OT - photos and copyrights

Page 2 of 4  


*NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy" were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that _anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_ Disney's works.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi wrote:

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.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi wrote:

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).
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Ah, the poor people. Don't know the difference between trademarks, trade names, copyrights, patents, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
some lugnut at Walmart was pulling your chain.. take them to Costco or Sam's Club and get them done right and without a hassle..

mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually, they're not really pulling his chain mac. I don't think the clerk was right in this particular case, since the photo had no copyright (or related) information on it, but in a more general sense, Walmart is right in the way they handle the copyright issue. As the OP indicated, all he had to do was to sign a document that stated blah, blah, blah...
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net says...

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.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

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...
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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).
2. 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski (in vkFve.585$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com) said:
| 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 http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
said:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

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.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

'Actionable' I think, is the preferred term since the sort of copying you intend would not rise to criminal conduct.
Your 'defense' is practical, rather than legal. That is to say the 'wronged' party, even if still alive, most likely will remain forever ignorant of the infringement. And if not, most likely will not care.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Just do it. In my case, the photo was taken 60+ years ago, by an adult male, just before WWII. At that time, IIRC, copyrights were for either 26 or 28 years, and could be extended for another 26 or 28 IF a form was filed. It is exceptionally unlikely that the form was filed, so the photo is probably in the public domain. Once something is in the public domain, it stays there, AFAIK.
We constantly see reprints of 100 year old material with copyright notices on them. You also see reprints of Government Printing Office material with copyrights by the new publisher. Regardless of what the publisher would like you to think, such copyrights only apply to new material, not to old, which usually means a new foreword or introduction, or, possibly, a new arrangement of pagination.
As a writer, I am in favor of strong copyright laws, but some of the current law is totally arrant nonsense, including the asininity of presumed copyright on exceptionally old photos (those taken today are good for a lot longer time than I describe above, which is also ridiculous: does anyone believe Olan Mills or any similar company will be in business in 100 years? Or that today's small company photographers will care about benefits from photos taken today, or, in fact, will be able to benefit after customers are scattered far and wide? If it were practical for customers, or the relations of customers, to locate the photographer or the photographer's company in 100 years and request reprints, I'd feel differently, but in every case I've ever seen or heard of, it is literally impossible).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.