Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:36 pm
I suggest everyone start here to find out what your rights are.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what
Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:45 pm
rwdfresno wrote:I suggest everyone start here to find out what your rights are.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what
Sigh. That would be 'everyone' looking for 'US law', not applicable in most of the rest of the world most of the time and thus not applicable to most of us.
See my first post, point 5. The Berne Convention is more relevant in the international context most of us operate in, as a guideline, but you do need to be aware of the copyright law of the country you publish in. Yes, for US users, rwdfresno's link is appropriate. It's just not appropriate for 'everyone'.
Jack - there's no such thing as 'copywrite', so there can't be a 'US copywrite office'. It's Copyright. See my point 1.
As usual we go around in a circle with this.
Regards,
????
Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:29 pm
Jack - there's no such thing as 'copywrite', so there can't be a 'US copywrite office'. It's Copyright.
Po-tatoe.....Po-ta-toe
I'm pretty sure you knew what I ment
So is there a 'copywright office
I'm sorry oppsed again-copyright 
Re: ????
Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:37 pm
Jack Cook wrote:I'm pretty sure you knew what I ment
Indeed I did. But in court or law, get it right or lose the case.
Re: ????
Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:16 pm
Jack Cook wrote:except for Jack's quote from the 12 o'clock high forum, which is totally wrong.
I just cutted and pasted I swear
I assumed the second part supposedly from the US copywrite office
would be correct
I know, Jack, you are just quoting what you read, but you were ill-served by that 12 o'clock forum post. That second quote is reasonably correct, but notice how it directly contradicts the first quote. The second quote indicates that most WWII pictures are still protected, and have not moved into the public domain as the first quote incorrectly states.
I once got a rude email off of ebay after selling a original B-29 nose art photo. It seems this humaniod also had "THE" original also and I violated their copywrite by selling "MY" original.
Probably neither of you had what I would call the "original" (the piece of negative or slide film that was actually exposed in the camera) but it doesn't matter. First, if you were selling a print that was made lawfully, you were not violating any copyright by selling it because you didn't copy it. It's just like reselling a book you bought at Barnes & Noble. Second, as other posters have stated, owning a physical work -- "original" or not -- doesn't, in itself, confer any rights in it.
August
Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:37 pm
Indeed I did. But in court or law, get it right or lose the case.
Regardless if you spell the word copywrite, copyrite, or copyright the law is still the law. The protection goes into affect at the time the work is created regardless of your abilty to spell the word.
Sigh. That would be 'everyone' looking for 'US law', not applicable in most of the rest of the world most of the time and thus not applicable to most of us.
70 percent of the visits from this site are from those inside the United States, 90 percent of the people in this conversation are from the United States.
Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:59 pm
rwdfresno wrote:JDK wrote:Indeed I did. But in court or law, get it right or lose the case.
Regardless if you spell the word copywrite, copyrite, or copyright the law is still the law. The protection goes into affect at the time the work is created regardless of your abilty to spell the word.
You are correct. Technically it's not an incorrect spelling, but a literal - the substitution of a word (or part word) with another meaning; the classic example being their or there, and using the wrong word can damage a case, and your credibility. My concern was as the conjunction of 'copy' and 'write' is a perfectly logical one, it can mislead others (reading Jack's post, for instance, and respecting his other contributions, as I do) into believing it is the correct term - which it simply is not.
rwdfresno wrote:JDK wrote:Sigh. That would be 'everyone' looking for 'US law', not applicable in most of the rest of the world most of the time and thus not applicable to most of us.
70 percent of the visits from this site are from those inside the United States, 90 percent of the people in this conversation are from the United States.
So (by your own count, not mine) you are either 30% or 10% flat wrong in talking about 'everybody'.
My 'everybody', BTW, for clarity, was a reference to inhabitants of the planet and the world's population, rather than a bunch of **** (insert favoured term here) rattling on about obsolete war machines (self included).
This isn't a vote, or a majority consensus, it's a discussion about law, and its application. US law is neither applicable internationally (with exceptions) or international law itself. I have to have a nodding relationship with several laws as I publish in several countries - this also applies to a number of my US colleagues as well.
Law is also based on finding one way or another - not majorities. That's why precision, precedence, clarity and exceptions are so critical.
Just putting 'US law' somewhere in your post would've avoided all this.
Regards,
Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:13 pm
JDK is right, in that if you are a photographer for a corporation, all the pics you take on duty belong to the corp, copyright and all. I can guarantee that when they hired you, you signed an agreement to that effect too. Military is just the opposite and there is no copyright since the “people” constitute the govt” (we all paid for those pics already).
Also to expand on Bill Kistler’s comments.
PEOPLE (generally people only) have a “right of publicity”. I can’t take a picture of Pam Anderson coming out of a bar and sell it as a “picture”. Why, what I’m selling here is a pic of Pam and people are buying it because she is in it. HOWEVER, if I sell a pic of Brittany Spears coming out of a bar to the National Star, that gets into “news and editorial” content and that is legal (especially with her child custody/substance abuse problems that are alledged). But I can’t take the same pic of Brintany and sell 8x10s of it.
