posted on January 17, 2004 06:49:44 AM new
Stealing photo images, in a "different" way...
I've emailed thru Ques.toSeller of ebay 2217300240 to let them know that I "think" they are being ripped off by seller of auction number 3654931260 ... is it ok for someone to buy a 'vintage photo' reprint from a seller, and when receiving it, going and making MORE reprints of that purchase, and turn around and sell those on ebay?! ...
study these two and let me know what you think. I might be way off base here.
posted on January 17, 2004 07:32:14 AM new
Replayedia, Some of the reprints may come from CD ROMs (although many have restrictions on how the images can be legally used) but many come from collections of vintage images and negatives. It is possible that both of these images came from the same original owner or even that both of the sellers own a vintage copy of the photograph. There is just not enough information to know.
We own a large archive of historic images which we license to publishers (mostly for text books) but have not offered as reprints. I am in the process of researching the copyright issues on the use of older, out of copyright images which can be very complex. I am sure that if I own an original, out of copyright image and I scan or photograph it I own the rights to that scan or photograph.
-----o----o----o----o----o----o----o----o
“The illiterate of the future will be the person ignorant of the use of the camera as well as of the pen.”
Maholy-Nagy, Vision in Motion, 1947
posted on January 17, 2004 07:49:00 AM new
I dunno.
I am not a lawyer, but...
If I Xerox a hundred year old book, that does not give me copyrights. Even if I type in the exact text of that book, it's not really copyrightable. But if I write a "cliff's note" version or re-write it changing a few names and stuff, that IS copyrightable.
If you scan & print a photo isn't that just the same as making a photocopy? Unless you have done noticable modifications on the image, I would think you would NOT in fact have a copyright.
I don't remember the legal term, but you have to DO something with it to make it yours beyond just copying to copyright it.
How many scanned images of the Mona Lisa are on the internet? I'm quite sure the first person who ever scanned it does not own the copyright.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
[ edited by replaymedia on Jan 17, 2004 07:50 AM ]
posted on January 17, 2004 08:21:17 AM new
No the person who scanned the Mona Lisa does not have copyright but the Louvre does and I am sure that if they supply you with a photograph of it they will give very strict guidelines on how you can use it and the license cost will depend on your use. This is true with copy prints of vintage photographs from any collection. I know for a fact that most museums charge a hefty fee for preproduction rights to images in their collection. I have had a number of publishers who reproduce my images because I am less expensive than a museum that has the same image.
-----o----o----o----o----o----o----o----o
“The illiterate of the future will be the person ignorant of the use of the camera as well as of the pen.”
Maholy-Nagy, Vision in Motion, 1947
posted on January 17, 2004 09:57:16 AM newI am in the process of researching the copyright issues on the use of older, out of copyright images which can be very complex. I am sure that if I own an original, out of copyright image and I scan or photograph it I own the rights to that scan or photograph
It is not very complex. You can not "resurrect" a copyright for a public domain image by scanning or otherwise copying it. Anything prior to 1923 is public domain. Many post 1923 items have copyrights that we not re-newed, and once it becomes public domain, copies of the public domain piece can not become copyrighted.
Copyright derives from the creativity used in the item not the "work" used in putting the item in a tangible form.
posted on January 17, 2004 10:23:22 AM newNo the person who scanned the Mona Lisa does not have copyright but the Louvre does...
Ridiculous.
...and I am sure that if they supply you with a photograph of it they will give very strict guidelines on how you can use it and the license cost will depend on your use
What is being granted is access and not a copyright. Via contract the posessor of the public domain piece grants access and copies of the image under certain rules, such as the image can not further copied and the uses are otherwise limited. This is a physical property agreement and has nothing to do with copyright.
While the image of the Mona Lisa is public domain, access to actually copy the original is controlled by the owner, and the terms of this access can be anything the parties agree to.
What is not clear is the operation of contract rights when other parties copy the copy. They are not in contract or otherwise in privity with the original contracted parties.
So what happens when the History Channel purchases access to a 1901 public domain image in the Getty archives and agrees to use it only in the showing of one of their programs and I copy the image from the broadcast and produce copies of it?
These is no enforceable copyright on the image and I am not subject to breach of contract with Getty because I have not signed a contract with Getty.
In any event, granting access to copy a public domain item is not a copyright issue, but a private contrat issue.
