If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
"Stujoe" wrote:
That is a good question. I am pretty sure I cannot build an exact copy of some building in the US (after 1990 or something) but can I even take a picture of it without permission? And, if I take a picture of it with no artistic merit to it at all that anyone else could take the exact same photo of on any day, is it able to be copyrighted? Under US Copyright Law, you can take a picture of a building without permission. Pictoral Representations are permitted explicitly by 17 USC 120. And yes, both pictures can have valid copyrights that don't infringe on each other. Part of proving a copyright violation is proving access to the original work. This is not necessarily the case in other countries. For example, you don't need permission to take a picture of the Eiffel Tower during the day. You do need permission to the a night shot. Other law can limit your right to photograph or use the photograph. For example, the art gallery can legally enforce a prohibition against photography from it's private property. The most famous example of this is the "lonesome cypress" tree on the 17-mile drive at Pebble Beach. The contract to gain access allows you to take all the pictures you want for personal use, but if you want to sell the shot you need a license. Another example is the Flatiron building in New York. A corporation has a trademark on the building, which places limits on how you may commercially use a photograph. How about if I go to an art gallery and take a picture of a 200 year old painting that is just the painting and nothing else? Do I own the copyright on that photo if it is indistinguishable from any other photo take by any other tourist at any time? How about if I scan a 200 year old photo? When you make a derivitive work of something in the public domain, you only gain copyright in your own contribution to the work. So yes, you own the copyright, but no, you can't enforce it against someone else who has taken a shot of the same old work. For example, anyone can publish Shakespeare's plays and register a copyright. But at most, you can gain copyright over the layout, annotations, illustrations, etc. The Bard's work remains public domain. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
"????" wrote:
What would the civil penality be if they refused to stop using you photo? In the U.S., it depends on such things as the timing of copyright registration. If you register the copyright more than three months after first publication, and the infringement occurs prior to registration, recovery is limited to injunctive relief plus actual damages. Otherwise, in addition to the above remedies, you can recover statuatory damages plus potentially recover attorney's fees. This is all covered in 17 USC 412 and 17 USC 501-513. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
"Dale Hallmark" wrote in message ... I have found many ebay listings that have quoted my writing from my site about specific items. Some even provided a link to my site and said if interested more information here. I really am very flattered by it. What is even more flattering is that some of the sellers were German and some Austrian which if you are familiar with my site, you might think they would know more about the items on my site than I do. I would not be flattered if they were linking to, or using information from my site to sell overpriced stuff or somehow defraud eBay buyers(come on, eBay is self policing, that never happens) There was recently someone on UKRCC that linked my site in one of their auctions, I think it was for a 17th century English Token, anyway I had them hastily remove the link. I want no association with anybody else's eBay auctions. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:45:32 -0500, Sibirskmoneta wrote:
There was recently someone on UKRCC that linked my site in one of their auctions, I think it was for a 17th century English Token, anyway I had them hastily remove the link. I want no association with anybody else's eBay auctions. Seems to me like a great time to replace that image with a graphic of the words "The guy selling this coin is using my bandwidth and my images without my permission. Are you sure you want to do business with someone like that?" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:44:50 GMT, Stujoe wrote:
I don't buy it but Wikipedia seems to take the position that pictures of US coins ineligible to be copyrighted. For the record, anyone could edit the Wikipedia to say that George Washington was a space alien. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Morgan_dollar.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Money-US Ah, I think I see the confusion. Wikipedia doesn't allow posting of copyrighted images, but: just because _this_ image of a Morgan dollar isn't copyrighted, doesn't mean that _no_ images of a Morgan dollar can be copyrighted. When you post an image to Wikipedia, you're required to certify that it's not a copyrighted image. Best way to do that is to make it yourself, which is how I do it. But that doesn't mean that later, I can't make a _copyrighted_ image of exactly the same thing. Dave Hinz |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:10:21 +1100, Jeff R wrote:
Does Andy Warhol own the rights to his prints, even though they are slavish copies? Yes. How about a photograph of a famous public building? Who owns the rights to the photo? The photographer or the architect? The photographer. Please don't get distracted by wikipedia's policy of not accepting copyrighted images. Has nothing to do with it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:10:21 +1100, Jeff R wrote: Does Andy Warhol own the rights to his prints, even though they are slavish copies? Yes. How about a photograph of a famous public building? Who owns the rights to the photo? The photographer or the architect? The photographer. Please don't get distracted by wikipedia's policy of not accepting copyrighted images. Has nothing to do with it. Sorry Dave. I was asking rhetorically. -- Jeff R. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:32:58 -0600, "Dale Hallmark"
wrote: I like the way you handled your situation and if you get that $100; are you going to invest it in a coin? ;-) I know I would. lol Of course. Is there any better way to spend discretionary funds? g -- Email: (delete "remove this") Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:57:23 +1100, Jeff R wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:10:21 +1100, Jeff R wrote: How about a photograph of a famous public building? Who owns the rights to the photo? The photographer or the architect? The photographer. Please don't get distracted by wikipedia's policy of not accepting copyrighted images. Has nothing to do with it. Sorry Dave. I was asking rhetorically. Nothing to be sorry for, Jeff. Text is a lousy transport mechanism for subtlety. Dave |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Another approach to image theft
Michael Benveniste wrote: "????" wrote: What would the civil penality be if they refused to stop using you photo? In the U.S., it depends on such things as the timing of copyright registration. If you register the copyright more than three months after first publication, and the infringement occurs prior to registration, recovery is limited to injunctive relief plus actual damages. Otherwise, in addition to the above remedies, you can recover statuatory damages plus potentially recover attorney's fees. This is all covered in 17 USC 412 and 17 USC 501-513. One thing some lawyers have mentioned to me is that if you ever want to file for damages you need to register the copyright. Is that correct? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to make an image visible here - CJoint | Pierre Courtiade | General Discussion | 3 | November 7th 05 10:44 PM |
Page size question | [email protected] | General Discussion | 4 | March 31st 05 02:23 PM |
Old stamp magazines - scan - OCR - web images - any ideas? | [email protected] | General Discussion | 13 | March 25th 05 07:46 AM |
FS: 1994-1995 Image Comics "PROMO" Sheets | J.R. Sinclair | General | 0 | July 14th 04 07:45 AM |
Buyer beware.. image theft | Hattrickssport | Hockey | 2 | August 1st 03 06:40 AM |