When we get to NASCAR or NFL or Major League Baseball/Basketball, concerts, etc., it’s a whole different thing. They put the event together, you can usually take pics for your own personal use. But if you try and sell one, I can guarantee you they will be right there to get you. With NASCAR, it goes a few steps further and there are Logos of sponsors (also PRO SPORTS TEAMS logos) that are trademarked and you cannot use them in a picture.
However, Bill is wrong when you get to taking pictures of THINGS. There is no way to restrict taking pictures and selling them of THINGS. As long as you can have a camera there and do not trespass you can take a pic of custom car or a new P-51 restoration, etc and sell all of the copies of it you want. Actually for the property owner, there is a way around that which I’m not going to post here.
As was also noted above by Jack Cook and others, you do not own anything other than a photo when you buy one at a garage sale. So if Jack and I both have copies of the same pic, we can sell them all on ebay. But to take what K5083 said to another level (you can sell a print as long as you didn’t copy it……….) If you are the holder of a counterfeit (no better way to put it here) item and you sell it, you are in just as much trouble as the person who made the counterfeit print……
Like I said before, its complex.
Mark H
Also to expand on Bill Kistler’s comments.
PEOPLE (generally people only) have a “right of publicity”. I can’t take a picture of Pam Anderson coming out of a bar and sell it as a “picture”. Why, what I’m selling here is a pic of Pam and people are buying it because she is in it. HOWEVER, if I sell a pic of Brittany Spears coming out of a bar to the National Star, that gets into “news and editorial” content and that is legal (especially with her child custody/substance abuse problems that are alledged). But I can’t take the same pic of Brintany and sell 8x10s of it.
When we get to NASCAR or NFL or Major League Baseball/Basketball, concerts, etc., it’s a whole different thing. They put the event together, you can usually take pics for your own personal use. But if you try and sell one, I can guarantee you they will be right there to get you. With NASCAR, it goes a few steps further and there are Logos of sponsors (also PRO SPORTS TEAMS logos) that are trademarked and you cannot use them in a picture.
However, Bill is wrong when you get to taking pictures of THINGS. There is no way to restrict taking pictures and selling them of THINGS. As long as you can have a camera there and do not trespass you can take a pic of custom car or a new P-51 restoration, etc and sell all of the copies of it you want. Actually for the property owner, there is a way around that which I’m not going to post here.
As was also noted above by Jack Cook and others, you do not own anything other than a photo when you buy one at a garage sale. So if Jack and I both have copies of the same pic, we can sell them all on ebay. But to take what K5083 said to another level (you can sell a print as long as you didn’t copy it……….) If you are the holder of a counterfeit (no better way to put it here) item and you sell it, you are in just as much trouble as the person who made the counterfeit print……
Like I said before, its complex.
Mark H
Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:16 pm
Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:17 pm
P51Mstg wrote:Like I said before, its complex.
...and Mudge will never touch his cameras again.
Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:19 pm
rwdfresno wrote::roo:
Yeah.
Well said. It's not the big one you see that gets you, it's the second one following across the road / airstrip.
Drifting to be birdstrike thread, roo strikes on t/o or landing make a big mess I understand.
Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:56 am
Just for you James, quoted from the Nellis Airshow website.........
http://www.aviationnation.org/AF60/
Spellchecker in action, methinks!
All products are copywritten and may not be reproduced or used without written consent from the artist or photographer.
http://www.aviationnation.org/AF60/
Spellchecker in action, methinks!
Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:17 am
Mike wrote:Just for you James, quoted from the Nellis Airshow website.........All products are copywritten and may not be reproduced or used without written consent from the artist or photographer.
Argh argh argh.
Hence the term 'to make a Nelly of oneself' too, I presume.
Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:20 am
Mark H,
I would not be so quick, here is more concerning the "things" we are talking about,
"Although property does not enjoy a right to privacy or publicity that there are other bodies of the law that might prohibit or restrict the unauthorized use of a photograph containing property. These bodies of law may include among others contract, trademark, unfair competition, copyright and trespass law.
However, there are exceptions where it may be necessary or advisable to obtain permission from the owner of the property. These exceptions may include among others, a photograph of (i) artwork displayed in a museum, gallery or other location, (ii) a well-recognized product, such as a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, where the manufacturer has been litigious with respect to commercial uses of photographs containing their product, (iii) a building where the building design is protected by a federal trademark registration - recently there was litigation involving a photograph of the Rock and Rock Hall of Fame, (iv) a "famous" pet such as Lassie, (v) interiors of private buildings and (vi) personal property, such as their clothing or jewelry, that could identify an individual."
And for example, here is a big thing right from their website,
There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Eiffel Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SETE"
And Lockheed Martin protects images of their product after a certain point, see http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12024.pdf.
I would think if I publish a calendar full of images of Cavanaugh Flight Museum planes they would have issue with that.
