coins (and hopefully to the original story)...

How would one of us feel if we came up with an original coin design but someone else took our design, changed it by adding a logo or image to it (or mabey cropped the design and enlarged it) then with there better resources got it out to the public before us? And if not before us, mabey we were making it avalible on a limited bases but they swamp e-bay, this forum and the internet with "their" design.

I think, on this forum, there would be alot of criticism of that person who "stole" our design.

 

This is one resone I am worried about some design ideas that I have thought about that turn out to be very similar to some that have already been created. I don't know if I should go forward with them or at the very least put them out there before I spend any more time on ebay or the other sights that have coins on them.

[GregsonVaux]

the photographer didn't lack any skill, other than maybe marketing HIS BOOK of the images.

 

That is the skill that I was talking about. Perhaps some artists don't want recognition and money, but most do. I know a lot of people who do music for a living and most (all?) of them are forever short of money. It is not that they lack skill as artists, it is that they either lack the skill or the desire to take care of the required business and marketing. Yes, the book and the pictures belong to the artist and we all respect that. However, in order to make a living and get recognition, he may need to get a business partner.

 

The world is full of talented artists, but wealthy artists are rare.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

The world is full of talented artists, but wealthy artists are rare.

 

we agree on that. i always feel i do not have the marketing "gene." one photographer i know is not all that great at photography but he actively shoots subjects that appeal to many people and knows how to market the heck out of them

 

i need a rep.

[+keewee]

We were so lucky that our photographer sold us the negatives for a low fee (Yeah - digital cameras weren't common yet when we got married so ours are on film). Most won't do that, or they charge an arm, a leg and a one ear!

 

The question is, even if you buy the negatives off the photographer, does this give you the right to actually make copies from those negatives? Does it give you the right to sell the pictures to someone else? Maybe even collect royalties for them if you license them out for whatever purpose? Technically, the answer to all those questions should be no, because you didn't make the pictures and so you don't own the copyright on them. Unless the photographer also sells you a license to do some or all of those things, which may explain the commonly steep price. On the other hand, if you buy only the negatives but no license, then the photographer won't have an original any more, making the point kinda moot (practically only, not legally).

 

Yeah, we have the full rights to them. And all it cost was the negatives.

 

He was changing professions and essentially wanted to wash his hands of photography. That said, we don't have a piece of paper saying we now are licensed!

[+Six Little Spookies]

On the subject of copyrights, for those of us not well versed in such matters, do our works need to be registered with the copyright office to be protected? If not, how would you go about defending your rights in a dispute?

[GregsonVaux]

On the subject of copyrights, for those of us not well versed in such matters, do our works need to be registered with the copyright office to be protected? If not, how would you go about defending your rights in a dispute?

 

No, you don't need to register and you don't need to put on a copyright notice. Just creating a new work of art is enough to receive automatic copyright. However, I do put copyright notices on my artwork to remind people. If they copy my images using a right click, the notice will go with it unless someone takes the time to excise it using photoshop.

 

You can get a lot more information by typing "copyright" into Wikipedia.

[+dfx]

However, I do put copyright notices on my artwork to remind people. If they copy my images using a right click, the notice will go with it unless someone takes the time to excise it using photoshop.

 

The copyright notice also serves another important purpose: because (unlike patenting) there is no registration process, in case of a dispute it may be hard to prove who actually created some work (first). That's the reason why the copyright notice commonly includes a date, or at least a year number.

[avroair]

Many wedding photographers hold all copyright to the photos of you and your new hubby, and if you want prints you have to go to them and pay their outrageous prices. There are a few out there that will offer 'shared copyright', they can use the photos however they want, and you get the disc with the 'digital copies' on it to do whatever you want with it.

 

That's not uncommon to any photographers, they would be stupid to hand over the copyright. For our wedding I specifically got a newspaper photographer (because I liked the style) and then paid him $1000 for all the negatives.

[avroair]

...

The world is full of talented artists, but wealthy artists are rare.

 

I don't really agree with that, I know a lot of artists who are wealthy, I pay some of them big sums of money for projects. But, generally artists in the general term aren't interested in the business, legal or marketing side of what they do... they just want to express themselves.

[avroair]

all the other work to the image still has to be done. and no one is ever happy.

 

LOL --- this wasn't the case before digital photography.

[RedShoesGirl]

On the subject of copyrights, for those of us not well versed in such matters, do our works need to be registered with the copyright office to be protected? If not, how would you go about defending your rights in a dispute?

 

we have a saying - "when its created, it's copyrighted." that said it is harder to defend copyright in court unless the work is registered at the copyright office. and especially hard to get any damages.

[RedShoesGirl]

all the other work to the image still has to be done. and no one is ever happy.

 

LOL --- this wasn't the case before digital photography.

 

of course it was. retouching was done either on the final print or on the negative. when i was shooting models in SF, the original slide was copied onto a 4x5 negative that was then retouched. retouching and photo manipulations have been around forever. look at the early black & white images that were hand-coloured.

 

wedding photos have been routinely retouched to make the bride especially look better in portraits. digital is just a different way of doing manipulations.

 

rsg

Edited March 23, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+dfx]

So... is a copyright really a copyright if it's not registered? How do you find out if someone has or hasn't obtained permission / consent to use a copyrighted image/quote/likeness? Is it public record?

 

It's between the creator (or any other holder of the rights) and the violator. If the copyright holder doesn't sue the violator, then nothing happens.

 

A license is a contract between the copyright owner/holder and the user, ideally in written form. If the copyright holder sues the user over violation, but the user can present a valid license allowing him to use the work, then the case would be dismissed.

 

If a 3rd party sees somebody's copyright infringed, all they can do is tell the copyright holder about it. It's a matter of civil law, not public law (in most countries, anyway).

 

Proof of copyright ownership can be tricky sometimes. In most cases, the work that's being copied/used is published in some way prior to being copied, which makes it easy. In other cases, having the copyright registered (where possible) can help in proving copyright ownership. (In the US, copyright used to be awarded only if the work was published or if the unpublished work was registered - that's no longer the case though.)

 

However, it should be noted that having the copyright registered does not automatically award you copyright ownership of the registered work. The copyright owner is always the original creator and not whoever may have registered the work. Again, proving that can be very difficult, but it's not impossible.

[RedShoesGirl]

So... is a copyright really a copyright if it's not registered?

 

yes.

 

How do you find out if someone has or hasn't obtained permission / consent to use a copyrighted image/quote/likeness? Is it public record?

 

if it matters to you, you ask them.

[avroair]

all the other work to the image still has to be done. and no one is ever happy.

 

LOL --- this wasn't the case before digital photography.

 

of course it was. retouching was done either on the final print or on the negative. when i was shooting models in SF, the original slide was copied onto a 4x5 negative that was then retouched. retouching and photo manipulations have been around forever. look at the early black & white images that were hand-coloured.

 

wedding photos have been routinely retouched to make the bride especially look better in portraits. digital is just a different way of doing manipulations.

 

rsg

 

Yes, retouching, but not to the same extent as it's done now. Photoshop has made options limitless.

[+keewee]

all the other work to the image still has to be done. and no one is ever happy.

 

LOL --- this wasn't the case before digital photography.

 

of course it was. retouching was done either on the final print or on the negative. when i was shooting models in SF, the original slide was copied onto a 4x5 negative that was then retouched. retouching and photo manipulations have been around forever. look at the early black & white images that were hand-coloured.

 

wedding photos have been routinely retouched to make the bride especially look better in portraits. digital is just a different way of doing manipulations.

 

rsg

 

Yes, retouching, but not to the same extent as it's done now. Photoshop has made options limitless.

Ain't that the truth!!!

 

I could photoshop a picture of avroair to have him accepting bribes from... well... ANYONE! (dead or alive)

Edited March 23, 2011 by keewee

[avroair]

all the other work to the image still has to be done. and no one is ever happy.

 

LOL --- this wasn't the case before digital photography.

 

of course it was. retouching was done either on the final print or on the negative. when i was shooting models in SF, the original slide was copied onto a 4x5 negative that was then retouched. retouching and photo manipulations have been around forever. look at the early black & white images that were hand-coloured.

 

wedding photos have been routinely retouched to make the bride especially look better in portraits. digital is just a different way of doing manipulations.

 

rsg

 

Yes, retouching, but not to the same extent as it's done now. Photoshop has made options limitless.

Ain't that the truth!!!

 

I could photoshop a picture of avroair to have him accepting bribes from... well... ANYONE! (dead or alive)

 

I'm afraid my image is classified. It causes screen meltdown!

[+dfx]

So it's not public record? And just deeming something as being copyrighted makes it so... sounds kinda sketchy to me. I think I'll look here... U.S. Copyright Office

 

Please read my post 87 above. The copyright office doesn't award the copyright for something to anybody, it's only a point of registration and can be used to aid in solving disputes. You don't need to register your work in order to get the copyright, and doing so also doesn't necessarily give you the copyright, in case you didn't actually create the work. The copyright is always automatically and only with the creator, no matter what, registration or not.

