OT - photos and copyrights

Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
>>about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
>>international standard.
>
>
> In other parts of the world people get under the impression that "the
> international standard" is set by the US law and the US government
> trying to enforce it everywhere...
No.............. not under the impression under the facts.
When Australia negotiated the recent free trade agreement with the USA
one of the conditions was that we bought our copyright legislation into
line with the USA. One example, we now have death + 75 years instead of
50 years for copyright expiry. Oh well such is life when your the 51st
State ;)
regards
John

lgb wrote:
> We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
> kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
> late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
>
> Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
> professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
> I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
>
> I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
> gainful employment.
>
> First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
> them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
> were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
> photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
> permission even if they had been copyrighted.
>
> Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
> might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
> and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.
>
> Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
> "commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
> otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
> commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.
>
> If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
> with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
> senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
> but I doubt it'll do any good.
>
> Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
> copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
> permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
> they solved it.
>
> I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
> holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).
>

It is said to be a common problem at WalMart. Evidently, clerks have
been instructed not to make prints if a photo LOOKS as if it were made
by a pro. For me, that would be a problem: I am a pro, and most of my
photos, certainly those I make available for printing, look like it.
But, then, no professional would use WalMart, so they're truly
flattering themselves.

A 40 buck scanner and a 50 buck printer, and you can do as well, quite
possibly better. If you really want to do business with WalMart, buy
the scanner and printer from them, though I think Staples usually has
better prices--at least Staples' sales are truly sales.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
> >kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
> >late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
> >
> >Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
> >professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
> >I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
> >
> >I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
> >gainful employment.
>
> Copyright law *is* a swamp. Most of the swamp revolves around what
> is, and is not, "fair use" exemption, however. You're lucky -- that is
> -not- an issue in your situation.
>
> >First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
> >them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
> >were taken.
>
> True, as far as that goes. *However* subsequent legislation has muddied
> the waters _considerably_.
>
> > And of course that made it impossible to locate the
> >photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
> >permission ...
>
> Unfortunately, irrelevant. "Unable to identify" and/or "unable to contact"
> the copyright owner is not a defense to copyright infringement.
>
> > ... even if they had been copyrighted.
>
> >Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
> >"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
> >otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
> >commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.
>
> The professional photographer who took them may have a different viewpoint.
> <wry grin>

Yabbut there needs to be a limit, and it should be specified. As an
example, I've got an old photo of me that my mother used to have. It
was taken when I was 2 or 3 years old by an itinerant pro photographer
who wandered through neighborhoods and showed up at block parties,
always with a pony in train. He'd pop the kid on the pony, shoot a
flash fill photo, get an address and a couple, three bucks, and pop the
next kid on, etc. Pretty good money for the day, really, but that day
was 1940 or 1941.

He's almost certainly dead, but is certainly unlocatable. I live
hundreds of miles away now, etc.

If I wanted, say, WalMart to copy the photo, it's well enough done for
them to be a PITA about it, but the concept that it has commercial
value is slightly ludicrous.

Ah well. Olan Mills just did the photos for a directory at my wife's
church. At their prices, we get just enough for family, period.
Something else that's ludicrous is pay $150 for two or three 5x7s and a
dozen wallet sized photos. If I want more, I'll set up a background in
the shop and do it myself, duplicating the lighting and positioning.
Except my lights are better, as is my camera.

Bill Gill wrote:
> lgb wrote:
> > We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
> > kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
> > late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
> >
> > Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
> > professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
> > I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
> >
> > I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
> > gainful employment.
> >
> > First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
> > them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
> > were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
> > photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
> > permission even if they had been copyrighted.
> >
> > Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
> > might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
> > and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.
> >
> > Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
> > "commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
> > otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
> > commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.
> >
> > If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
> > with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
> > senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
> > but I doubt it'll do any good.
> >
> > Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
> > copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
> > permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
> > they solved it.
> >
> > I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
> > holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).
> >
> > I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
> > groups.
> >
> A few years ago my boss came in with an ad he cut out of
> the paper. The ad had a family portrait taken at his
> grandparents anniversary. Apparently the photographers
> estate had sold the originals at some time and the
> picture had been picked up and used for a "commercial
> purpose". So there may be some commercial value in the
> photographers work.

Actually, without a model release, the estate has no business selling
photographs of recognizable people. It is actionable.

This is becoming a problem in many photo processing outlets, not just
Wal Mart. Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0506/23/C06-225211.htm

"Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits
and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a
photographer's permission. In the old days, questions about an image's
provenance could be settled with a negative. If you had it, you
probably had the right to reproduce it.

"Now, when images are submitted on CDs or memory cards or over the Web,
photofinishers often have to guess whether a picture was truly taken by
the customer -- or whether it was scanned into a computer or pilfered
off the Internet."

Guess your Wal Mart doesn't trust prints, either.

lgb wrote:
> We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
> kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
> late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
>
> Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
> professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
> I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
>
> I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
> gainful employment.

Maybe it's just me but I find copyright law to be pretty clear and
easy to understand. Not so for many other areas.

>
> First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
> them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
> were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
> photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
> permission even if they had been copyrighted.
>
> Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
> might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
> and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.
>

"Works for hire" isn't a gray area at all. The law is quite plain,
it is the term of art "works for hire" that is confusing because
that particular doctrine typically does NOT apply when you hire
someone to creat a work of art for you. "Works for hire" actually
are works done by your employee, not by an independendant contractor
you hire. The doctrine should be called "works by employees" to
avoid the confusion.

> Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
> "commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
> otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
> commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

The purpose of the law is to protect the rights of the creator of
a creative work.

>
> If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
> with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
> senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
> but I doubt it'll do any good.
>

I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
international standard.

> Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
> copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
> permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
> they solved it.
>

If you Google through the archives of the rec.photo and misc.legal
heirarchies you will find this is often cussed and discussed.

> I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
> holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I expect you are too. I cannot fault WalMart for wanting to obey the
law, signing form is a trivial thing to ask of you.

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

--

FF

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> ...
>
> > And of course that made it impossible to locate the
> >photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
> >permission ...
>
> Unfortunately, irrelevant. "Unable to identify" and/or "unable to contact"
> the copyright owner is not a defense to copyright infringement.

Ah but ignorance on the part of the copyright holder of the
infringement
is even better than a legal defense. He can't sue if he doesn't know
there was a violation.

In many respects it IS like furniture or jigs and fixtures. If you
make an exact copy of someone's furniture or a patented jig or
fixture for your own personal use you hav violated someone's
intellectual property rights. But unless you tell them you've
done that (like by bragging about it on rec.woodworking) you're
pretty much safe from retribution.

But you might see a class-action suit against WalMart if WalMart
were to routinely copy such photos. Heck, their present policy
might be part of the settlement from a previous class-action suit.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
>
> BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
> picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
> Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
> Bono).

It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think. And Disney is probably one of the most aggressive
policers of their trademarks and copyrights in the world. That's all
they've really got, plus a warehouse full of old cartoons and a
reputation (not always deserved) fo rmaking good family movies.

Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
> > I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
> > about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
> > international standard.
>
> In other parts of the world people get under the impression that "the
> international standard" is set by the US law and the US government
> trying to enforce it everywhere...
> --
> Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
> mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
> Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
> CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Hmm, maybe Berne was annexed using "emminent domain" sometime when I
wasn't paying attention.

--

FF

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
> >> picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
> >> Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
> >> Bono).
> >
> >It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
> >friends, I think.
>
> *NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
> of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
> were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
> _anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
> infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
> Disney's works.

ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."

IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark,
rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to
represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing
sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

--

FF

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Peter McCormick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
> > point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for
> > at
> > least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will
> > be
> > actionable.
>
> OK, the law is the law and I'm not going to dispute it, but what do you do
> as a practical matter?
>
> You have an old family photo take by a professional about 55 years ago.
> There is a good probability the photographer is dead as he would be 75+
> years old, maybe over 100. His business has been long gone, closed up
> probably 40+ years ago. No one can recall his name as we were only kids and
> our parents and grandparents are also long gone. The copyright would still
> be in effect if any of the unknown heirs are alive.
>
> How do you go about getting the photo copied?

Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
can find his heirs to get their permission.

Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.

--

FF

CW wrote:
> If there is, it's routinely ignored.
> "lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Constitution about post facto laws?
> >
> >

It's not ignored, like 'legal tender' it simply does not mean what
many people think it means. 'Ex post facto' and retroactive, for
example, are not the same same thing.

It _may_ be that the copyrights, once relenquished as described,
were NOT restored in 1977 or whenever the law was changed to conform
to the Berne Conventions. I dunno about that.

--

FF

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
> >> >> picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
> >> >> Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
> >> >> Bono).
> >> >
> >> >It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
> >> >friends, I think.
> >>
> >> *NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
> >> of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
> >> were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
> >> _anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
> >> infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
> >> Disney's works.
> >
> >ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."
>
> No, I meant _exactly_ what I said. Referencing the 'creative work'.

That makes no sense. In the example as stated, the cakes were not
being baked by Disney. Refering to them as being Disney's work
absolutely would be infringement (also fraud).

--

FF

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
> > copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
> > in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
> > into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
> > can find his heirs to get their permission.
> >
> > Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
> > legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
> > many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>
> .Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it. :)
> While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be
> some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family
> photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.

'Actionable' I think, is the preferred term since the sort of
copying you intend would not rise to criminal conduct.

Your 'defense' is practical, rather than legal. That is to say
the 'wronged' party, even if still alive, most likely will remain
forever ignorant of the infringement. And if not, most likely
will not care.

--

FF

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Peter McCormick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
> > point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for
> > at
> > least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will
> > be
> > actionable.
>
> OK, the law is the law and I'm not going to dispute it, but what do you do
> as a practical matter?
>
> You have an old family photo take by a professional about 55 years ago.
> There is a good probability the photographer is dead as he would be 75+
> years old, maybe over 100. His business has been long gone, closed up
> probably 40+ years ago. No one can recall his name as we were only kids and
> our parents and grandparents are also long gone. The copyright would still
> be in effect if any of the unknown heirs are alive.
>
> How do you go about getting the photo copied?

Just do it. In my case, the photo was taken 60+ years ago, by an adult
male, just before WWII. At that time, IIRC, copyrights were for either
26 or 28 years, and could be extended for another 26 or 28 IF a form
was filed. It is exceptionally unlikely that the form was filed, so the
photo is probably in the public domain. Once something is in the public
domain, it stays there, AFAIK.

We constantly see reprints of 100 year old material with copyright
notices on them. You also see reprints of Government Printing Office
material with copyrights by the new publisher. Regardless of what the
publisher would like you to think, such copyrights only apply to new
material, not to old, which usually means a new foreword or
introduction, or, possibly, a new arrangement of pagination.

As a writer, I am in favor of strong copyright laws, but some of the
current law is totally arrant nonsense, including the asininity of
presumed copyright on exceptionally old photos (those taken today are
good for a lot longer time than I describe above, which is also
ridiculous: does anyone believe Olan Mills or any similar company will
be in business in 100 years? Or that today's small company
photographers will care about benefits from photos taken today, or, in
fact, will be able to benefit after customers are scattered far and
wide? If it were practical for customers, or the relations of
customers, to locate the photographer or the photographer's company in
100 years and request reprints, I'd feel differently, but in every case
I've ever seen or heard of, it is literally impossible).

Tom Quackenbush wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
> >Tom Quackenbush wrote in message
> <snip>
> >> You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong
> >> word.
> >
> >No shit!?
> >
> >And as long as we're being sticklers for correctness, your assumption is
> >incorrect: OE's spell checker "spelled" it from my typo (debatably a poetic
> >omen in choice of replacement words, in case you missed that also).
>
> My mistake, I guess. You didn't spell "imminent" correctly, your
> spell checker did - is that your point?
>
> If I want to refer to one of your posts, should I refer to it as a
> "Swingman" post or an Outlook Express post? I mean, you didn't
> actually post anything, your newsreader and ISP did that.
>
> Aside from the "who (or what) is responsible for one's post" issue,
> it does seem odd that OE wouldn't offer several correctly spelled
> alternatives for a misspelled "eminent". Could be a defect in OE's
> spellcheck. Do you recall your original (mis)spelling?
>
Your eminence may be imminent, but you also must be fairly new to
newsgroups. As a pro writer, I could have myself a time correcting
spelling and use throughout most forums, but it is frowned upon, so
strongly that it creates almost life threatening wrinkles in the
forehead.

If you can understand what is being written, don't bitch about it.
There are too many levels of education and ability here in other areas
to make parsing sentences and moaning over misspellings worthwhile.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:19:34 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> "George" wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> > If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed....
> >>>
> >>> LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme
> >> Court
> >>> ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the
> >> fact
> >>> that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real
> >>> property
> >>> from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep
> >>> it,
> >>> or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with
> >> at
> >>> ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it.
> >>>
> >>> This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....
> >
> >I'd like to see this happen
> >http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
> >
>
> I love it! There should be no issue with this, right?
>
> It is further interesting to note, that despite all of the rhetoric
> about how the right, conservatives, and the current adminstration are only
> in it for giant corporations and to advance the corporate agenda, look who
> of the men in black robes voted *for* government siezure of private land
> from individual citizens for the benefit of large corporations and who
> voted against that siezure; writing some very strong language regarding the
> absolute tyranny that this move represented. Think about that when the
> next supreme court justice vacancy is being filled.
>

I personally find the common usage of terms like 'right' and 'left'
or 'liberal' and 'conservative' to be insensible. But to the extent
that one can misuse them as does the media one sees that 'left'
leaning politicians (which includes judges) tend to be hostile to
a person's ownership rights, whether it is real-estate, business,
vehicles, money, etc. The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to
a person's behaviour rights, whether it is religious practice,
sexual activity, grooming and clothing, performance and fine art
and so on.

