Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link...

Very good summary, Roger, and concise. One correction:

>The copyright expires after a certain number of years
(I don't remember the specifics) and the clock starts running the moment the
art work is "fixed in media," not when it's published.

This *was* true, but I think it's been changed recently. In France (and
other parts of Europe), the copyright is in perpetuity. Therefore, "Gaitee
Parisienne" by Jaques Offenback (the "Can-can" song--and I know I've garbled
the spelling) still commands royalties when used commercially, 100-odd years
after the composer's death.  The same holds true for "Happy Birthday to
You," which was written by a little old schoolteacher, and is actually
almost a note-by-note ripoff of an earlier song. :-)

Best regards--LRA

------Original Message------
From: RogerMillerPhoto@aol.com
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Sent: March 21, 2001 8:22:17 AM GMT
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link...

In a message dated 3/20/2001 9:19:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
artistic@ampsc.com writes:

> There are several legal issues in terms of dating images for copyright.
>   On the one hand, you receive your copyright the moment you press the
> shutter button, even prior to processing... which protects you from the
> rolls being stolen in the mail to the processor, and the thief claiming
> ownership, or the lab doing something similar.
> On the other hand, you are supposed to issue a copyright dating on the
> first publication of the image.  That could be in a magazine, when you
> sell or display a print of the image, or the first time it goes onto a
> digital media that is distributed in some manner, including a web site.
> Also, should the image later on be manipulated in some manner to be
> considered a unique work from the original, the derivative can also be
> copyrighted as a new image with a new date.  The line becomes somewhat
> blurry here, since it depends somewhat on the amount of manipulation or
> change one is speaking of.  For instance, a scratch repair or a color
> correction would not be considered a new image, in spite of what
> Microsoft attempted to do with their Corbis releases.
> Art
> Berry Ives wrote:
> >>
> > If Jay Maisel has not shot film, except for one roll, during the past
> year,
> > how is it that all of the images are copyright 2001, yet most are from
> film?
> >
> > I guess the copyright does not correspond to the date the image was
> >
> > -Berry

This is OT, but I can't help adding my two cents worth since there's a lot
misunderstanding about copyright law.  I'd recommend that anyone interested
in this somewhat fascinating topic buy a good book on the subject and study
it in depth.  Another good source of information is www.loc.gov/copyright
which is the Library of Congress where U.S. copyright law is administered.
Each country is a bit different, depending on which international
they've signed, but here's some info (mostly bits and pieces) on U.S.
copyright law as it applies to photography:

A copyright exits at the moment the image is "fixed in media," not when the
"shutter is tripped."  Some cameras don't even have shutters (x-ray
some digital cameras, etc.).  The copyright owner is the person(s)
responsible for 'creating' the art, and that's not necessarily the person
tripped the shutter.  The copyright expires after a certain number of years
(I don't remember the specifics) and the clock starts running the moment the
art work is "fixed in media," not when it's published.  Therefore, a
copyrighted photograph should indicate the year it was created.  A
created in 1981 and published in a book this year would be "Copyright 1981."
The book itself (meaning it's author's artistic and creative content, text,
etc.) would be "Copyright 2001."  A copyright notice should appear with all
artwork so that a thief cannot later claim in court that he didn't know it
was copyrighted.  Just as important, all photographs subject to theft (i.e.,
anything on the Internet) should be registered with the copyright office at
the Library of Congress.  The fee is US$30 and you can register as many
photographs as you want provided that they were all created in the same
calendar year and none have ever been published.  Registration allows you to
collect attorney fees should you defeat the thief in court.  If someone
steals your work, you can sue for infringement of copyright.  Your model can
sue for invasion of privacy.  Provide she's alive.  If she's dead, neither
she nor her heirs can sue.  (Which means you, the photographer, can use your
dead model's image for advertising and commercial purposes without the need
for a model release.)  But if she's a famous person, such as a Hollywood
starlet, then she may have acquired a "right to publicity."  That means her
heirs can sue to protect her right to publicity even after she's dead.
Fascinating, isn't it.  By the way, "(C)" is not one of the three valid ways
to give notice of copyright.  Use the copyright symbol instead (a "c" with a
circle around it) or spell out the word, "copyright."  Does anyone know how
to make the copyright symbol in Photoshop?  I've tried, failed, and don't
even know if it's possible.  One last thing on copyright:  The Fair Use
Doctrine allows copyrighted work to be copied if it is used for education,
scientific work, and some other applications.  High school teachers really
take advantage of that loophole.

Sorry this message is so long, but it's easier to delete it than 10 short

FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.