University photos

**Rich Pomerantz rich@richpomerantz.com>**

Claude Sweet wrote: <When university research is involved, unless funded
by private donations, the information becomes a matter of public record
through periodic press releases, published articles, presentations at
various conferences, and at the competition of the research grant.

Approval for academic use of such information is generally given without
any payment of funds. Proper credit MUST always be given in such cases.>

I think this statement may create the impression that copyright to a
photo which is included in the publication of the results of a
publically funded study somehow is less protected than other copyrights.

Caveat. This is a bit of a gray area. Part of the following depends on 
whether the University is a state owned institution, but it's not 100% 
resolved in favor or against the position I'm setting forth here. 
Certainly just the fact that there's public funding NEVER places the 
copyright to photos in the public domain.  My view is: fight for your 
copyright in all cases, so here's how I see it:

Copyright to photos NEVER becomes "a matter of public record" just
because the copyright holder publishes it in any of the above methods.
The intellectual non-photographic or graphic information contained in
the study may, depending on the intent of the publisher. If
the photos were provided by a freelancer in return for access, or in
return for payment, or any other consideration, and copyright was
retained by the freelancer/creator, then (a) publication by the
University of those photos can only be done in accordance with the
agreement reached with the creator/copyright holder. Chances are very
good that publication of the photos in connection with publication of
the findings of the study is included in rights granted. That's simple
common sense, of course.

(b) Even if it was done in house, or under some other work-for-hire
situation, so copyright is owned by the University, the copyright is
still protected, and further uses of the photograph can only be made
with the University's permission. Of course if the Univ. wants the
findings to be widely disseminated, it's going to acquiesce in most
editorial reuses of that image with the findings of the study. If a
freelancer was used and the University was smart, it would have bought
those reuses or otherwise included them in its agreement with the
freelancer in (a) above.

There should be no assumption that any ever photos published by a
University are available for anyone to appropriate and use for ANY
purpose, whether editorial or advertising/commercial, without further
compensation to the copyright holder. Remember what happens when you assume?

There are alot of myths about how copyright to photos become forfeited
just because they may appear in a certain type of publication
(scientific or publically funded). Many people still think a photo put
(published) on the internet makes it public property, which is of course
hogwash.

There is an exception for photos commissioned and then published by a
governmental entity, like the federal government or a state government.
They can violate anyone's copyright with impunity. The gray area is when 
the Univ is a state one.

RichPomerantz

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

If you have photos for GWL, send them to gwlphotos@hort.net and they will
show up at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos