Re: copyright?? on library photos

bob wrote:
RE:>>I don't know where I am supposed to answer your email.

I don't know where you are supposed to answer either, however, since this was started through email, continuing the conversation via email is probably not a bad idea.  I did a little research on this issue, but also observed a post from SUE DUTTON and it is interesting to note that one of us may be mislead--I don't know who until I check the dates on the copyright laws she referenced.  I do believe, however that the body of law she referenced has been superceded by new legislation (see below).      

RE:>>Anyway I know I don't like to look at alot of writing scribbled all over every photo.

Here is a good link that provides in legalise what I am trying to state in a common English.
-----------
http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/band.html ;
(Part of what is stated there I have copied below.  I hope I haven't violated any copyright laws in doing this!)  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be covered by the DMCA, Copyright Management Information (CMI) must be conveyed in connection with
a copyrighted work and CMI may constitute any of the following:

(1) information that identifies the copyrighted work, including the title of a work, the author, and the copyright owner;
(2) information that identifies a performer whose performance is fixed in a work, with certain exceptions;
(3) in case of an audiovisual work, information that identifies the writer, performer, or director, with certain exceptions;
(4) terms and conditions for use of the work;
(5) identifying numbers or symbols that accompany the above information or links to such information, for example, embedded pointers and hypertext links; or
(6) other information as the Register of Copyrights may prescribe by regulation, with an exception to protect the privacy of users.
------------------------------------------------------

RE:>>And I am not trying to police the internet.

You are doing a pretty good job of it for someone who is not trying. :-) If it were my work and I was wanting to protect it, I would say, "THANKS! Bob, Mr. Internet policeman".  Certainly if Mary is offended, she will says thanks as well for taking the time to alert her to this.  But see above and below concerning requirements for copyright protection.

RE:>>I already know some who say no way would they send in photos for the library.

Unfortunately, this probably is the correct decision if, 1) the submitter does not add a signature to the picture indicating they want their property rights protected, or 2) they include a request that the display of the picture must be accompanied by text that indicates the picture is copyrighted.

RE:>>You don't see anyone go to a commercial site and steal photos for their site and they
shouldn't steal from the library.

Some may have completely missed my point that putting together a "public display" of photos, in digital format is similar to people investing hours, weeks, and months into software development and then having to make a decision whether they are going to freely share that work.  As soon as you post it to the net, unless you make it clear that the work is NOT being submitted into the public domain by properly identifying the work as copyrighted (see #1 above), the poster has just said, "Here.  Enjoy my work. I like to share and want all to enjoy!"   

I'm NOT in favor of people using other people's work without permission.  I contact people to request permission if I want to use their photos, and I have also contacted several people to see if they have photographic works for sale.  (CB gave me permission to use six pictures last year.  They ALL have copyright info affixed onto the surface of the picture.  The text is black so it really does not detract from the beauty of the photo).

Unfortunately, I have not found any photographers that are willing to take the time to commercialize their product.  So, this made me purchase my own camera and go into competition against them.  Isn't that an interesting twist?  I HAVE, however, found quite a few photographers that do not take the time to adequately inform the public that they are NOT making these pictures freely available for others to enjoy.  For same there is no protection under this new "complex piece of legislation which makes major changes in U.S. copyright law to address the digitally networked environment" (enacted Oct 12, 1998).

The onus of responsibility for protection is with the OWNER of the copyright, not those who might otherwise interpret the artist as performing a philanthropic activity, as is being done with software being distributed under the GNU/GPL license.

Again, I am NOT advocating use of others works without permission.  I'm just trying to alert people as to what they need to do if they want to protect their property rights.  I don't know if a lawyer in copyright law ever reads these posts, but maybe one with some expertise in this arena might comment.  IN the meantime, checking this site http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/band.html might prove helpful.

Protect your work if you want it to be protected.  That is the bottom line.

-- 
Andrew Lietzow
#1 Plantsman at http://hostahaven.com
1250 41st St
Des Moines, IA 50311-2516
 

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index