|
|
29navy
TOP BOSS
|
  
Posted on: Feb 2, 2009 - 6:55pm
|
Very interesting topic. Have a question. Let's say I buy a photo album at a estate/yard sale or acution. The original owner and or photogpraher of the photos is dead or unknown. Do I. as the owner of the photos now "own" the copyright?
Charlie |
Total Posts: 600 | Joined:
Dec 28, 2006 - 3:02pm | IP
Logged
|
|
newsnerd99
New Member
|
Posted on: Feb 2, 2009 - 7:16pm
|
Real quick - let me throw out there that while I am a photographer and sell my images for a living, I'm not an expert. I don't have a lawyer on retainer however I am a member of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and they have several resources and legal help if I need it - and thankfully, I have not.
Charlie - if those images are the originals and conceivably were sold to you from the estate of the photographer, then yes - they are now "yours." The issue of use comes into play in a situation where I loaned a photograph to the person who placed it in his album. If you were to then publish my photograph without permission, that's where the issue arises. That being said, you didn't have knowledge that you were using the photo without the rights.
The issue mentioned earlier is in a situation where, for example, I post a photograph (the PT-48 photos I took in Ohio last month). If someone here takes those and uses them in a publication (there is a fair use grey area for news publications) without permission then they will have to answer to me. The author would have no leg to stand on because they took the photos from (for example) this website where they were clearly posted by a fellow named "Newsnerd99" who could easily be contacted ans asked for permission/rights.
Again, this is all based on my understanding of the law and standard practices, not actually how the law might be used for or against someone.
I went to the NPPA site for some information I can site and all I can find is more recent (post 1978, when legislation went into effect):
"According to the Copyright Office, a work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after Jan. 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter."
Without more digging I don't know what grandfather-effect there is on images being created pre-1978.
For folks wanting to read more on copyright stuff:
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/legacy_report
Grandson of James J Stanton
RON 15 PT 209 and RON 23 PT 243
Check out: www.pistolpackinmama.net
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
 Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 12:36am
|
CAUTION – SLIPPERY WHEN COPYRIGHTED OR NOT
I've been dealing with copyright issues for over forty years, as a business owner of my own Graphic Arts firm dealing with hundreds of clients, in-house photographers, photographers, models, designers as well as my own designs and a myriad of other sources of intellectual properties. I Hereby state: I’m clearly NOT an EXPERT on the issue, even top copyright attornys differ on the legal issue including the local courts and federal courts which continually issue confusing and contradicting rulings.
The copyright issue is an absolute mine field, do your best to avoid any conflict unless you have deep pockets to defend your decision. Publishers have an army of lawyers making judgment on every publication create under their name – and believe me even with all their caution and work study they end up in litigation all the time.
The first rules of thumb,
1.) If you didn’t create the intellectual property don’t claim a copyright.
2.) If you didn’t specifically purchase the copyright license to the property, don’t claim a copyright.
3.) If you don’t have a signed copyright transfer/surrender statement, don’t claim a copyright.
4.) If you haven’t formally re-registered the copyright in your name with the federal government, don’t claim a copyright.
5.) Do not publish or post any of your own property without a clear copyright notice. Failure to do so can constitute loss of ownership. You cannot unduly make people guess whether the property is yours or someone else’s or where or how to contact you. An example of posting your property on the board, then someone copying it and posting it somewhere else, and again someone else copies that . . . so on and so on until some uses it as an end-item. There is no way anyone can even guess where it originally came from, let alone now who will claim ownership.
6.) If you are in possession of photographs, art work, painting, etc. buy means of purchase, loan, willed, given or donated does not give you right to claim a copyright or even publish the item with prior permission. You own the actual physical material content of the object, not the intellectual content.
7.) If you don’t know, don’t use it.
Some believe an ordinary sailor in 1943 taking a snap shot of his fellow crew members taking a whiz over the side of the boat or waving to Mom back home, constitute that sailor’s photograph as his intellectual property. The actual photocopy/negative is his property but prior to the 1970’s only professional photographers/cameramen/journalists/artist applying/selling their trade created intellectual property of those moments. In other words it was a spontaneous moment that regularly occurred not a piece of art nor a moment of news for the sailor. Further complication would include, did the sailor get releases from each subject in his photo – they also have rights and privacy issues.
Many, many times, the projects I created for my clients, required designs, art work, copy writing and even photos. To protect the client from copyright infringements I always paid extra for copyright releases. A typical job would require myself to pick and hire a photographer, if I wasn’t shooting the product myself. Even when I paid the photographer for his professional skill, his studio time, all film, film processing, film developing as well as all relate image charges, paid for his assistant(s), I provided the stylist, I provided and negotiated release with a model, did all art direction myself, approved each Polaroid pre-shot . . . . so on and so on. The final photographic images were still the photographer’s copyright property. Uhmmmm doesn’t seam right, does it - but a matter of fact.
After all that: CAUTION – SLIPPERY WHEN COPYRIGHTED OR NOT
Just my personal opinion - not legal tender,
Dick . . .