So we see that choosing between poitical parties on a basis of
comparing their respect for human rights is rather like choosing
between motorcycle gangs on the basis of their preference in
beer.

--

FF

Glen wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to
> > a person's behaviour rights, whether it is religious practice,
> > sexual activity, grooming and clothing, performance and fine art
> > and so on.
>
> I can't say I agree with you. To me, it seems that the left is
> attempting to put limits on my free speech with its move for political
> correctness.

I left free speech out because it is opposed by both 'lefties'
and 'righties'. _Some_ 'Lefties' want hate-speech legislation,
bans on cross-burning and so on while _some_ 'righties' want to
bad flag burning require the pledge of allegience in classrooms
etc.

Every part of the (multiaxial) political spectrum seems to have
people who some manner of speech based entirely on the speaker's
choice of content. This, more than anything else, is why I find
the commonplace labeling to be all but insensible.

Yes, people should feel as strongly about a 'Piss Koran' as about
a 'Piss Christ'. What I find repugnant are the bigots who feel
differently about one than about the other.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> Glen wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to
> > > a person's behaviour rights, whether it is religious practice,
> > > sexual activity, grooming and clothing, performance and fine art
> > > and so on.
> >
> > I can't say I agree with you. To me, it seems that the left is
> > attempting to put limits on my free speech with its move for political
> > correctness.
>
> I left free speech out because it is opposed by both 'lefties'
> and 'righties'. _Some_ 'Lefties' want hate-speech legislation,
> bans on cross-burning and so on while _some_ 'righties' want to
> bad flag burning require the pledge of allegience in classrooms
> etc.
>
> Every part of the (multiaxial) political spectrum seems to have
> people who some manner of speech based entirely on the speaker's
> choice of content. This, more than anything else, is why I find
> the commonplace labeling to be all but insensible.
>
> Yes, people should feel as strongly about a 'Piss Koran' as about
> a 'Piss Christ'. What I find repugnant are the bigots who feel
> differently about one than about the other.
>

A long time ago, I used to get a kick out of various government
agencies demanding an oath of loyalty or a statement of lack of support
for the goals of various Communist organizations in order to provide
college loans, etc. I presume they still do. The idea that a determined
Communist, bent on the overthrow of the U.S., would actually lie on
taking such an oath seemed beyond the people who set up the
requirement. I always figured anyone in a too great rush to sign such
oaths might be worth investigating.

What I find really repugnant are the types who bemoan the loss of their
religious freedom when what the really mean is my being able to tell
them to get off my front stoop and out of my yard with their "messages".

lgb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Sorry,
> >
> > But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other
> > copyright material, regardless of when produced.
> >
> I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I
> posted, that law is ridiculous.
>
> And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional?

I suggest you check into the difference between "ex post facto" and
"retroactive."

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
>kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
>late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
>
>Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
>professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
>I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
>
>I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
>gainful employment.

Copyright law *is* a swamp. Most of the swamp revolves around what
is, and is not, "fair use" exemption, however. You're lucky -- that is
-not- an issue in your situation.

>First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
>them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
>were taken.

True, as far as that goes. *However* subsequent legislation has muddied
the waters _considerably_.

> And of course that made it impossible to locate the
>photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
>permission ...

Unfortunately, irrelevant. "Unable to identify" and/or "unable to contact"
the copyright owner is not a defense to copyright infringement.

> ... even if they had been copyrighted.

>
>Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
>might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
>and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Portrait studio, etc. photos are *NOT* works "done for hire", unless it
_specifically_ states in the contract with the photographer that they
are such.

>Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
>"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
>otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
>commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

The professional photographer who took them may have a different viewpoint.
<wry grin>

>If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
>with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
>senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
>but I doubt it'll do any good.

Ownership rights in 'studio' photography works are _long_ established.
>
>Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
>copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
>permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

"studio" (and other types of professional) photography _is_ "commercial work".

In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
>> picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
>> Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
>> Bono).
>
>It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
>friends, I think.

*NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
_anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
Disney's works.

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
>> >> picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
>> >> Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
>> >> Bono).
>> >
>> >It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
>> >friends, I think.
>>
>> *NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
>> of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
>> were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
>> _anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
>> infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
>> Disney's works.
>
>ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."

No, I meant _exactly_ what I said. Referencing the 'creative work'.

It is no different than a used car dealer selling "Ford" automobiles.

Using the trademarked name, to refer to the trademark owner's item is *not*
infringement (or 'dilution') of the trademark.

Producing a 'new' work, using the trademarked character _would_ be violation
of trademark.

Reproducing the _trademark_owner's_ work is *not* _trademark_ infringement,
Unless you are representing that is something other than the trademark owner's
work.

>
>IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark,
>rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to
>represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing
>sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

Trademark *alone* is not sufficient protection.
*NEITHER* is copyright, alone.

You need trademark to prevent people from creating their own works using the
character.

You need copyright to prevent people from copying _your_ works.

There's a bunch of case-law on this -- a lot from the newspaper cartoon-strip
field.

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter McCormick <[email protected]> wrote:
>I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA.
>
>In both countries,


The OP's remarks, below, are an accurate statement of _today's_ environment.

When dealing with _old_ items, at least in the U.S. (I _don't_ know anything
about 'ancient' Canadian law on the matter), the situation gets *much* more
complex.

_Prior_ to the U.S.'s adoption of "Berne Convention" standards:
copyright was *NOT* automatic.
There *did* have to be an assertation of copyright on every item,
*AND* the claim had to be 'registered'/filed with the Government
(simultaneous with, or prior to first publication.)

The Berne Convention 'alignment' also _radically_ changed the classification
of "work done for hire" -- greatly to the benefit of the individual producing
the work, and the detriment of the party paying for it.

That change in what constitutes 'work done for hire' applies only to work
done after the law was adopted. Works produced before that date are still
judged by the rules in effect _when_ they were produced.

As regards 'duration of copyright', the details on older works get *messy*.

Works that were still 'in copyright' at the time of the statutory revisions,
automatically 'inherited' the new, longer protections.

