Julie... I am going to risk Dickie's wrath and reply... I don't know the
anything about U.K. law... however, the distinction that needs to made here is
the difference between copyright (which applies to an original work of art,
literature, film, photos, etc) and the rights to use images of a physical
object, person or place. Any person or place can be photographed, but that does
not mean that you can use the image in any way you like, particularly for
commercial gain... that's what model releases are for... However, there is a
distinction made for uses that are considered editorial or news, and uses that
are for commercial purposes (such as an ad). Many stock photogs have libraries
of what they call editorial use only shots, which are photos witout a model
release... The Loyds building and Formula One race cars would probably be fair
game to use as editorial shots, but definitely off limits for advertising, post
cards, etc. I have an idea the poor guy with FOne site was sandbagged by legal
bullies who could have been held at bay by his own legal pit bull if he had the
resouces to pay for it... He should have made it look like an on line
magazine... he also may have been using other people's shots (which brings us
back to copyright)..
Anyway... enuf said on this OT thread...
Mike M.
"Cooke, Julie" wrote:
> Does anyone know about UK copyright regarding buildings/land marks. I've
> heard that the Lloyds Building is copyrighted and you are not allowed to
> sell photographs of it. Although I've been unable to find any information
> which tells me this?
>
> I've also heard recently of a Formula One web site being sued for having
> photos of Formula One cars on it. The site is not commercial and was set up
> by someone who is a fan of racing.
>
> I've read the book Beyond The Lens, which has a chapter on copyright but
> where is the specific information about buildings/places that cannot be
> photographed? I'm sure the Formula One fan would not have set up his site if
> he had known.
>
> Julie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:laurie@advancenet.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:14 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and
> Link...
>
> >Is there any exact specification for copyright presentation?
> Yes, for legal purposes, I think there is both a proper form for the
> copyright notice, if it is used, for the contents of the notice, if it is
> used, and for the date that should be used. The date, I believe, is the
> date of registration of the copyright, if it is registered, or the date of
> publication, interpreted very broadly to include any public display of the
> image.
>
> However, as to the dates used on a copyright notice, the situation does get
> a little murky when there are transfers of the copyright from one party to
> another which might result in the use of the date of the transfer; but I am
> unclear on this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Larry Berman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 11:07 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and
> Link...
>
> The copyright that Jay Maisel requested was in his cover letter.
>
> We've all seen copyright stated in various ways. Sometimes with two years,
> the year of origin and year of publication. Sometimes just the year of
> publication. If you've seen older single year copyright, it has probably
> been that the images was published in that year. On the web it might mean
> that the site hasn't been updated.
>
> Is there any exact specification for copyright presentation?
>
> Larry
>
> >Berry 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?"
> >
> >I noticed that too. The copyright definitely does not correspond. Some of
> >those images are 15+ years old.
> >
> >Cathy
>
> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
> Larry Berman
>
> Web Sites for Artists:
> Compare Image Compression from the top
> Graphics Programs:
> Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site:
>
> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