Please note, I am not a lawyer.
Bill.
I would not be so quick, here is more concerning the "things" we are talking about,
"Although property does not enjoy a right to privacy or publicity that there are other bodies of the law that might prohibit or restrict the unauthorized use of a photograph containing property. These bodies of law may include among others contract, trademark, unfair competition, copyright and trespass law.
However, there are exceptions where it may be necessary or advisable to obtain permission from the owner of the property. These exceptions may include among others, a photograph of (i) artwork displayed in a museum, gallery or other location, (ii) a well-recognized product, such as a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, where the manufacturer has been litigious with respect to commercial uses of photographs containing their product, (iii) a building where the building design is protected by a federal trademark registration - recently there was litigation involving a photograph of the Rock and Rock Hall of Fame, (iv) a "famous" pet such as Lassie, (v) interiors of private buildings and (vi) personal property, such as their clothing or jewelry, that could identify an individual."
And for example, here is a big thing right from their website,
There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Eiffel Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SETE"
And Lockheed Martin protects images of their product after a certain point, see http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12024.pdf.
I would think if I publish a calendar full of images of Cavanaugh Flight Museum planes they would have issue with that.
Please note, I am not a lawyer.
Bill.
Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:42 am
There are several overstatements here.
This is correct, but I draw attention to the crucial words if you are a photographer. If you have some other job and photography is not part of your job description, ownership of pictures you take at work is more muddy and it may or may not be covered by your employment contract.
In deference to JDK you should specify United States military. Not true in most other countries. Pics taken by the British, Canadian, or Aussie govts or military are subject to copyright owned by a nice, but litigious elderly lady whose friends call her Liz.
That right of publicity stuff is very dicey and very off-topic, I'm not touching that.
Yes, it is a whole different thing in the sense that it is not copyright (even though the organization involved may claim it is). Sports organizations have not had much luck arguing that a game can be copyrighted as if it were a dance performance. At least one court of appeals has held that a competitive athletic event (basketball game) is not copyrightable, and the consensus of legal commentators is that this is correct. See NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOC. v. MOTOROLA, INC., 105 F.3d 841 (2nd Cir. 1997). The reason the organizers can and will be there to get you is that you made a contract with them not to sell pics or other recordings taken at the game; you'll probably find it in the fine print right on your ticket, or maybe it was on a sign at the gate when you entered.
With respect to sponsor logos, you are way, way overstating the reach of trademark rights.
Bill overstated it, but he is correct that you understate it. Bill's statement reflects what event organizers, product manufacturers, and sponsors would like the law to be and may try to make you think it is, but not what it is in reality. This is why you should know your rights as a photographer. On the other hand, there is no special status conferred on "things" that strips them of any protections afforded to people or events, where a real basis for such protection exists.
August
P51Mstg wrote:JDK is right, in that if you are a photographer for a corporation, all the pics you take on duty belong to the corp, copyright and all. I can guarantee that when they hired you, you signed an agreement to that effect too.
This is correct, but I draw attention to the crucial words if you are a photographer. If you have some other job and photography is not part of your job description, ownership of pictures you take at work is more muddy and it may or may not be covered by your employment contract.
Military is just the opposite and there is no copyright since the “people” constitute the govt” (we all paid for those pics already).
In deference to JDK you should specify United States military. Not true in most other countries. Pics taken by the British, Canadian, or Aussie govts or military are subject to copyright owned by a nice, but litigious elderly lady whose friends call her Liz.
That right of publicity stuff is very dicey and very off-topic, I'm not touching that.
When we get to NASCAR or NFL or Major League Baseball/Basketball, concerts, etc., it’s a whole different thing. They put the event together, you can usually take pics for your own personal use. But if you try and sell one, I can guarantee you they will be right there to get you. With NASCAR, it goes a few steps further and there are Logos of sponsors (also PRO SPORTS TEAMS logos) that are trademarked and you cannot use them in a picture.
Yes, it is a whole different thing in the sense that it is not copyright (even though the organization involved may claim it is). Sports organizations have not had much luck arguing that a game can be copyrighted as if it were a dance performance. At least one court of appeals has held that a competitive athletic event (basketball game) is not copyrightable, and the consensus of legal commentators is that this is correct. See NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOC. v. MOTOROLA, INC., 105 F.3d 841 (2nd Cir. 1997). The reason the organizers can and will be there to get you is that you made a contract with them not to sell pics or other recordings taken at the game; you'll probably find it in the fine print right on your ticket, or maybe it was on a sign at the gate when you entered.
With respect to sponsor logos, you are way, way overstating the reach of trademark rights.
However, Bill is wrong when you get to taking pictures of THINGS.
Bill overstated it, but he is correct that you understate it. Bill's statement reflects what event organizers, product manufacturers, and sponsors would like the law to be and may try to make you think it is, but not what it is in reality. This is why you should know your rights as a photographer. On the other hand, there is no special status conferred on "things" that strips them of any protections afforded to people or events, where a real basis for such protection exists.
August