Works that were 'out of copyright' by the rules when they were produced, but
would be 'in copyright' if the new rules hadn't been in force at the time they
were produced, got special treatment. *IF* the original owner chose, they
could file for a 're-establishment' of the copyright, that ran from the time
of that filing forward. Any 'copying' that had been done between the time
of the prior expiration, and the re-establishment was *not* infringement.
'Re-establishing' copyright *did* require that the item had been protected
by copyright originally -- i.e., the claim asserted on the item, and the
requisite 'registration' with the government. The gov't published listings
of the works for which copyright was re-established -- it can be found on-line
on the web. (I was looking for a 1950's children's book, and got a hit on
that list.)

Works that were of an age that, even if the new rules had been in effect at
the time of their creation, would be 'out of copyright', remained unprotected.

The subsequent 'tweaking' of copyright duration has introduced additional
variations on the above.


>Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two
>exceptions...
>
>1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment.
>(In this case the copyright belongs to the employer).
>
>2. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and
>client, that assigns the copyright to a third party.
>
>When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore,
>are not entitled to an automatic copyright.
>
>Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production
>(prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph.
>
>Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.
>
>A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has
>no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish
>copyright.
>
>Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes
>the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years
>following his death.
>
>Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value
>obtained from selling further copies of the work.
>
>In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
>point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at
>least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be
>actionable.
>
>Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It
>is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in
>exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image.
>
>If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays
>your money and takes your chances."
>
>
>Fleet
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> Sorry,
>>
>> But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other
>> copyright material, regardless of when produced.
>>
>I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I
>posted, that law is ridiculous.

*MOST* laws are 'ridiculous' with regard to _some_ of the situations to which
they apply. :)

>And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional?

Yes, *BUT*... <grin>

"Ex post facto" does _not_ include making something which "was allowed"
to now be "not allowed".

"Ex post facto" means making it a crime *now*, to _have_done_a_thing_ that
it was legal to do when it was done.

If, for example, one had made copies of an old photograph that lacked any
copyright claim, *before* the 'Berne Convention' copyright statute revisions,
that action would be legal, and those copies _would_ be "legal" copies.
*IF* the copyright law changes had attempted to make one liable for
copyright violation _now_, for the act committed *then*, THAT would be
an unconstitutional 'ex post facto' situation.

Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter'
that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing
on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'.

Acts done _prior_ to the enactment of the new law are unaffected.

Acts done _after_ the enactment of the new law are governed by the new law.

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>bonomi.com says...
>> Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter'
>> that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing
>> on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'.
>>
>Well, we could go round and round with legalisms, but my contention is
>that by not stampiong the photos when that was required, the
>photographer implicitly refused copyright. Now he, or his estate, has
>been given the copyright. Refusing his refusal?

"Not exactly." <grin>

First off, he didn't "refuse" anything. He neglected to perform a particular
overt act for assertation of certain protections. As a result, _at_that_time_
he did not have the benefit of those protections.

At a later date, the law was changed, so that such protections accrued to
the benefit of the photographer -- as of the date of the law revision, and
going forward from there -- whether or not he had performed the particular
overt action in the past.

Whether or not this was a 'sensible' thing to do is a moot point -- it *is*
the way the law is. <grin>


I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright
protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies
as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to
deal with things on that basis.

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>bonomi.com says...
>> I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright
>> protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies
>> as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to
>> deal with things on that basis.
>>
>No argument there. I just wonder what it'd take to get it changed.

Without being overly facietious: it would reuqire "an Act of Congress" *grin*

>Since it apparently stemmed from an international agreement, it'd
>probably be a lost cause.

The "Berne Convention" accords did not, as far as I kwow, specify anything
about how "previously existing" works were to be treated.

A lot of that push came from Disney & Co. -- they still make "significant"
money from works that were produced long enough ago that "pre Berne Convention"
copyright protection would have expired about the time the changes in the
laws were being considered.

Trying to 're-change' things, to "fix" the original silliness, would merely
make the situation worse.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:21:08 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> You're either new to Usenet, as dense and as clueless to the vagaries of
>> spell checkers as you appear, or you are just one of those dickheads who
>> doesn't have anything to add but correcting typos and spelling.
>> Nonetheless, feel free to go fuck your perfect self at whim.

> While perfection somehow escapes most of us, including me, I do know how
> to spell "profane blockhead." And your response seems to qualify you
> for that appellation. Or were you just having a bad day?

Hm, I saw it as a well-crafted and eloquent example of a flame. I think
his observations and invitation are correct and appropriate.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As a writer, I am in favor of strong copyright laws, but some of the
> current law is totally arrant nonsense, including the asininity of
> presumed copyright on exceptionally old photos (those taken today are
> good for a lot longer time than I describe above, which is also
> ridiculous: does anyone believe Olan Mills or any similar company will
> be in business in 100 years? Or that today's small company
> photographers will care about benefits from photos taken today, or, in
> fact, will be able to benefit after customers are scattered far and
> wide?

If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed....

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" wrote in message
>
> > If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed....
>
> LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme
Court
> ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the
fact
> that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real property
> from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep it,
> or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with
at
> ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it.
>
> This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer ...

"Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....

"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:17:46 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> some lugnut at Walmart was pulling your chain..
> take them to Costco or Sam's Club and get them done right and without a
hassle..
>

Actually, they're not really pulling his chain mac. I don't think the clerk
was right in this particular case, since the photo had no copyright (or
related) information on it, but in a more general sense, Walmart is right in
the way they handle the copyright issue. As the OP indicated, all he had to
do was to sign a document that stated blah, blah, blah...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
> copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
> in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
> into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
> can find his heirs to get their permission.
>
> Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
> legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
> many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.
>
> --
>
> FF

.Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it. :)
While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be
some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family
photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.

All very nice & legal . . . however . . .

There was a recent article in the local paper {Philadelphia Inquirer} where
the columnist ran into the same problem at a local WalMart. The excuse for
the refusal to give him his prints so ticked him off that he made it the
subject of a column.

The reason they wouldn't give him his prints was because . . . "they look
TOO GOOD . . .". In the opinion of the "$6.oo-an-hour, minimal IQ,
photographic moron, clerk" anything 'this good' had to be 'Professional' as
opposed to the work of someone with maybe 10+ years of experience with
various cameras.

With the magnitude leaps in technology the 'film' camera is in danger of
becoming 'extinct', or at the very least, 'endangered'. {Recently I found
that my 35mm Nikon equipment is almost valueless. A rapid decrease from as
recently as a year ago - when I sold a Nikkormat for $100}. I then sold off
ALL my Mamiya TLR equipment . . . the camera went for almost nothing, the
lenses brought in the money.} What caused this is obvious . . . the 'Digital
Age'.

