«

Ken Weitzel wrote:
> PTravel wrote:
> > "Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
> > news:45342da1$0$34540$...
> >> I think we have a more basic issue when it comes to copyrights of photos
> >> and their use of them. With their being so many people living on this
> >> planet in 2006 and given that digital cameras have made photography more
> >> popular now then in the entire 100 plus years previous combined one has to
> >> wonder...
> >>
> >> When there are 3 million shots of the golden gate bridge in fog with a
> >> cargo ship going under, does copyright make a damn bit of difference? My
> >> feeling is at that point and with any subject that has been photographed
> >> add nosium copyright doesn't make a bit of difference. If out of those 3
> >> million shots 500,000 are from the same angle and are basically the same
> >> shot who owns the copyright? I say no one, it is a moot point.
> >
> > 1. Copyright protection doesn't require novelty, only originality. That
> > means that, even if those 500,000 shots look the same, as long as each was
> > created without reference to the other, they are all independently protected
> > by copyright upon the moment of fixation in a tangible medium, i.e. when
> > saved to the CF card.
> >
> > 2. Copyright infringement analysis is far more complex than simply saying,
> > "this picture looks like that picture." I don't have the time to get into a
> > full description here, but an important component of the process is
> > determining access by the accused infringer to the original, and then
> > weighing the amount of access against the similarity with the original.
> >
> >> So unless you have a picture of something that is near to impossible for
> >> others to duplicate with their own camera, worrying about copyrights for
> >> the vast majority of us is a waste of time.
> >
> > Sorry. Not even close.
>
> Hi...
>
> If photographs are art, in the same sense that images of oil on canvas
> is art, then I'm curious ?
>
> How is it that the original Mona Lisa is worth gazillions of dollars,
> yet a phony copy so close to identical that it takes reams of
> experts dozens of years to detect it is virtually worthless?
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> art

Ahh, but if the million monkeys typing on the million keyboards for a
million years actually produced a Shakespearian work -- independent of
ever having read it -- could they copyright it?

No you are correct technically each person owns the right to his or her
image. However, in court trying to enforce those rights could be a problem
if said images looks like the other 500,000. The person that holds the
copyright to the image in question has to prove that it was his image used
and not one of the other 500,000 or that the person being gone after didn't
go take his own shot that looked like one of the other 500,000.

In the real world I don't think the copyright owner under these
circumstances is going to have much a of chance. It would be like chasing a
lemming, you'll go off the cliff before you hit pay dirt.

Now, if it is something that you don't see photographed very often or from
the angles, etc. that it was shot then you will have an easier time proving
your case. But, shooting the golden gate bridge from the Marin Headlands or
from any of the other viewing angles and what you have is a image that looks
like the other 500,000 and would be... well impossible to enforce copyright
on.

We are not talking about the technicalities of the copyright law. There is
no doubt that each photographer owns the rights to his/her images. What we
are talking about is enforcing those rights in court that is a totally
difference mule and one that will kick you before you get close enough to
win the court battle.

Robert

"PTravel" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
> news:45342da1$0$34540$...
>>I think we have a more basic issue when it comes to copyrights of photos
>>and their use of them. With their being so many people living on this
>>planet in 2006 and given that digital cameras have made photography more
>>popular now then in the entire 100 plus years previous combined one has to
>>wonder...
>>
>> When there are 3 million shots of the golden gate bridge in fog with a
>> cargo ship going under, does copyright make a damn bit of difference? My
>> feeling is at that point and with any subject that has been photographed
>> add nosium copyright doesn't make a bit of difference. If out of those 3
>> million shots 500,000 are from the same angle and are basically the same
>> shot who owns the copyright? I say no one, it is a moot point.
>
> 1. Copyright protection doesn't require novelty, only originality. That
> means that, even if those 500,000 shots look the same, as long as each was
> created without reference to the other, they are all independently
> protected by copyright upon the moment of fixation in a tangible medium,
> i.e. when saved to the CF card.
>
> 2. Copyright infringement analysis is far more complex than simply
> saying, "this picture looks like that picture." I don't have the time to
> get into a full description here, but an important component of the
> process is determining access by the accused infringer to the original,
> and then weighing the amount of access against the similarity with the
> original.
>
>>
>> So unless you have a picture of something that is near to impossible for
>> others to duplicate with their own camera, worrying about copyrights for
>> the vast majority of us is a waste of time.
>
> Sorry. Not even close.
>
>>
>> R
>>
>
>

Using the Mona Lisa as an example is a good example of something that there
is really only one of. Meaning the original painting is or was copyrighted
(probably isn't after all these years). Since there is only one of it
enforcing copyright would be very very easy.

