Copyright

On 10-05-04 12:54 , Walter Banks wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Paul Furman writes:

I knew a guy who shot TV commercials and they went to great lengths to
avoid recognizable buildings, but his style required dramatic urban
settings so they'd fly to Budapest or Vancouver or wherever or build
elaborate sets to look like fancy modern buildings. But now that you
mention it, I think most of their clients were European, although he was
based in LA.

Some other countries are not as liberal as the U.S. France, for example, has
such restrictive legislation that some stock photo companies refuse to operate
there.

What this discussion seems to have uncovered is the large distance
between what the various copyright laws seem to state and how they
are enforced or used.

Most works are copyrighted few seem to use copyright laws as the
basis to file suits

I'd guess, esp. in www terms (photo on a site) that most challenges are
a request for an image to be removed, for credit to be given or a fee be
paid w/o resorting to a legal fight.

In the margins a lot of such challenges go completely unanswered and the
cost or effort of pursuit is not worth the potential return.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...
I have been involved in a discussion on copyright in another group.

How close does image composition need to be to violate
copyright and what determines copyright violation. I am looking for
examples to illustrate protections (or not) offered by copyrights.

Walter..









The copyright protects the image taken by the photographer, not necessarily
the idea or content in the photograph.That is my "opinion".

in other words, you cannot use the other's image without his permission.
You are free to take the same picture, stand in the same spot, using the
same camera and the same settings on the same time of day. The subject
matter of a photo is not copyrightable, the rights to use it, sell it, etc,
is what is copyrightable. But "I'm not a lawer".

Ask a lawyer to be certain. www.photoattorney.com

Patrick

On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:03:10 -0700, "Patrick L" wrote:

|
|
|The copyright protects the image taken by the photographer, not necessarily
|the idea or content in the photograph.That is my "opinion".
|
|in other words, you cannot use the other's image without his permission.
|You are free to take the same picture, stand in the same spot, using the
|same camera and the same settings on the same time of day. The subject
|matter of a photo is not copyrightable, the rights to use it, sell it, etc,
|is what is copyrightable. But "I'm not a lawer".
|
| Ask a lawyer to be certain. www.photoattorney.com
|
|Patrick

That's right!

In my experience, they (ASMP) or such, usually contact the
Photographer/Art Director and ask for a 10,000.+ sum for "damages", but they
don't investigate beyond the Photographer's/Art Director's, lame excuse
of... "Judy might have had the photos, but she doesn;t work with us anymore
and can't be located"....well you know, BS stuff like that.....and that's
that, pending on your persistence of actual irrecoverable damages.

There is a set of legal rules, but they get real abstract in the
real operative world of legal $ervices cost....they also have to prove there
was a monetary transference to really make a copyright charge stick.....some
copyright issues have to be renewed every decade or so...

Bob

"Kent Wills" wrote in message
...

I wasn't aware of this. Last I knew, copyright remained in
effect for the life of the owner plus, I think, 70 years.
What issues have to be renewed every decade or so? Not an
attempt to flame, but an honest question.

Unless you're Disney, somehow the US Goverment has granted them copyright,
and trademark protection until the end of time!

kiss my U*U wrote:
"Kent Wills" wrote in message
...

I wasn't aware of this. Last I knew, copyright remained in
effect for the life of the owner plus, I think, 70 years.
What issues have to be renewed every decade or so? Not an
attempt to flame, but an honest question.

Unless you're Disney, somehow the US Goverment has granted them
copyright, and trademark protection until the end of time!

I believe the "renewal" was an oblique approach to the idea that
recent court trends are to decide "for this case only", so that
precedent is much less a factor in any litigation with regard to
copyright. If you're a serious defender of your copy rights, it's
going to cost you. The game has moved from "right" to "winner of a
suit". Seems as if the lawyer cabal has stacked the deck. Between the
bankers and the lawyers, us ordinary folks are running out of chances.


--
Frank ess

Walter Banks wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Some other countries are not as liberal as the U.S. France, for example, has
such restrictive legislation that some stock photo companies refuse to operate
there.

What this discussion seems to have uncovered is the large distance
between what the various copyright laws seem to state and how they
are enforced or used.

Most works are copyrighted few seem to use copyright laws as the
basis to file suits

This could be a an interesting copyright case to follow.

It is the case of an artist taking an AP photo allegedly and
photoshoping an Obama teashirt and other images. It has it all
fair use, copyright image ownership, and changes to the original
image.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_593861.html

At this point there is an added twist, a judge who has commented,
"A judge urged Friday that a copyright dispute between an artist and
The Associated Press over the Barack Obama "HOPE" image be
settled quickly, saying it was likely the AP would win the case."

Walter..