I've had a *simple* digital camera for several years. I used it like a
'visual notebook'. Illustrating 'work in progress' for my self or for the
'e-zine' column I write, making note of a particular detail on a boat at
Mystic Seaport, or to e-mail a photo to ebay. An H-P, it was so inexpensive
that it was under $50 if purchased with a external drive - that I intended
to get anyway. A few months ago it was bumped off a table. It would no
longer 'transfer' the images to the memory card. Rather than repair it {it
was considered 'obsolete' anyway}I looked for a new one . . . more like my
Nikons. Anyhow - it was a revelation !! I finally found what I wanted . . .
it was a 'discontinued' model - probably because it was so very similar to a
35mm SLR. I also found out a few things. The 'trained' clerks in most of the
'Photo Shops' had NO IDEA what 'Rangefinder' meant. They had also redefined
'SLR' {single-lens-reflex}. Where this ties in with the subject at hand is
the LITERATURE.

Looking in the library, getting a few {deeply discounted}books, {and later
even the owners manual of the camera} - I got myself up-dated in the
'Digital Era'. ALL THESE BOOKS - 'How To . .', 'Technique . .', 'Using .
.' - after a few pages that define the physical differences between 'film'
and 'digital' - then go on for three-quarters of their length with the SAME
words, illustrations, tips, etc on Composition, Lighting, Portraits,
Landscapes, etc. as ALL of the 'FILM PHOTOGRAPHY' that has gone before.

A good photographer with a good 'eye' . . . is a good photographer with a
good eye . . . PERIOD !! The particular camera is his 'tool' - no mater it
be 35mm, 2-1/4, 4x5, or Digital.

Nobody is going to go to WalMart, K-Mart, or any of the other -marts, to get
a photo/digital image copied that they are then going to publish in a book,
or magazine, or TV commercial for some insane amount of profit. Our society
maybe litigious, but this crap is just an exercise in 'abuse of power' for
that twit of a clerk, and a way for corporate lawyers to justify their
existence and obscene salary's.

Rant Off . . .

Regards & Thanks for the 'soapbox',
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop


"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is becoming a problem in many photo processing outlets, not just
> Wal Mart. Here's an article on the subject:
>
> http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0506/23/C06-225211.htm
>
> "Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits
> and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a
> photographer's permission. In the old days, questions about an image's
> provenance could be settled with a negative. If you had it, you
> probably had the right to reproduce it.
>
> "Now, when images are submitted on CDs or memory cards or over the Web,
> photofinishers often have to guess whether a picture was truly taken by
> the customer -- or whether it was scanned into a computer or pilfered
> off the Internet."
>
> Guess your Wal Mart doesn't trust prints, either.
>

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
>
> >George wrote:
> >> "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....
> >
> >LOL Your analogy is right on, but as of last week the spelling is
debatable
> >... apparently even OE's spell checker is convinced of that.
>
> You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong
> word.

No shit!?

And as long as we're being sticklers for correctness, your assumption is
incorrect: OE's spell checker "spelled" it from my typo (debatably a poetic
omen in choice of replacement words, in case you missed that also).

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05

[email protected] wrote:

The 'right' leaning politicians are hostile to
> a person's behaviour rights, whether it is religious practice,
> sexual activity, grooming and clothing, performance and fine art
> and so on.

I can't say I agree with you. To me, it seems that the left is
attempting to put limits on my free speech with its move for political
correctness. It appears the left is trying to disallow Christians and
believers in God from exercising their religious freedom or expression
(except if you wish to express positive things about Islam, the left
still permits that!) If you consider a crucufix placed in a bottle of
urine fine art, then yes, "right" leaning politicians are (and should
be) hostile to funding it. Also, can you imagine the uproar if an
"artist" put the Koran in a jar of urine. He would be lambasted by the
left for not being "sensitive." Yet when one objects to paying with
public funds for "art" that displays an anti-Christian messages, that
person is labeled a Neanderthal.

The double standard is sickening!

Glen

Edwin Pawlowski (in [email protected]) said:

| How do you go about getting the photo copied?

D'you suppose I should work up a plan for a wooden copy easel so you
can take pictures of your pictures? The commercial jobs can be fairly
expensive but shouldn't be all that difficult to build in a home
shop...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Swingman wrote:
> "George" wrote in message
>
>
>>"Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....
>
>
> LOL Your analogy is right on, but as of last week the spelling is debatable
> ... apparently even OE's spell checker is convinced of that.
>
Har. Har. Computer programs don't set the
standard, at least this week, this day, this hour.
or in the case of Microsoft, this year. The
spelling is not debatable! The beginning letter
remains "E" just like it has for decades
(?centuries?) in standard references. Just
imagine a Microsoft programs being used as a
standard. Makes you think of, "It depend on what
is is."

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark,
> rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to
> represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing
> sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

IIUC, they can be both. The character may be a part of a logo or represent a
particular business as a trademark, but in the Sunday funnies, that strip
would be protected under copyright. OTOH, a character that happens to
appears in a strip would not necessarily be used as a trademark.

Clint Eastwood's work in copyrighted, but he is not a trademark. Alfred
Hitchcock's work is copyrighted, but his profile is trademarked.

"George" wrote in message

> "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....

LOL Your analogy is right on, but as of last week the spelling is debatable
... apparently even OE's spell checker is convinced of that.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05

"George" wrote in message

> If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed....

LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme Court
ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the fact
that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real property
from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep it,
or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with at
ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it.

This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
> > holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).
>
> After all that rigmarole, you gave Walmart your business anyway?
>
I'd already made the copies. The brouhaha started when I went up to pay
for them.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> n the end you got what you wanted...but you could have scanned them if
> you had a scanner and made copies or if a buddy had a scanner...
>
They get 37 cents for each 4x6 and the quality is superior to anything I
could do with my scanner and printer. And I suspect the cost to me of
photo paper and ink could well be more than 37 cents.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> As the OP indicated, all he had to
> do was to sign a document that stated blah, blah, blah...
>
Of course they didn't mention that until they'd pulled my chain with "we
can't let you copy that", "don't argue, you're on camera", and similar
bullshit. Let's just say I won't be using that facility again.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.
>
> A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has
> no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish
> copyright.
>
But these photos weren't made under current law - they were made under
the copyright laws of 1909 or thereabouts. Those laws did require the
photographer to stamp the photo if he wanted it copyrighted.

Since none of these bore such a stamp, it is a logical assumption that
the photographer did not care to copyright them.

The fact the current law may have changed the status of these photos
only goes to show how asinine Congress can be. Isn't there something in
the Constitution about post facto laws?

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> You're either new to Usenet, as dense and as clueless to the vagaries of
> spell checkers as you appear, or you are just one of those dickheads who
> doesn't have anything to add but correcting typos and spelling.
>
> Nonetheless, feel free to go fuck your perfect self at whim.
>
While perfection somehow escapes most of us, including me, I do know how
to spell "profane blockhead." And your response seems to qualify you
for that appellation. Or were you just having a bad day?

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Sorry,
>
> But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other
> copyright material, regardless of when produced.
>
I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I
posted, that law is ridiculous.

And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional?