But, enforcing the copyright on a photo of the golden gate bridge, the san
Francisco skyline, the Washington monument, or anything else that has been
photographed by millions over the years would be impossible to get an
effective copyright on. Yes, it is copyrighted but it isn't enforceable in
court because you can't prove that your photo was the one used and not one
of the millions of others or that the person didn't go out a shoot his own
picture.

You are looking at the legal technicalities and I am looking at is your
copyright enforceable and it isn't if it is something that has been
photographed by millions. It is not a unique work at that point and you
couldn't prove that it was your image that was used.

For the most part copyrights are easy to protect and enforce. But, on photos
probably more than anything other medium it is very hard especially when it
is a photo of a very common item. Imagine going to court to enforce your
copyright on a photo of a slice of white bread. How do you prove that the
photo used in the derivative work or even used as is is your photo of a
slice of white bread? You can't even with the EXIF data that cameras put in
the image file you still couldn't prove that it was your image used.

So we have the technicalities of the copyright law and then we have the real
world enforcement of copyright law.

Robert

"PTravel" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
> newsyXYg.156191$R63.27211@pd7urf1no...
>> PTravel wrote:
>>> "Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
>>> news:45342da1$0$34540$...
>>>> I think we have a more basic issue when it comes to copyrights of
>>>> photos and their use of them. With their being so many people living on
>>>> this planet in 2006 and given that digital cameras have made
>>>> photography more popular now then in the entire 100 plus years previous
>>>> combined one has to wonder...
>>>>
>>>> When there are 3 million shots of the golden gate bridge in fog with a
>>>> cargo ship going under, does copyright make a damn bit of difference?
>>>> My feeling is at that point and with any subject that has been
>>>> photographed add nosium copyright doesn't make a bit of difference. If
>>>> out of those 3 million shots 500,000 are from the same angle and are
>>>> basically the same shot who owns the copyright? I say no one, it is a
>>>> moot point.
>>>
>>> 1. Copyright protection doesn't require novelty, only originality.
>>> That means that, even if those 500,000 shots look the same, as long as
>>> each was created without reference to the other, they are all
>>> independently protected by copyright upon the moment of fixation in a
>>> tangible medium, i.e. when saved to the CF card.
>>>
>>> 2. Copyright infringement analysis is far more complex than simply
>>> saying, "this picture looks like that picture." I don't have the time
>>> to get into a full description here, but an important component of the
>>> process is determining access by the accused infringer to the original,
>>> and then weighing the amount of access against the similarity with the
>>> original.
>>>
>>>> So unless you have a picture of something that is near to impossible
>>>> for others to duplicate with their own camera, worrying about
>>>> copyrights for the vast majority of us is a waste of time.
>>>
>>> Sorry. Not even close.
>>
>> Hi...
>>
>> If photographs are art, in the same sense that images of oil on canvas is
>> art, then I'm curious ?
>
> The question isn't whether photographs are art, but whether they are
> protectable works of authorship within the meaning of the U.S. Copyright
> Act. The answer is, yes, they are.
>
>>
>> How is it that the original Mona Lisa is worth gazillions of dollars,
>> yet a phony copy so close to identical that it takes reams of
>> experts dozens of years to detect it is virtually worthless?
>
> Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of what is a "phony copy" (as
> distinguished from a "real copy"?), only in movies can a fake Mona Lisa
> fool "reams of experts [for] dozens of years." However, the answer to
> your question is, "scarcity." There is only one Mona Lisa, whereas there
> are many, many copies.
>
>>
>> Take care.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> art
>
>

"Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
news:45352499$0$34510$...
> No you are correct technically each person owns the right to his or her
> image. However, in court trying to enforce those rights could be a problem
> if said images looks like the other 500,000. The person that holds the
> copyright to the image in question has to prove that it was his image used
> and not one of the other 500,000 or that the person being gone after
> didn't go take his own shot that looked like one of the other 500,000.

Nope. The person trying to enforce his copyright has to prove that the
defendant had access to the original, and that the accused work is
substantially similar to the original. Access and substantial similarity
are weighed on an inverse proportional scale, i.e. lots of substantial
similarity requires a relatively smaller quantum of proof of access and vice
versa.


>
> In the real world I don't think the copyright owner under these
> circumstances is going to have much a of chance. It would be like chasing
> a lemming, you'll go off the cliff before you hit pay dirt.

It depends on the work. I don't know of any real-life example in which
there are 500,000 independently-created identical works of authorship.

>
> Now, if it is something that you don't see photographed very often or from
> the angles, etc. that it was shot then you will have an easier time
> proving your case.

You still have to prove access, as well as substantial similarity. Even if
the works in question were very unusual and appeared to be identical, if
there was no access to the original by the defendant, there cannot be an
inference of copying and therefore no infringement.

> But, shooting the golden gate bridge from the Marin Headlands or from any
> of the other viewing angles and what you have is a image that looks like
> the other 500,000 and would be... well impossible to enforce copyright on.

