You actually did a pretty good job for a non-lawyer. Even a lot of lawyers couldn't explain it that well. The only thing I would add, is that, contrary to what someone else said earlier in this thread, putting pictures on the Internet or the World Wide Web does not mean that you give up your copyright. Publishing it on the Web or the Net is no different legally than publishing it in a magazine. --- Bob Schwartz (a lawyer) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rand flory" <ferret@wyoming.com> > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - > Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@ase-listmail.rit.edu> > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 9:47 AM > Subject: Re: copyright? > > > > Alan and Dan, > > > > You guys are now getting around to different > issues, and more to the point > > that you probably want to use: possession. > > > > Copyright goes to the creator and it may be > given away, sold or licensed. > > This is a Good Thing for photographers so no > one can rip off your work. > > > > Now, when you find an old photograph, or a Van > Gogh at a flea market, and > > you feel the image has value, you do have some > rights, but you cannot > > copyright these items just because you found > them and recognized the value > > that everyone else missed. > > > > Once you have posssession of an image whose > copyright has expired, you can > > limit access to the image. It is private > property and you do not have to > > share it with anyone if you so choose. If you > display it in your home or > > office, it is on private property and you have > every right to deny anyone > > privileges to photograph objects in your home. > But that is a privacy > issue, > > not a copyright issue. And, alas, the laws here > are more criminal than > civil > > and although someone could be busted, you may > not be able to gain > > financially if someone reproduces your "find" > and sells the reproduction. > > But you could try. > > > > One last item: if you make a "find," and you > try to sell, reproduce or > > otherwise profit from the image AND the creator > still has a copyright, you > > are in trouble. As photographers, this is the > way you want it to be. Too > > often, people feel that possession or ownership > of art is equivalent to > the > > right of reproduction. It is not. The creator, > unless the rights are > > transferred, is the ONLY person who can make > copies and profit from the > > copies. Think about that. You wouldn't want it > any other way. > > > > As far as PhotoRoy6's question: if the old > photographs are old enough and > > there is no copyright--or it has expired, you > can use the photos for any > > purpose you want--including selling the > photos--but YOU cannot copyright > > them. > > > > One thing you can do that may help for these > old photos if you put them on > > the Web is to do what book printers do with old > texts such as Melville's > > _Moby Dick,_ where the copyright has expired. > Put some new text on the Web > > page (even a heading will do), and then put a > copyright notice on the > bottom > > of the page. You may not be able to copyright > the photo (or the text to > > _Moby Dick_), but you can copyright your page. > This may fool some folks, > but > > probably only the honest ones who would not > have ripped you off in the > first > > place. Thieves and pirates will always be > thieves and pirates. > > > > Standard disclaimer here: the above is my > personal understanding of how > > things are. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play > one on television. (I don't > > even watch TV for that matter.) But I do read a > lot. (Aren't there some > real > > lawyers on the list that can explain this > better than I?) > > > > peace, > > > > rand > > > >
