| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2004 08:48:23 AM · #1 |
Hi, I was wondering about copyright issues on antique images. It's my understanding that most pre 1922ish photos have copyrights that are expired so are generally in the public domain. And I see that Corbis is full of these images. So what I don't understand is, how can you sell something as rights-managed when the copyright is expired? What's to keep someone from reusing or even reselling "your" vintage image if you can't even claim copyright to it because you just found it in a box in the attic?
Thanks,
-Ryan |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 09:31:13 AM · #2 |
| I think your particular digitization (scan) of an antique image can be copyrighted. Just because they have the right to use the image doesn't mean they can exploit your effort in obtaining it. |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 10:44:07 AM · #3 |
Hmm in my last lighting class at the end they handed out copyright info..which I haven't read. It was veeeery interesting though, the prof briefly went over the fact that photographers don't automatically assume the copyright for ANY of their work. We were told that if your client knows the law then they'd also know they own the copyright to any work you did for them. Of course, when they demand the negatives/disc you can charge whatever the heck you want (them owning the copyright doesn't mean they get it all for free) but the fact remains: you don't own the work.
That may not be 100% relevent, but it's worth posting. |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 10:48:46 AM · #4 |
This reminds me that I should get back to reading The Photographer and the Law, since it covers this area in quite a lot of detail (with a UK-specific bias).
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 11:04:55 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
It was veeeery interesting though, the prof briefly went over the fact that photographers don't automatically assume the copyright for ANY of their work. you don't own the work. |
In the US I think you may be referring to "work for hire" in which you are contracted to produce a particular image and the actual copyright does belong to the contracting agency or client. This would be different from shooting a sitting for someone and then selling them prints. You still own the copyright to the images. If this isn't correct I'd like to see the US case law that corrects this conception.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 11:17:06 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
It was veeeery interesting though, the prof briefly went over the fact that photographers don't automatically assume the copyright for ANY of their work. you don't own the work. |
In the US I think you may be referring to "work for hire" in which you are contracted to produce a particular image and the actual copyright does belong to the contracting agency or client. This would be different from shooting a sitting for someone and then selling them prints. You still own the copyright to the images. If this isn't correct I'd like to see the US case law that corrects this conception. |
Canadian law may be different. Unless the photographer is in a "work for hire" situation, they own the copyright to every image they produce. That doesn't mean they necessarily have the right to use that image any way they want (i.e. they can't use a recognizable likeness of a person without a release) , but they do hold the copyright. |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 11:19:19 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but they do hold the copyright. |
I was told the exact opposite of this in school last week (hence my post). |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 11:22:41 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 11:32:28 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but they do hold the copyright. |
I was told the exact opposite of this in school last week (hence my post). |
Yeah, but your prof is probably speaking Canadian |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 11:48:41 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yeah, but your prof is probably speaking Canadian |
Ah yes, that's true. |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 11:58:04 AM · #11 |
It would seem that if you are a photographer being paid to take photos and you wish to retain the copyrights to the photos you are taking you would be well advised to have a signed contract spelling out that you do retain the rights to the photos. By the same token if you are the client hiring a photographer and you believe you will own the copyrights it would be best to have this in writing.
There are going to be all sorts of gray areas here and it is best to simple spell it out. Not only will this help to avoid legal battles but it will help reduce possible hard felling between photographers and clients.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 12:06:09 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by RyanE:
Hi, I was wondering about copyright issues on antique images. It's my understanding that most pre 1922ish photos have copyrights that are expired so are generally in the public domain. And I see that Corbis is full of these images. So what I don't understand is, how can you sell something as rights-managed when the copyright is expired? What's to keep someone from reusing or even reselling "your" vintage image if you can't even claim copyright to it because you just found it in a box in the attic?
Thanks,
-Ryan |
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date
These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
excerpted from:
//www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc
Message edited by author 2004-12-14 12:06:47. |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 02:44:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yeah, but your prof is probably speaking Canadian |
Ah yes, that's true. |
In Canada, copyrights don't have to be registered, the work of a photographer is his/her work. If you are hired to work for a company, check your contract twice, the work you submit might become their intellectual property. That's different! Remember... Always read the fine prints, that's where people usually get screwed.
Message edited by author 2004-12-14 14:44:41.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:14:32 AM · #14 |
For some very interesting insite into Canadian copyright law in terms of photography, click here, then select "Sat Dec. 4" as the date and "1 pm" as the time. You can skip ahead to the 6m 40s mark (6:40) to get to the beginning of a radio interview with Michael Geist who is battling against photographers owning the right to commissioned work in Canada.
Note that the "interview" continues after the commercial break and they take calls from a photographer and a couple consumers that are interesting.
Edit: there is a bill before the Canadian senate to make Canadian copyright more like the U.S., where the photographer retains the copyright to any commissioned photos. From what I understand, that is currently not the case in Canada.
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 11:30:16. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:16:51 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
For some very interesting insite into Canadian copyright law in terms of photography, click here, then select "Sat Dec. 4" as the date and "1 pm" as the time. You can skip ahead to the 6m 40s mark (6:40) to get to the beginning of a radio interview with Michael Geist who is battling against photographers owning the right to commissioned work in Canada. |
How did you find that Eddy?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:23:16 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
How did you find that Eddy? |
I found GoldBerry's comment about photography copyright being different in Canada interesting. So I was doing some searching and found a reference to the interview on another site. It also says that the Canadian ministers have received lots of written response from consumers who are against the bill because of this interview.
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 11:28:19. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:24:40 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by doctornick:
How did you find that Eddy? |
I found GoldBerry's comment about photography copyright being different in Canada interesting. So I was doing some searching and found a reference to the interview on another photography site. |
Ya gotta love google...LOL |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 11:28:56 AM · #18 |
Someone found something I said/wrote interesting? I never thought this day would come!
The point of my post was that many Canadian photographers are unaware of their lack of rights and by the responses, I'd say that's true.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/16/2025 06:48:48 PM EDT.