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
Jeff D
Moderator
|
Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 5:36am
|
Good to hear from professionals, thanks guys. Stickier than a toddler with a jar of honey, especially with the internet these days. Another issue I've ran across is the scanning of military documents and the rights of the scanee to claim copyright. Another forum has a discussion on this:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical-requests/
By the way, the above website has many World War II military manuals for download. Mostly aircraft but also vehicle, gunnery, and a few naval manuals. One I found very interesting regards Japanese suicide boats. Click the sticky thread "Regular manual questions".
|
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined:
Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am | IP
Logged
|
|
newsnerd99
New Member
|
Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 5:39am
|
Well stated Dick....
Grandson of James J Stanton
RON 15 PT 209 and RON 23 PT 243
Check out: www.pistolpackinmama.net
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 6:51am
|
Dick,
Good point sir.
That, ducktails into what I'm saying sir.
If someone posts a photo on the internet and they did not take it and it is an "orphan work" ... then, it is public property not private property.
I'm sorry to disagree with you Newsnerd99, I've worked with lawyers and know a little more than people give me credit for ...
Yes, if you took a photo - you own the rights to it and CAN copyright it. BUT if you post a photo that you acquired from a third party and the photographer is no longer living ... and it was once owned by the government and was 'discarded' by them, it is considered to be public property.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
newsnerd99
New Member
|
Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 7:09am
|
You are correct Garth...however your earlier statement is what I was addressing:
"if someone posts a photo online ... then, because the internet being what it is sir, then that photo becomes public domain and anyone can take ownership of it and is not required to give any credit as to where they obtained it."
Many of the WWII photos I have posted here are the property of my family (my grandmother, since my grandfather has passed), the Nugent family or in many cases Henry Beazley, who is alive and well and still owns the camera he took so many photos with.
Grandson of James J Stanton
RON 15 PT 209 and RON 23 PT 243
Check out: www.pistolpackinmama.net
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
TGConnelly
New Member
|
Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 7:59am
|
Sorry -
I should have been more clear on that.
Please contact me offsite sir.
Thanks,
Garth
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
BobPic
New Member
|
Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 8:47am
|
newsnerd99 reply is the most correct description. I copyright all my art as a matter of principle. However, I doubt that I will ever get into any legal action. I am not a lawyer, but I found out the hard way that the copyright laws are to prevent someone from using your intellectural property for their own economic benefit and does little for the occasional violation. Violation is not a crime, it merely grants the owner the right to pursue civil legal action to stop the illegal use or recover actual damages. The justice system will not stop or prosecute anyone even if they have evidence of infringement. The owner must catch the violation, notify the offender and order him to cease and decist using your work and if he doesn't, you csn taske him to civil court. If you win, you can only recover actual damages, plus perhaps your legel fees. There are also loopholes that allows anyone to use copyrighted material for their own use, for study or academic purposes and other uses. Having said this, everyone should be aware of copyrights, even if the copyright symbol is not affixed and should respect the owners rights as best you can. You are not likely, however, to be prosecuted for violation unless you use copyrighted material for your business purposes. Its nothing to be afraid of.
|
Total Posts: | Joined:
Unregistered | IP
Logged
|
|
Dick
Moderator
|
Posted on: Feb 3, 2009 - 9:45am
|
For previous post not the immediate post
NO, NO, NO . . . . just because you downloaded a photo from the Internet or royalty-free source does not give you ownership and the right to claim copyright, if it did there could be conceivably hundreds of copyright owners at the same time.
Ownership and right to post/publish copyright notice can only be invoked by the actual creator/author or upon proof of receipt of signed transmittal of ownership and that ownership transmittal has been re-registered as new owner with the copyright office.
Because you are in possession by gift, sale, donation or by other means, does not entitle you the right to post a copyright under your name. Unless all ownership permissions have been transferred to you in writing and signed over by the current owner. Death of owner does automatically transfers official ownership to immediate/direct relatives of deceased owner. However, other simple possession by sale, gift or discovery does not give you ownership or ownership rights.
Only property created by you (or direct relative in the case of owner death), or transferred to you by a signed document/contract, has the right to claim copyright.
A photograph or any authored item in public domain, because ownership has run-out or expired, ALWAYS stays in public domain. Claiming copyright is dubious to say the least. But it does not preclude you from using the item in your own works if it is legally in Public Domain, you just can’t claim copyright (ownership) of the item. Public domain does not mean, any item found on the Internet is public domain. If copyrighted info has been taken from rightful owners and posted on the Internet or spread on the Internet does not imply or represent public domain. Just because you found it does not EVER mean if is “Public Domain”. The words Public Domain is too recklessly used, mainly by those who do not wish to credit or pay for rights.
Please heed my earlier comment:
CAUTION – SLIPPERY WHEN COPYRIGHTED OR NOT
It’s quite simple – If you didn’t create it – don’t claim it.
Just my personal opinion - not legal tender/advise/or any implications/or direction should be derived by my ramblings, just simply respect others property.
Dick . . .
|
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined:
Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm | IP
Logged
|
|
|