But of course this isn't a homegrown law, from what I read it's an
intenational treaty. It's almost enough to make me an isolationist :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
bonomi.com says...
> Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter'
> that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing
> on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'.
>
Well, we could go round and round with legalisms, but my contention is
that by not stampiong the photos when that was required, the
photographer implicitly refused copyright. Now he, or his estate, has
been given the copyright. Refusing his refusal?

And I think we've beat this to death. If someone sues me for copying a
picture of myself or my kids, I'll let you all know :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
bonomi.com says...
> I, personally, am of the opinion that the extension of "automatic" copyright
> protection to pre-existing works for which no copyright was claimed qualifies
> as a *STUPID* peice of legislation. But, it is on the books, and we have to
> deal with things on that basis.
>
No argument there. I just wonder what it'd take to get it changed.
Since it apparently stemmed from an international agreement, it'd
probably be a lost cause.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Swingman wrote:
>Tom Quackenbush wrote in message
<snip>
>> You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong
>> word.
>
>No shit!?
>
>And as long as we're being sticklers for correctness, your assumption is
>incorrect: OE's spell checker "spelled" it from my typo (debatably a poetic
>omen in choice of replacement words, in case you missed that also).

My mistake, I guess. You didn't spell "imminent" correctly, your
spell checker did - is that your point?

If I want to refer to one of your posts, should I refer to it as a
"Swingman" post or an Outlook Express post? I mean, you didn't
actually post anything, your newsreader and ISP did that.

Aside from the "who (or what) is responsible for one's post" issue,
it does seem odd that OE wouldn't offer several correctly spelled
alternatives for a misspelled "eminent". Could be a defect in OE's
spellcheck. Do you recall your original (mis)spelling?

R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

Swingman wrote:

>George wrote:
>> "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....
>
>LOL Your analogy is right on, but as of last week the spelling is debatable
>... apparently even OE's spell checker is convinced of that.

You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong
word. I'll bet OE won't complain if you write that you routed a
"rabbit" in a board, either.

R,
Tom Q.

--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:aWkwe.9495$GH6.283
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

> I'd like to see this happen
> http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Amen.

Patriarch

lgb wrote:
> We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
> kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
> late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
>
> Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
> professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
> I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
>
> I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
> gainful employment.
>
> First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
> them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
> were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
> photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
> permission even if they had been copyrighted.
>
> Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
> might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
> and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.
>
> Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
> "commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
> otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
> commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.
>
> If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
> with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
> senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
> but I doubt it'll do any good.
>
> Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
> copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
> permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
> they solved it.
>
> I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
> holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).
>
> I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
> groups.
>
A few years ago my boss came in with an ad he cut out of
the paper. The ad had a family portrait taken at his
grandparents anniversary. Apparently the photographers
estate had sold the originals at some time and the
picture had been picked up and used for a "commercial
purpose". So there may be some commercial value in the
photographers work.

Bill Gill

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "George" wrote in message
>>
>> > If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed....
>>
>> LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme
> Court
>> ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the
> fact
>> that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real
>> property
>> from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep
>> it,
>> or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with
> at
>> ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it.
>>
>> This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer
>> ...
>
> "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....

I'd like to see this happen
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
>>copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
>>in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
>>into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
>>can find his heirs to get their permission.
>>
>>Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
>>legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
>>many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.
>>
>>--
>>
>>FF
>
>
> .Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it. :)
> While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be
> some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family
> photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.
>
>
I agree, even more strongly. The latest change in
copyright and patent law are contrary to the
original idea. Most of the changes seem to be
aimed, not at the artists, but at the producers,
e.g., record companies, recording studios,
computer programs etc. Extending the right well
beyond the the death of the originator is counter
productive to protecting the inventiveness of
artists and scientific progress. The original
patent and copyright laws were to the point
(artists and inventors) but the changes have
changed the focal point to salesmen and
distributors who contribute little.

Oh well such is life when your the 51st
> State ;)

Bite your tongue... that's Canada!

"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > As the OP indicated, all he had to
> > do was to sign a document that stated blah, blah, blah...
> >
> Of course they didn't mention that until they'd pulled my chain with "we
> can't let you copy that", "don't argue, you're on camera", and similar
> bullshit. Let's just say I won't be using that facility again.
>

Don't argue, you're on camera? Tell me - you *did* moon the camera didn't
you? That's too much - don't argue, you're on camera...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
>>picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
>>Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
>>Bono).
>
>
> It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
> friends, I think. And Disney is probably one of the most aggressive
> policers of their trademarks and copyrights in the world. That's all
> they've really got, plus a warehouse full of old cartoons and a
> reputation (not always deserved) fo rmaking good family movies.
>

Ah, the poor people. Don't know the difference
between trademarks, trade names, copyrights,
patents, etc.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:19:34 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "George" wrote in message
>>>
>>> > If something has value for a hundred years, it ought to be taxed....
>>>
>>> LOL .. the prevailing attitude of the tax spenders ... and the Supreme
>> Court
>>> ruling last week on private use of imminent domain just reinforces the
>> fact
>>> that instead of ownership, you're now basically just renting real
>>> property
>>> from the government entity that taxes it, and you just may get to keep
>>> it,
>>> or pass it on to your heirs, as long as someone else doesn't come up with
>> at
>>> ruse to justify increasing the tax base with it.
>>>
>>> This sucker is getting to where it ain't worth fighting for any longer
>>> ...
>>
>> "Eminent domain." Starts with an "E," like enema....
>
>I'd like to see this happen
>http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
>

I love it! There should be no issue with this, right?

It is further interesting to note, that despite all of the rhetoric
about how the right, conservatives, and the current adminstration are only
in it for giant corporations and to advance the corporate agenda, look who
of the men in black robes voted *for* government siezure of private land
from individual citizens for the benefit of large corporations and who
voted against that siezure; writing some very strong language regarding the
absolute tyranny that this move represented. Think about that when the
next supreme court justice vacancy is being filled.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
> holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

After all that rigmarole, you gave Walmart your business anyway?

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:

> We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
> kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
> late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
>
> Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
> professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
> I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
>
> I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
> gainful employment.
>
> First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
> them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
> were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
> photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
> permission even if they had been copyrighted.
>
> Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
> might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
> and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.
>
> Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
> "commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
> otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
> commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.
>
> If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
> with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
> senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
> but I doubt it'll do any good.
>
> Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
> copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
> permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
> they solved it.
>
> I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
> holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).
>
> I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
> groups.

Technically, they are right. The original photographer *may* have all
his photos owned by his estate that has passed to relatives, or his/her
decendent who now runs that business. However, you're probably right
that the original is deceased. They are just "CTA" if something happened.

Work made for hire does not apply here. It only is a"work made for hire"
if a document is signed BEFORE the taking of the photos.