On the contrary. First of all, it is unlikely that any two photographs of
the bridge taken from Marin will be identical -- there will always be some
variations in lighting, traffic, boats on the water, sky, clouds, etc.
However, if your point is that there are lots of pictures that look similar,
it doesn't matter. If I take your picture and copy it (and you can prove
that I had access to it), I will lose and you will win.

>
> We are not talking about the technicalities of the copyright law.

Yes, we are. You're talking about what happens in court. I've been
explaining to you what actually does happen in court.

> There is no doubt that each photographer owns the rights to his/her
> images. What we are talking about is enforcing those rights in court that
> is a totally difference mule and one that will kick you before you get
> close enough to win the court battle.

Old maxim of law: For every right there is a remedy.

And there is.

>
> Robert
>
> "PTravel" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> "Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
>> news:45342da1$0$34540$...
>>>I think we have a more basic issue when it comes to copyrights of photos
>>>and their use of them. With their being so many people living on this
>>>planet in 2006 and given that digital cameras have made photography more
>>>popular now then in the entire 100 plus years previous combined one has
>>>to wonder...
>>>
>>> When there are 3 million shots of the golden gate bridge in fog with a
>>> cargo ship going under, does copyright make a damn bit of difference? My
>>> feeling is at that point and with any subject that has been photographed
>>> add nosium copyright doesn't make a bit of difference. If out of those 3
>>> million shots 500,000 are from the same angle and are basically the same
>>> shot who owns the copyright? I say no one, it is a moot point.
>>
>> 1. Copyright protection doesn't require novelty, only originality. That
>> means that, even if those 500,000 shots look the same, as long as each
>> was created without reference to the other, they are all independently
>> protected by copyright upon the moment of fixation in a tangible medium,
>> i.e. when saved to the CF card.
>>
>> 2. Copyright infringement analysis is far more complex than simply
>> saying, "this picture looks like that picture." I don't have the time to
>> get into a full description here, but an important component of the
>> process is determining access by the accused infringer to the original,
>> and then weighing the amount of access against the similarity with the
>> original.
>>
>>>
>>> So unless you have a picture of something that is near to impossible for
>>> others to duplicate with their own camera, worrying about copyrights for
>>> the vast majority of us is a waste of time.
>>
>> Sorry. Not even close.
>>
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
news:45352651$0$34557$...
> Using the Mona Lisa as an example is a good example of something that
> there is really only one of. Meaning the original painting is or was
> copyrighted (probably isn't after all these years). Since there is only
> one of it enforcing copyright would be very very easy.

Contemporary copyright law began with the Statute of Anne in the 18th
century. The Mona Lisa predates it by centuries and was not, therefore,
ever protected by copyright.

>
> But, enforcing the copyright on a photo of the golden gate bridge, the san
> Francisco skyline, the Washington monument, or anything else that has been
> photographed by millions over the years would be impossible to get an
> effective copyright on.

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. I have photographs of famous sites
around the world on my wesite. I haven't yet registered the copyright, but
they are protected nonetheless from the moment of fixation in a tangible
medium. Here's a photograph I took of the Brooklyn Bridge:

http://travelersvideo.com/Brooklyn,%20New%20York.jpg

If anyone copied this photograph without my permission, they would infringe
my copyright and, if I registered the copyright with the US Copyright
Office, I would have standing to sue. If I could prove access (not hard --
it's a public website and logs are maintained of visitors), and substantial
similarity (not hard -- objective substantial similarity can be evaluated
rather easily for a digital photograph, and subjective substantial
similarity merely requires a reasonable person's belief that the accused
work was copied from the original) then I would prevail. The number of
photographs taken of the Brooklyn Bridge is irrelevant.


> Yes, it is copyrighted but it isn't enforceable in court because you can't
> prove that your photo was the one used and not one of the millions of
> others or that the person didn't go out a shoot his own picture.

I've already explained to you how it works. Copying is rarely proving by
direct evidence, because this evidence (either an admission or a witness to
the copying) rarely exists. Instead, copying is proven inferrentially by
demonstrating access to the original and substantial similarity. I don't
have to prove that the defendant didn't use one of millions of other
photographs. I only have to prove that he had access to mine, and that his
copy is substantially similar.

>
> You are looking at the legal technicalities and I am looking at is your
> copyright enforceable and it isn't if it is something that has been
> photographed by millions. It is not a unique work at that point and you
> couldn't prove that it was your image that was used.

I'm not talking about "legal technicalities." I'm telling you how copyright
law works, and how it is enforced in court. Copyright doesn't require that
a work be unique, only original.

>
> For the most part copyrights are easy to protect and enforce.

Is that what you think? There's a reason why IP attorneys are among the
highest paid in the profession. Protection is easy because it's automatic.
Enforcement is something altogether differnet.

> But, on photos probably more than anything other medium it is very hard
> especially when it is a photo of a very common item.

