Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link...
OOPS! Sorry about that, I forgot to change the
header when I sent this. Not that there is anything that can not be said
publicly; it is just I did not want to prolong an otherwise off topic subject
any more than it was being prolonged already.
My
apologies to everyone.
Roger,
Since the topic has come up on each and every list I
belong to at one time or another in a recurring manner, I have decided to
respond to your post in private because I think that there are a few things
you should be aware of.
First, your presentation of information tends to
confound factual information contained in the law and from government sources
with advisory information and suggestions made by lawyers and writers
discussing the subject. According to the current copyright law, it is
not necessary to use a copyright notice. The fact that it might help in
court is a legal suggestion by lawyers and others but not in the statute
itself or any of the interpretations of those statutes. If one registers
one's copyright, in contrast to not registering it, one is afforded certain
additional benefits under the law in terms of such things as the ability to
bring legal action in the Federal Courts as a copyright infringement case
rather than in the state courts as a theft of services or a civil lose
of income case, the ability to receive mandatory minimum punitive damages in
addition to actual damages, and the right to collect legal fees and expenses
if one wins.
>Just as important, all photographs subject to
theft (i.e.,anything on the Internet) should be registered with the copyright
office at the Library of Congress.
May
be but do not have to be; and such registration is only necessary if you wish
to pursue an infringement case under the copyright law in federal court.
Otherwise, you can bring both criminal and civil action against the theft or
unauthorized appropriation of your work under state laws in state courts
without registering your copyright with the Library of
Congress.
Second, when you said, "The copyright expires after a
certain number of years (I don't remember the specifics) and the clock starts
running the moment the
art work is "fixed in media," not when it's
published," you are wrong. That was the old law; the new law
grants the copyright automatically to the original creator for their lifetime
plus so many additional years. At the end of that time the
copyright expires and is not renewable.
Thirdly,
>Your model can sue for invasion of privacy.
This
is an entirely different legal issue having nothing to do with copyrights or
copyright law; copyright law is a federal statute while invasion of privacy
statutes and civil cases are covered by state law and under state
jurisdiction.
Fourthly,
>A photograph created in 1981 and published in a
book this year would be "Copyright 1981."
The book itself (meaning
it's author's artistic and creative content, text,
etc.) would be
"Copyright 2001."
I am
afraid it is not all that clear-cut and unambiguous. It all depends on
when the photograph was first "publicly displayed" which is the definition of
"publication" that is used by the statute or formally register with the
Library of Congress at to what its copyright date would be under the new
copyright laws. Moreover, it may or may not be copyrighted separate from
the compilation that it appears in. Many photographs that appear in
magazines and books are covered by the book's or magazine's copyright, which
may be transferred for the particular photograph back to the originator of the
photograph or artwork. Most photographs that appear in printed media
with a separate copyright notice of their own are stock photos whose use is
being licensed for that particular use for a given period of
time.
>. If she's dead, neither she nor her heirs
can sue
Not
necessarily true. The estate can sue for invasion of privacy and possible win
even if the subject is dead; several have in fact sued and won invasion of
privacy legal actions. They can also bring legal action for defamation
of character and slander depending on the way the image is used and the sorts
of attributions made implicitly or explicitly about the character of the model
in or by the user.
In a
message dated 3/20/2001 9:19:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
artistic@ampsc.com writes:
There are several legal issues in terms of dating images for
copyright.
On the one hand, you receive your copyright the
moment you press the
shutter button, even prior to processing... which
protects you from the
rolls being stolen in the mail to the processor,
and the thief claiming
ownership, or the lab doing something similar.
On the other hand, you are supposed to issue a copyright dating on
the
first publication of the image. That could be in a magazine,
when you
sell or display a print of the image, or the first time it
goes onto a
digital media that is distributed in some manner,
including a web site.
Also, should the image later on be
manipulated in some manner to be
considered a unique work from the
original, the derivative can also be
copyrighted as a new image with a
new date. The line becomes somewhat
blurry here, since it
depends somewhat on the amount of manipulation or
change one is
speaking of. For instance, a scratch repair or a color
correction would not be considered a new image, in spite of what
Microsoft attempted to do with their Corbis releases.
Art
Berry Ives wrote:
>>
> If Jay Maisel has
not shot film, except for one roll, during the past
year,
> how
is it that all of the images are copyright 2001, yet most are from
film?
>
> I guess the copyright does not correspond to
the date the image was shot?
>
> -Berry
This is OT, but I can't help adding my two cents
worth since there's a lot of
misunderstanding about copyright law.
I'd recommend that anyone interested
in this somewhat fascinating
topic buy a good book on the subject and study
it in depth.
Another good source of information is www.loc.gov/copyright
which
is the Library of Congress where U.S. copyright law is administered.
Each country is a bit different, depending on which international
conventions
they've signed, but here's some info (mostly bits and
pieces) on U.S.
copyright law as it applies to photography:
A
copyright exits at the moment the image is "fixed in media," not when the
"shutter is tripped." Some cameras don't even have shutters (x-ray
machines,
some digital cameras, etc.). The copyright owner is the
person(s)
responsible for 'creating' the art, and that's not necessarily
the person who
tripped the shutter. The copyright expires after a
certain number of years
(I don't remember the specifics) and the clock
starts running the moment the
art work is "fixed in media," not when
it's published. Therefore, a
copyrighted photograph should
indicate the year it was created. A photograph
created in 1981 and
published in a book this year would be "Copyright 1981."
The book
itself (meaning it's author's artistic and creative content, text,
etc.)
would be "Copyright 2001." A copyright notice should appear with all
artwork so that a thief cannot later claim in court that he didn't know
it
was copyrighted. Just as important, all photographs subject to
theft (i.e.,
anything on the Internet) should be registered with the
copyright office at
the Library of Congress. The fee is US$30 and
you can register as many
photographs as you want provided that they were
all created in the same
calendar year and none have ever been published.
Registration allows you to
collect attorney fees should you defeat
the thief in court. If someone
steals your work, you can sue for
infringement of copyright. Your model can
sue for invasion of
privacy. Provide she's alive. If she's dead, neither
she nor
her heirs can sue. (Which means you, the photographer, can use your
dead model's image for advertising and commercial purposes without the
need
for a model release.) But if she's a famous person, such as a
Hollywood
starlet, then she may have acquired a "right to publicity."
That means her
heirs can sue to protect her right to publicity
even after she's dead.
Fascinating, isn't it. By the way,
"(C)" is not one of the three valid ways
to give notice of copyright.
Use the copyright symbol instead (a "c" with a
circle around it)
or spell out the word, "copyright." Does anyone know how
to make
the copyright symbol in Photoshop? I've tried, failed, and don't
even know if it's possible. One last thing on copyright: The
Fair Use
Doctrine allows copyrighted work to be copied if it is used for
education,
scientific work, and some other applications. High
school teachers really
take advantage of that loophole.
Sorry
this message is so long, but it's easier to delete it than 10 short
ones.
|
