Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> 

> However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not
> privately owned images but images in the public domain or that even if
> copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that
> anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose they see fit as log as they
> give the photographer credit and the use is ethical, legal, and the
> copyright owner is held harmless for any misuse by the user.  

I want to clarify the licensing agreement on royalty free images,
especially since I have some of those which I have sold royalty free
distribution rights to.

Royalty free images are not freeware.  Royalty-free images continue to
be copyright owned by the original author, who has signed over certain
rights to another organization, usually a distributor of the images
(often on a collection on a CD-ROM or for download for a fee).  The
original owner agrees to allow the distribution company to distribute
the image(s) with certain granted rights to the PURCHASER of the
collection.  These granted rights usually consist of the ability of the
owner of the CD-ROM (or fee payer, if these images are downloaded) to
use the images in a manner such that they do not have to pay per use, as
is the case with standard images sold.  In other words, in paying a one
time fee, the person is granted the rights to use the images multiple
times, (often in multiple formats and purposes) without additional
costs.

However, these licenses vary considerably as to what types of uses these
images can have.

Depending upon the license agreement, they might be restricted to
non-commerical usage (often the case), or to not forming more than a
certain percentage of a final project or product.  Even when they can be
used commercially, they often are restricted from being used in a manner
that they themselves form the bulk of the value of the final product
(such as selling prints of the images, greeting cards, coffee table
books, calendars, and the like) They are always restricted from being
resold or redistributed in digital format, or to be given away (for
reuse) in that manner either.  Some licensing agreements require that a
photo credit be attached to the image in any commercial or publication
use.  That often is the copyright tag of the distribution company rather
than the original copyright owner.

So, if you have accessed a royalty free image, and have not paid the
original fee for it and use it for anything, or if you distribute with
intent for others to use, or if you use it contrary to the manner
allowed for in the license agreement, you are likely in violation of the
copyrights of both the distribution company AND the original owner, who
maintains license and rights for all usage outside of those he/she sold
to the distribution company.

Therefore, they are not free for someone to download from a website and
do as they please with.  Other than the right to have it exist on their
computer in a buffer (as a result of the image appearing on a website
and a browser capturing) royalty free images are not to be used or
distributed to others in any format by a secondary receiver of the image
who has not paid the initial fee for use.

I hope that clarifies things somewhat.

I would
> suggest that this is why the *might* be copyrighted qualification is used
> rather than the *is* copyrighted caution.  Moreover, some images even when
> or if copyrighted do not require permissions or even photo credits for
> certain types of uses - e.g., editorial and educational uses, for use as
> legal evidence under certain circumstances one they have been published
> (wherein placing them on a web site is treated as publication), and the
> like.  Thus, noting that they might be copyrighted rather than that they are
> may be all the caution that is required or appropriate.

With very few exceptions most modern artwork and images are copyrighted,
even work for hire is copyrighted by the company that had the work done
on their behalf.  In fact, unless the work is "out of copyright" meaning
it is rather old, as in public archive, or some work paid for via taxes
(some NASA images, for instance), the work is almost definitely
copyrighted by someone. The copyright owner has the right to do as they
please with those rights, including making them available for public use
for free, BUT, no one should assume that to be the case.  The law has
finally been clarified in the US and Canada, that the copyright tag
isn't even required, and it is expected that one should ASSUME the image
is copyrighted and should not be distributed or used without express
permission of the owner.  In some cases the law dictates minimum fines
associated with copyright infringement regardless of it there was
intent, nor if there was profit gained by the user, or lost by the
holder of the copyright.

If Google wanted to be ethical about this, their "disclaimer" would
consist of a spash page for that database which required an "I agree"
click and stated "I understand that most artwork and images on web sites
are copyrighted. I will not assume I have rights to use, reproduce or
distributed those works.  I will ask the website owner if he/she has
permission to grant any reproduction rights, and if so, if he/she will
grant me any rights to use the images before using them in any form
other than for capture on my computer as part of the browser program I
am using."

It's a mouthful, but then again, that's nothing compared to most
agreements you are required to approve just to use most commercial
websites or software (even stuff you've paid a lot for!).

Art

>