So you keep saying. Except that you are wrong.

> Imagine going to court to enforce your copyright on a photo of a slice of
> white bread. How do you prove that the photo used in the derivative work
> or even used as is is your photo of a slice of white bread? You can't even
> with the EXIF data that cameras put in the image file you still couldn't
> prove that it was your image used.

You don't need EXIF data, though it would help. All you need to prove is
access to the original photo of a slice of white bread by the defendant, and
substantial similarity, which has an objective and subjective component.

>
> So we have the technicalities of the copyright law and then we have the
> real world enforcement of copyright law.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am talking about the real
world enforcement of copyright law. That's what I do for a living -- I'm an
intellectual property lawyer that does copyright, trademark and patent
litigation.

>
> Robert
>
> "PTravel" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
>> newsyXYg.156191$R63.27211@pd7urf1no...
>>> PTravel wrote:
>>>> "Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:45342da1$0$34540$...
>>>>> I think we have a more basic issue when it comes to copyrights of
>>>>> photos and their use of them. With their being so many people living
>>>>> on this planet in 2006 and given that digital cameras have made
>>>>> photography more popular now then in the entire 100 plus years
>>>>> previous combined one has to wonder...
>>>>>
>>>>> When there are 3 million shots of the golden gate bridge in fog with a
>>>>> cargo ship going under, does copyright make a damn bit of difference?
>>>>> My feeling is at that point and with any subject that has been
>>>>> photographed add nosium copyright doesn't make a bit of difference. If
>>>>> out of those 3 million shots 500,000 are from the same angle and are
>>>>> basically the same shot who owns the copyright? I say no one, it is a
>>>>> moot point.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Copyright protection doesn't require novelty, only originality.
>>>> That means that, even if those 500,000 shots look the same, as long as
>>>> each was created without reference to the other, they are all
>>>> independently protected by copyright upon the moment of fixation in a
>>>> tangible medium, i.e. when saved to the CF card.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Copyright infringement analysis is far more complex than simply
>>>> saying, "this picture looks like that picture." I don't have the time
>>>> to get into a full description here, but an important component of the
>>>> process is determining access by the accused infringer to the original,
>>>> and then weighing the amount of access against the similarity with the
>>>> original.
>>>>
>>>>> So unless you have a picture of something that is near to impossible
>>>>> for others to duplicate with their own camera, worrying about
>>>>> copyrights for the vast majority of us is a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry. Not even close.
>>>
>>> Hi...
>>>
>>> If photographs are art, in the same sense that images of oil on canvas
>>> is art, then I'm curious ?
>>
>> The question isn't whether photographs are art, but whether they are
>> protectable works of authorship within the meaning of the U.S. Copyright
>> Act. The answer is, yes, they are.
>>
>>>
>>> How is it that the original Mona Lisa is worth gazillions of dollars,
>>> yet a phony copy so close to identical that it takes reams of
>>> experts dozens of years to detect it is virtually worthless?
>>
>> Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of what is a "phony copy" (as
>> distinguished from a "real copy"?), only in movies can a fake Mona Lisa
>> fool "reams of experts [for] dozens of years." However, the answer to
>> your question is, "scarcity." There is only one Mona Lisa, whereas there
>> are many, many copies.
>>
>>>
>>> Take care.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> art
>>
>>
>
>

"Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
news:45352651$0$34557$...


> But, enforcing the copyright on a photo of the golden gate bridge, the san
> Francisco skyline, the Washington monument, or anything else that has been
> photographed by millions over the years would be impossible to get an
> effective copyright on.

I forgot I had this one on my website:

http://travelersvideo.com/San%20Fran...California.jpg

Trust me -- I have an enforceable copyright on this photograph of the San
Francisco skyline, and would have no trouble enforcing it (other than the
cost of the litigation) if someone copied it without permission.

PcB wrote:
> Having frequented the group sometime ago - and now scanning the posts
> again - I would like to re-introduce myself with the following question
> (purely hypothetical at present).
>
> Let's assume I take a really great photograph (it could happen, there's
> still time). It's digital, of course. The copyright for this image remains
> with (me? my estate?) until some time (50 years?) after my death. What if a
> member of my estate takes a copy of that image - with my permission - and
> modifies it slightly so as not to make the image any less "great" but still
> creates an image which is essentially the same as the original (I'm thinking
> maybe a slight but significant crop, maybe some dodging & burning, etc.).
> Would the new image take on its own copyright?
>
> (Back to the sidelines for me, I guess).
>

You are looking for a way that the estate could extend the
copyright after your death by making a tiny change in the
image. Am I right?

I'm not a lawyer, and the answer may be deep in case law,
but my guess is thta somebody has alreayd tried that, it
wound up in court, and it was deemed to be too small an
operation to make the image into something new, and thus
capable of being copyright.