What really applies is "Fair Use" if anything does. You have a right to
make a copy for your own use, but not for others.

In the end you got what you wanted...but you could have scanned them if
you had a scanner and made copies or if a buddy had a scanner...

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> >Tom Quackenbush wrote in message
> <snip>
> >> You spelled "imminent" correctly, it's just that it was the wrong
> >> word.
> >
> >No shit!?
> >
> >And as long as we're being sticklers for correctness, your assumption is
> >incorrect: OE's spell checker "spelled" it from my typo (debatably a
poetic
> >omen in choice of replacement words, in case you missed that also).
>
> My mistake, I guess. You didn't spell "imminent" correctly, your
> spell checker did - is that your point?

> If I want to refer to one of your posts, should I refer to it as a
> "Swingman" post or an Outlook Express post? I mean, you didn't
> actually post anything, your newsreader and ISP did that.
>
> Aside from the "who (or what) is responsible for one's post" issue,
> it does seem odd that OE wouldn't offer several correctly spelled
> alternatives for a misspelled "eminent". Could be a defect in OE's
> spellcheck. Do you recall your original (mis)spelling?

While delusions of perfection may run in your family, judging from your
above, we obvioulsy shouldn't ask too closely about having a clue ... unless
of course, you are that rare man on Usenet ... the one who's never
transposed an "i" and "e" on a keyboard.

You're either new to Usenet, as dense and as clueless to the vagaries of
spell checkers as you appear, or you are just one of those dickheads who
doesn't have anything to add but correcting typos and spelling.

Nonetheless, feel free to go fuck your perfect self at whim.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05

Sorry,

But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other
copyright material, regardless of when produced.


"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.
> >
> > A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image,
has
> > no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to
establish
> > copyright.
> >
> But these photos weren't made under current law - they were made under
> the copyright laws of 1909 or thereabouts. Those laws did require the
> photographer to stamp the photo if he wanted it copyrighted.
>
> Since none of these bore such a stamp, it is a logical assumption that
> the photographer did not care to copyright them.
>
> The fact the current law may have changed the status of these photos
> only goes to show how asinine Congress can be. Isn't there something in
> the Constitution about post facto laws?
>
> --
> BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:17:46 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:

>Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
>professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
>I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

A few years ago, I was in charge of producing a monthly newsletter for
my church, and had the same sort of run-in with Kinko's. They were
very concerned that I had submissions from others in the group
included, and would not make the copies until I got ahold of the
manager, and signed a liability waiver. I think that is just where
it's at these days- you're probably better off just buying your own
scanner/printer combo.

>If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
>with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
>senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
>but I doubt it'll do any good.

I think the phrase "You can't fight City Hall" applies here.

>I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
>they solved it.
>
>I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
>holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

They should just hand you that form when you tell them you want
copies- instead of making you stand there and explain why you're not a
criminal. It'd make a whole lot more sense to me, but then again, I'm
not a lawyer...

I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA.

In both countries,

Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two
exceptions...

1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment.
(In this case the copyright belongs to the employer).

2. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and
client, that assigns the copyright to a third party.

When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore,
are not entitled to an automatic copyright.

Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production
(prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph.

Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.

A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has
no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish
copyright.

Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes
the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years
following his death.

Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value
obtained from selling further copies of the work.

In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at
least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be
actionable.

Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It
is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in
exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image.

If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays
your money and takes your chances."


Fleet

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:17:46 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:

some lugnut at Walmart was pulling your chain..
take them to Costco or Sam's Club and get them done right and without a hassle..

>We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
>kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
>late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.
>
>Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
>professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
>I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.
>
>I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
>gainful employment.
>
>First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
>them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
>were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
>photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
>permission even if they had been copyrighted.
>
>Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
>might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
>and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.
>
>Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
>"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
>otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
>commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.
>
>If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
>with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
>senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
>but I doubt it'll do any good.
>
>Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
>copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
>permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
>they solved it.
>
>I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
>holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).
>
>I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
>groups.



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edwin Pawlowski (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | How do you go about getting the photo copied?
>
> D'you suppose I should work up a plan for a wooden copy easel so you
> can take pictures of your pictures? The commercial jobs can be fairly
> expensive but shouldn't be all that difficult to build in a home
> shop...

Pretty much what I did. I used my frame for holding photo paper under the
eenlarger. It was also a good excuse to buy a close up lens.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter McCormick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA.
>>
>>In both countries,
>
>
> The OP's remarks, below, are an accurate statement of _today's_ environment.
>


############################

Robert Bonomi did and Fred did such a stellar job I am almost reluctant
to comment. -- but.. Again -- for those interested here are the
copyright links that can get you started. Also -- at the end of _my_
post (minor rant?), I posted the definitions from dictionary.com for
trademark, trade name, patent etc. They are pretty good/ And reading
them can help eliminate confusion in _most_ cases.

A quick reference to where things are usually applied.... This is only
useful for _generally_ determining where to start...


Copyright -- a "work" (music, book, document, picture, sculpture, a
program, a wood turning, a wood art (wood work) creation... etc.)
Copyright protection can be _very_ broad. Eye of the beholder right...

moral rights -- related to copyright -- they may limit the use or the
enjoyment of an item to what the original creator intended. (Unless you
are assigned (purchase?) the moral rights you cannot alter a work you
purchased.) Eye of the beholder right...

Patent " a process or means to produce an invention or thing" The rights
to make a thing for commercial (or other) exploitation. The rights to a
plan of a thing. (eye of the courts...)

Trademark -- a "symbol" to identify an entity.

Trade name -- a language based name to represent a business (see dba)

This is a quickie idea of "how to start thinking" when you see a term...
nothing more. They don't always work and someone else may have a better
way to make a quickie classification.

If you have people working for you in _any_ way -- you really must have
agreements as to who owns what...

Eye of the beholder... What I mean by that is that of the copyright
holder does not consider your use to be a violation then "no problem" --
however, if your use of an item comes to their attention and they feel
it is "unfair use" then they can take action.

Fair use -- _usually_ allows you to extract small portions of an item
for discussion or criticism. ...Say in a newspaper article or a student
or academic paper. (Tough to do with a a photo copy...) But -- see the
treaties... Without paying a royalty...


****************************************

Having had to write agreements and use IP protection agreements, having
spent time in front of judges on these issues and being a strong
Believer in IP -- what would I do? Copy the photo myself and shut up or
find someone who _will_ do it and shut up (not a big shop -- they are
too vulnerable to law suits -- They have $$$). As long as the item was
of a personal nature and of no perceived value to another person. Having
said that many photogs are getting smarter and put a "studio stamp" on
the back of their photos... and if they still exist... If I knew the
photographer who took the photo, I would grit my teeth and go back to
them... and expect to pay through the nose as usual -- sigh.

And that is why like Charlie S. I do my own photos and processing now...