 

There's no public record because it doesn't concern the public. If you have a piece of creative work and you didn't create it yourself, then you know you can't use it and can't copy it, unless you're told otherwise by someone who's authorized to do that (e.g. the creator). If you see somebody using or copying someone else's work, then it's between those two parties - it doesn't concern you.

Edited March 24, 2011 by dfx

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

There's no public record because it doesn't concern the public. If you have a piece of creative work and you didn't create it yourself, then you know you can't use it and can't copy it, unless you're told otherwise by someone who's authorized to do that (e.g. the creator). If you see somebody using or copying someone else's work, then it's between those two parties - it doesn't concern you.

 

it does concern someone if they are buying something that has been copied and the buyer is either aware of it and doesn't care - like in the case of a geocoin, or isn't aware of it, like in the case of a geocoin.

 

what was interesting about the OP, was the thief had to tell all those buyers the work was bogus:

 

"That Defendants shall notify in writing any current or future owners of the Paintings of whom they are or become aware that the Paintings infringe the copyright in the Photographs, that the Paintings were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act of 1976, and that the Paintings cannot lawfully be displayed under 17 U.S.C. § 109©"

 

i wonder if he had to give back the money. i can see this guy in trouble for a long long time.

Edited March 24, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+JoenGPS]

 

I'm afraid my image is classified. It causes screen meltdown!

 

....your classified alright.....

[avroair]

If you have a piece of creative work and you didn't create it yourself, and you know you can't use it and can't copy it

 

Kinda like when the Italian guy stole the Mona Lisa, then it was replaced by a fake and then sold it to five different wealthy individuals... none of them are ever going to admit they bought a fake... five times the profit! At least that was the plan.

[+goosefraba1]

If you have a piece of creative work and you didn't create it yourself, and you know you can't use it and can't copy it

 

Kinda like when the Italian guy stole the Mona Lisa, then it was replaced by a fake and then sold it to five different wealthy individuals... none of them are ever going to admit they bought a fake... five times the profit! At least that was the plan.

 

Talk about a plan... and I'm sure that the "wealthy individuals" were going to just turn it back over to the Louvre without any paybacks.... ya right. They would have either- A. Got recogntion... which I'm sure would have elevated there name even farther into the limelight. B. Got money back from the gallery. C. Kept it for themselves and hanged it in their bathroom or parlor or whatever. Just sayin' the thief in this case might not have been the only crooked one.

[+farrtom]

To take this subject to geocoins... What are people's thoughts on coins that have copyrighted images but do not have the right to use those images? For example a coin with a pop culture image on them.

 

There are some I would realy like to get but I wonder / worry about the copy right issue.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I would have to say that technology is taking some money away from professional photographers in the case that now anybody with a digital camera can take a picture and then print it in minutes.

It's not the tools for producing a photo tht are taking away from artists, but rather it's the tools used for doplication that are the problem. If you take a picture, you own the rights to reproduce it. Seeing a digital copy online does not give you the right to reproduce it. The problem is that everyone seems to think that saving an image to their computer gives them the right to use it as they please. Actually, even saving it to your computer is theft.

[+Chokecherry]

To take this subject to geocoins... What are people's thoughts on coins that have copyrighted images but do not have the right to use those images? For example a coin with a pop culture image on them.

 

There are some I would realy like to get but I wonder / worry about the copy right issue.

 

Not big into the geocoin collecting thing but I have to say it bothers me when people use copyrighted material and potentially financially profit from said material when they do not own the rights to it or have permission to use it. I have friends who are artists and have had issues with this on a small scale and it's so disheartening.

 

I personally would not knowingly purchase a coin where the image on it was pirated.

[+goosefraba1]

Not to change subject... but I went to a local art gallery yesterday and was surprised to see a. an original Durer (don't know how to type the umlaut into the name) print of a bagpipe player, a Picasso piece, and a Rembrandt. So.... as I understand it.... the Rembrandt and the Durer pieces would be public use... but the Picasso is protected. The Durer works are amazing! It is hard to believe that anybody could carve that into wood.... and actually carving it in reverse as to pick up the ink on the ridges. That would be an awesome idea for a coin... just a real plain finish... but with intricate art work to stamp with.

[+dfx]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.