OT - photos and copyrights

[fredfighter]

Hmm, maybe Berne was annexed using "emminent domain" sometime when I wasn't paying attention.

[fredfighter]

ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."

IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark, rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

[C & S]

Oh well such is life when your the 51st

Bite your tongue... that's Canada!

[lgb]

Of course they didn't mention that until they'd pulled my chain with "we can't let you copy that", "don't argue, you're on camera", and similar bullshit. Let's just say I won't be using that facility again.

[Mike Marlow]

Don't argue, you're on camera? Tell me - you *did* moon the camera didn't you? That's too much - don't argue, you're on camera...

[Ron Magen]

All very nice & legal . . . however . . .

There was a recent article in the local paper {Philadelphia Inquirer} where the columnist ran into the same problem at a local WalMart. The excuse for the refusal to give him his prints so ticked him off that he made it the subject of a column.

The reason they wouldn't give him his prints was because . . . "they look TOO GOOD . . .". In the opinion of the "$6.oo-an-hour, minimal IQ, photographic moron, clerk" anything 'this good' had to be 'Professional' as opposed to the work of someone with maybe 10+ years of experience with various cameras.

With the magnitude leaps in technology the 'film' camera is in danger of becoming 'extinct', or at the very least, 'endangered'. {Recently I found that my 35mm Nikon equipment is almost valueless. A rapid decrease from as recently as a year ago - when I sold a Nikkormat for $100}. I then sold off ALL my Mamiya TLR equipment . . . the camera went for almost nothing, the lenses brought in the money.} What caused this is obvious . . . the 'Digital Age'.

I've had a *simple* digital camera for several years. I used it like a 'visual notebook'. Illustrating 'work in progress' for my self or for the 'e-zine' column I write, making note of a particular detail on a boat at Mystic Seaport, or to e-mail a photo to ebay. An H-P, it was so inexpensive that it was under $50 if purchased with a external drive - that I intended to get anyway. A few months ago it was bumped off a table. It would no longer 'transfer' the images to the memory card. Rather than repair it {it was considered 'obsolete' anyway}I looked for a new one . . . more like my Nikons. Anyhow - it was a revelation !! I finally found what I wanted . . . it was a 'discontinued' model - probably because it was so very similar to a

35mm SLR. I also found out a few things. The 'trained' clerks in most of the 'Photo Shops' had NO IDEA what 'Rangefinder' meant. They had also redefined 'SLR' {single-lens-reflex}. Where this ties in with the subject at hand is the LITERATURE.

Looking in the library, getting a few {deeply discounted}books, {and later even the owners manual of the camera} - I got myself up-dated in the 'Digital Era'. ALL THESE BOOKS - 'How To . .', 'Technique . .', 'Using . .' - after a few pages that define the physical differences between 'film' and 'digital' - then go on for three-quarters of their length with the SAME words, illustrations, tips, etc on Composition, Lighting, Portraits, Landscapes, etc. as ALL of the 'FILM PHOTOGRAPHY' that has gone before.

A good photographer with a good 'eye' . . . is a good photographer with a good eye . . . PERIOD !! The particular camera is his 'tool' - no mater it be 35mm, 2-1/4, 4x5, or Digital.

Nobody is going to go to WalMart, K-Mart, or any of the other -marts, to get a photo/digital image copied that they are then going to publish in a book, or magazine, or TV commercial for some insane amount of profit. Our society maybe litigious, but this crap is just an exercise in 'abuse of power' for that twit of a clerk, and a way for corporate lawyers to justify their existence and obscene salary's.

Rant Off . . .

Regards & Thanks for the 'soapbox', Ron Magen Backyard Boatshop

[Peter McCormick]

I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA.

In both countries,

Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two exceptions...

1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment. (In this case the copyright belongs to the employer).

1. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and client, that assigns the copyright to a third party.

When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore, are not entitled to an automatic copyright.

Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production (prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph.

Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.

A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish copyright.

Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years following his death.

Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value obtained from selling further copies of the work.

In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be actionable.

Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image.

If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays your money and takes your chances."

Fleet

[Edwin Pawlowski]

IIUC, they can be both. The character may be a part of a logo or represent a particular business as a trademark, but in the Sunday funnies, that strip would be protected under copyright. OTOH, a character that happens to appears in a strip would not necessarily be used as a trademark.

Clint Eastwood's work in copyrighted, but he is not a trademark. Alfred Hitchcock's work is copyrighted, but his profile is trademarked.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

OK, the law is the law and I'm not going to dispute it, but what do you do as a practical matter?

You have an old family photo take by a professional about 55 years ago. There is a good probability the photographer is dead as he would be 75+ years old, maybe over 100. His business has been long gone, closed up probably 40+ years ago. No one can recall his name as we were only kids and our parents and grandparents are also long gone. The copyright would still be in effect if any of the unknown heirs are alive.

How do you go about getting the photo copied?

[Morris Dovey]

| How do you go about getting the photo copied?

D'you suppose I should work up a plan for a wooden copy easel so you can take pictures of your pictures? The commercial jobs can be fairly expensive but shouldn't be all that difficult to build in a home shop...

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[George E. Cawthon]

Ah, the poor people. Don't know the difference between trademarks, trade names, copyrights, patents, etc.

[lgb]

But these photos weren't made under current law - they were made under the copyright laws of 1909 or thereabouts. Those laws did require the photographer to stamp the photo if he wanted it copyrighted.

Since none of these bore such a stamp, it is a logical assumption that the photographer did not care to copyright them.

The fact the current law may have changed the status of these photos only goes to show how asinine Congress can be. Isn't there something in the Constitution about post facto laws?

[CW]

[fredfighter]

Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually can find his heirs to get their permission.

Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.

[fredfighter]

It's not ignored, like 'legal tender' it simply does not mean what many people think it means. 'Ex post facto' and retroactive, for example, are not the same same thing.

It _may_ be that the copyrights, once relenquished as described, were NOT restored in 1977 or whenever the law was changed to conform to the Berne Conventions. I dunno about that.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Pretty much what I did. I used my frame for holding photo paper under the eenlarger. It was also a good excuse to buy a close up lens.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

.Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it. :) While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.

[George E. Cawthon]

I agree, even more strongly. The latest change in copyright and patent law are contrary to the original idea. Most of the changes seem to be aimed, not at the artists, but at the producers, e.g., record companies, recording studios, computer programs etc. Extending the right well beyond the the death of the originator is counter productive to protecting the inventiveness of artists and scientific progress. The original patent and copyright laws were to the point (artists and inventors) but the changes have changed the focal point to salesmen and distributors who contribute little.

[Robert Bonomi]

No, I meant _exactly_ what I said. Referencing the 'creative work'.

It is no different than a used car dealer selling "Ford" automobiles.

Using the trademarked name, to refer to the trademark owner's item is *not* infringement (or 'dilution') of the trademark.

Producing a 'new' work, using the trademarked character _would_ be violation of trademark.

Reproducing the _trademark_owner's_ work is *not* _trademark_ infringement, Unless you are representing that is something other than the trademark owner's work.

Trademark *alone* is not sufficient protection.

*NEITHER* is copyright, alone.

You need trademark to prevent people from creating their own works using the character.

You need copyright to prevent people from copying _your_ works.

There's a bunch of case-law on this -- a lot from the newspaper cartoon-strip field.

[fredfighter]

That makes no sense. In the example as stated, the cakes were not being baked by Disney. Refering to them as being Disney's work absolutely would be infringement (also fraud).