*************

Copyright and moral rights can be looked up on the web.

Just find the international treaties -- they are all a lot alike...

A link to the Canadian Copyright Act.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

Since the act is based on International treaty there should not be many
areas of disagreement with other countries. Except Taiwan and their ilk.

Note: Moral rights.... Read that section it should be of interest based
on most questions I have seen here.

Most questions in this forum are answered here.

The Berne Convention is much more clear on "the limits" for plagiarism
copying and term of rights than the acts of some countries...

Again -- note moral rights here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

USA Enactment of...
http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/US.Berne.Convention.html

More stuff on ethics and protection of authors
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/berne.html

Economic Right vs. Moral rights...
Article on fundamental difference between American law ans European Law
(and perhaps most of the rest of the world)
http://home.cwru.edu/~ijd3/authorship/economic.html

And of course -- the google search for those wishing to delve further...
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Berne+Convention&hl=en&lr=lang_en&start=10&sa=N

=====================

Before getting into these discussions a quickt trip to dictionary.com
can be useful...

As George C. pointed out, a lot of these definitions must be clear or
the arguments/discussions become worthless.


*************
fair use

n : the conditions under which you can use material that is copyrighted
by someone else without paying royalties


++++++++++++++++

trademark

A distinctive proprietary emblem, insignia, or name that identifies
a particular product or service. A trademark is an intangible asset that
may be protected from use by others.


----------------------------
trade name
n.

1. A name used to identify a commercial product or service, which
may or may not be registered as a trademark. Also called brand name.
2. The name by which a commodity, service, or process is known to
the trade.
3. The name under which a business firm operates.


(Also -- for interest -- see DBA, dba or "doing business as")
------------------------------------

intellectual property (Or IP for short)
n.

A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including
copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational
property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and
industrial processes.

========================================
pat·ent
n.

1.
1. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator
of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for
a set period of time.
2. Letters patent.
3. An invention protected by such a grant.
2.
1. A grant made by a government that confers on an individual
fee-simple title to public lands.
2. The official document of such a grant.
3. The land so granted.
3. An exclusive right or title.



*************************************
> When dealing with _old_ items, at least in the U.S. (I _don't_ know anything
> about 'ancient' Canadian law on the matter), the situation gets *much* more
> complex.
>
> _Prior_ to the U.S.'s adoption of "Berne Convention" standards:
> copyright was *NOT* automatic.
> There *did* have to be an assertation of copyright on every item,
> *AND* the claim had to be 'registered'/filed with the Government
> (simultaneous with, or prior to first publication.)
>
> The Berne Convention 'alignment' also _radically_ changed the classification
> of "work done for hire" -- greatly to the benefit of the individual producing
> the work, and the detriment of the party paying for it.
>
> That change in what constitutes 'work done for hire' applies only to work
> done after the law was adopted. Works produced before that date are still
> judged by the rules in effect _when_ they were produced.
>
> As regards 'duration of copyright', the details on older works get *messy*.
>
> Works that were still 'in copyright' at the time of the statutory revisions,
> automatically 'inherited' the new, longer protections.
>
> Works that were 'out of copyright' by the rules when they were produced, but
> would be 'in copyright' if the new rules hadn't been in force at the time they
> were produced, got special treatment. *IF* the original owner chose, they
> could file for a 're-establishment' of the copyright, that ran from the time
> of that filing forward. Any 'copying' that had been done between the time
> of the prior expiration, and the re-establishment was *not* infringement.
> 'Re-establishing' copyright *did* require that the item had been protected
> by copyright originally -- i.e., the claim asserted on the item, and the
> requisite 'registration' with the government. The gov't published listings
> of the works for which copyright was re-established -- it can be found on-line
> on the web. (I was looking for a 1950's children's book, and got a hit on
> that list.)
>
> Works that were of an age that, even if the new rules had been in effect at
> the time of their creation, would be 'out of copyright', remained unprotected.
>
> The subsequent 'tweaking' of copyright duration has introduced additional
> variations on the above.
>
>
>
>>Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two
>>exceptions...
>>
>>1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment.
>>(In this case the copyright belongs to the employer).
>>
>>2. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and
>>client, that assigns the copyright to a third party.
>>
>>When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore,
>>are not entitled to an automatic copyright.
>>
>>Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production
>>(prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph.
>>
>>Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.
>>
>>A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has
>>no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish
>>copyright.
>>
>>Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes
>>the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years
>>following his death.
>>
>>Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value
>>obtained from selling further copies of the work.
>>
>>In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
>>point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at
>>least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be
>>actionable.
>>
>>Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It
>>is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in
>>exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image.
>>
>>If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays
>>your money and takes your chances."
>>
>>
>>Fleet
>>
>>
>
>
>


--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"Peter McCormick" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
> point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for
> at
> least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will
> be
> actionable.

OK, the law is the law and I'm not going to dispute it, but what do you do
as a practical matter?

You have an old family photo take by a professional about 55 years ago.
There is a good probability the photographer is dead as he would be 75+
years old, maybe over 100. His business has been long gone, closed up
probably 40+ years ago. No one can recall his name as we were only kids and
our parents and grandparents are also long gone. The copyright would still
be in effect if any of the unknown heirs are alive.

How do you go about getting the photo copied?

[email protected] writes:


[...]

> I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
> about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
> international standard.

In other parts of the world people get under the impression that "the
international standard" is set by the US law and the US government
trying to enforce it everywhere...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Charlie Self (in
[email protected]) said:

| What I find really repugnant are the types who bemoan the loss of
| their religious freedom when what the really mean is my being able
| to tell them to get off my front stoop and out of my yard with
| their "messages".

The underlying premise for this kind of behavior is an especially ugly
bit of vanity that can be summed up as:

"My conscience is better than your conscience."

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

> I love it! There should be no issue with this, right?
>
> It is further interesting to note, that despite all of the rhetoric
> about how the right, conservatives, and the current adminstration are
only
> in it for giant corporations and to advance the corporate agenda, look who
> of the men in black robes voted *for* government siezure of private land
> from individual citizens for the benefit of large corporations and who
> voted against that siezure; writing some very strong language regarding
the
> absolute tyranny that this move represented. Think about that when the
> next supreme court justice vacancy is being filled.

Don't look now, but being a hypocrite comes easy to ALL these bastards ...
the organization that Geo.W was a part of as managing partner used eminent
domain to seize private property for the Texas Ranger's baseball stadium.

http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.asp?FileName=970509_f1.htm

(just a convenient link ... definitely NOT a Molly Ivins fan, by any
strecth)

The bigger problem is that we continually let them get away with it ...

.... "we gave you a republic, if you can keep it." B. Franklin

I've either lived too long, or the change is coming faster and faster as it
seems.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05

If there is, it's routinely ignored.
"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Constitution about post facto laws?
>
>