Copyright (different question, honest)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PcB, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. PcB

    PcB Guest

    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).

    --
    Paul ============}
    o o

    // Live fast, die old //

    Flickr pages at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pcbradley
     
    PcB, Oct 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Huh?
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PcB

    Pat Guest

    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).
    >
    > --
    > Paul ============}
    > o o
    >
    > // Live fast, die old //
    >
    > Flickr pages at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pcbradley


    You have a number of issues here.

    First off, a member of your estate can't do anything with your
    permission because you can only give your permission if you are alive
    and you only have an estate if you're not. So there's some vagueness
    to your question, but it's not too much of an issue.

    Let me preface this by saying "I am not an attorney, I just play one on
    TV".

    Once you have a copyright, it is your (or your estates). So if you
    took Andy Warhol's Soup Can and put a big red X across it to protest
    the sodium content, Warhol still owns the copyright. Now, if someone
    else tried to infringe on "your" X over a Soupcan, that'a a legal
    quagmire, but you could probably stop the infringement (as could Warhol
    if he were alive to do so).

    So one yours, always yours. But modifications might create a bigger
    question.

    Now, I think there are a couple of weird issues. If you are really
    good and they put your art on display in public in California, I
    believe you could not doctor the orifinal without permission of the
    artist.

    Hope this gets you closer to an answer.
     
    Pat, Oct 17, 2006
    #3
  4. PcB

    Guest

    On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:32:03 GMT, "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).



    Well,

    Firstly, they have your permission so it has to be assumed you knew
    the consequences. Secondly, you are dead so why bother?
    I assume when you say 'dodging and burning', you will have been
    cremated?

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com
     
    , Oct 17, 2006
    #4
  5. PcB

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "PcB" <> writes:
    > 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?


    It's actually 70 years now, not 50. If I understand the question,
    suppose you die in 2035. Sometime in 2080, your
    great-great-granddaughter Jane makes this cropped version. Through
    improved medical technology Jane lives til the year 2450. You're
    asking whether Jane's version is copyrighted til 2520. The answer
    seems to be yes. Of course one can never be sure whether the legal
    system will last that long. Also, Disney pays Congress to increaes
    the length of copyright every few decades, to make sure that the
    copyright of the original Mickey Mouse films (from the 1920's) never
    expire. So anything copyrighted now is copyrighted pretty much
    forever, until we overthrow that mouse.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 17, 2006
    #5
  6. PcB

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    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.

    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.

    R
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Oct 17, 2006
    #6
  7. PcB

    PTravel Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    "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
    >
     
    PTravel, Oct 17, 2006
    #7
  8. PcB

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    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
     
    Ken Weitzel, Oct 17, 2006
    #8
  9. PcB

    PTravel Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
    news:pyXYg.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
     
    PTravel, Oct 17, 2006
    #9
  10. PcB

    tomm42 Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)


    > 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


    Not sure of the players but several years ago a reasonably well known
    painter, was charged with plagerism when she used a photograph as the
    basis of a painting. Her problem was the photograph was from a pro
    photographer who saw the work at a gallery. He filed charges and was
    awarded a fairly substantial settlement. There was no denial from the
    artist, her argument was she was making art from a photograph, but it
    was a direct copy of the work, very obvious when the two works were put
    side by side, yes hers in color his in black and white. The
    photographer said that he would have given rights for her to do the
    painting for a few hundred dollars if she had asked.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Oct 17, 2006
    #10
  11. PcB

    Pat Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    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?
     
    Pat, Oct 17, 2006
    #11
  12. PcB

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    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
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Oct 17, 2006
    #12
  13. PcB

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    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
    > news:pyXYg.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, Oct 17, 2006
    #13
  14. PcB

    PTravel Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    "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
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    PTravel, Oct 17, 2006
    #14
  15. PcB

    PTravel Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    "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, New York.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
    >> news:pyXYg.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

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    PTravel, Oct 17, 2006
    #15
  16. PcB

    PTravel Guest

    Re: Copyright (different answer, honest)

    "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 Francisco, 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.
     
    PTravel, Oct 17, 2006
    #16
  17. PcB

    Marvin Guest

    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.
     
    Marvin, Oct 18, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. billyw
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    431
    billyw
    Sep 5, 2003
  2. Cheeseburger

    Re: ca. honest no one is laughin

    Cheeseburger, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    448
    Cheeseburger
    Sep 5, 2003
  3. KLXrider

    Re: ca. honest no one is laughin

    KLXrider, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    415
    KLXrider
    Sep 5, 2003
  4. ZeeExSixAre

    Honest question about r.p.digital

    ZeeExSixAre, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    712
    Steven M. Scharf
    Feb 18, 2004
  5. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,027
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page