Something of an ethical dilemma...

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/02/2007 02:23:37 PM · #27

Wow. I seriously would not have a second thought about scanning and re-printing those shots.

The only ethical debate I might have would be over how to dispose of the old shots - trash or recycle.

angelfire

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

05/02/2007 02:47:31 PM · #28

Originally posted by saracat:

pcody -
I don't think these are 'school photos' as they are rather artsy, but I shal certainly keep your advice in mind for when I go through the REST of the photos I've been given. :)

Sara

Don't rule out school photos. My mother had shown me some of her school photos and they were very artsy. They were dated the 60's and early 70's. Also when I worked in a photo lab we were required to get the client to sign a release form stating that they take sole responsibility for the photos. After that we were able to send it for repairs. They just scan it and give you the original back.

Message edited by author 2007-05-02 14:49:00.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/02/2007 03:09:26 PM · #29

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Do the photographs contain a copyright notice?

If they do not, and they were taken before 1977, this suggests they are in the public domain, in which case, you would be able to freely reproduce them.

~Terry

Originally posted by saracat:
The photos are dated 1973, and there is NO copyright notice on them

This would appear to be pretty conclusive. There are no further moral or legal issues - you can use the images as you will.

That is based on the statute regarding "published" works. A studio photo taken for a client may well be considered an "unpublished work" and be subject to the following provisions:

Category: Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known

Rule: 120 years from date of creation

In Public Domain: Works created before 1887

Of course, there's also a reasonable case for a studio portrait being considered a "work for hire" and owned by the client anyway ...

Personally, I think repairing the photos and making reproductions for your personal use or family archives should be fine, but using them commercially (stock or selling art prints) might not be.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

05/02/2007 03:25:06 PM · #30

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I agree with you on all counts, but the risk of the work being as yet unpublished is tiny given note 5:

Originally posted by www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm:

"Publication" was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority.â��

Given that the image has come into saracat's possession, it seems probable that it was sold and for all intents and purposes "published". The unpublished rule would only apply if it was, say, an unreturned proof.

Message edited by author 2007-05-02 15:25:49.

Prof_Fate

05/02/2007 04:16:26 PM · #31

Originally posted by Matthew:

The copyright is worth so little and the context so unobjectionable that it does not warrant the attention that we have given it.

Hmmm...who defines the value of copyright? Is it OK to steal a stick of gum but not a car, just because of it's value? Can we slaughter everyone in the next town over just because WE don't place a value on their lives? At what point is the line crossed here, as the principal is the same.

Some folks get up in arms when an image is taken from this site and posted on another, with or without credit, original or modified. Most would argue that The copyright is worth so little and the context so unobjectionable that it does not warrant the attention that we have given it.

The attitudes expressed, or perhaps more correctly, the way they're being expressed is what is bothering me more than what the OP is really trying to do.

"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so."
â�� Immanuel Kant, Prussian geographer and philosopher (1724-1804)

Message edited by author 2007-05-02 16:17:16.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

05/02/2007 04:37:40 PM · #32

Man, you guys are so obsessed by copyright laws! You can do what you want with the photos for your own use. Scan them, rephotograph them, whatever, do whatever you want for your own use.

But, upload them here for us to see and you maybe breaching copyright. So, go ahead and scan them for you and your family!!

If I am wrong about US law, who cares!

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/02/2007 05:14:20 PM · #33

Originally posted by "louddog":

Is it illegal to scan, alter and re-print a photo you didn't take if you are doing so for purely personal reasons and not making a profit off it? Is asking the photographer permission even required?

I do wonder if a strong case could be made for fair-use rights. I'd wager money it would stand. Especially since there are so many supporting cases for making back up CDs, tapes, DVDs, etc. And the general attitude of the courts is that such a back up is allowed.

Originally posted by "generale":

That is based on the statute regarding "published" works. A studio photo taken for a client may well be considered an "unpublished work" and be subject to the following provisions:

Good question....but I wonder, considering that the negatives were developed and sold, would that not constitute a form of publishing?

Originally posted by "generale":

Of course, there's also a reasonable case for a studio portrait being considered a "work for hire" and owned by the client anyway ...

While I agree from a moral standpoint, it has repeatedly been put forth to me unless the contract explicitly states such then it's not considered a work for hire. And in many cases no contract ever exists.

I am of the inclination that this needs serious review and alteration as I believe studio photography, wedding photography, etc are all works for hire and the rights of the resultant images should belong to the hiring party.

Originally posted by "prof_fate":

Hmmm...who defines the value of copyright? Is it OK to steal a stick of gum but not a car, just because of it's value?

I am of the opinion that morally it is wrong to deprive someone of any tangible asset. Stealing. However, I do not believe there is anything morally wrong with constructing one's own fascimile.

In fact, I believe such should be the eventual goal of all arts and industry. To reach a point where anyone who wants can freely have a tangible copy. If I could simply replicate cars through a digital process (ie: copy file) which did not require any materials and all labor was to be done by me. I believe it would be stupid not to do so, and to tell people the only reason they can't drive is because of a "intellectual right". Likewise, what if it wasn't a song or car but food. Sorry, we could simply replicate all the food you need. Or even let you replicate the food yourselves. But thanks to our right to this genome you are unable to do so.

And how far do the dangers of intellectual rights go? Think I am off-base? Do you not think that is the goal of many genetically engineered foods. How long until genetically modified (and owned) corn breeds are the common stock around the world. How long until no natural unpatened corn exists? Think it's crazy. Okay, sure patents expire....for now. But how long until they go the route of copyright and last centuries?

Perhaps I'm paranoid. Or maybe I just have longer vision of the potential dangers and where as I think it unlikely to harm me in such ways in my life time I view it exceedingly dangerous to my generations to come.

Originally posted by "prof_fate":

Can we slaughter everyone in the next town over just because WE don't place a value on their lives? At what point is the line crossed here, as the principal is the same.

Hmm...what if the only people living in the next town are cows? or pigs? What if those lives are merely stalks of corn.

I guess one might say that we as both individuals and as society must determine that line. It's just where to place it.

"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so."
â�� Immanuel Kant, Prussian geographer and philosopher (1724-1804)

See, I disagree with such. I believe that Immanuel Kant is wrong.

"In law a man is guilty when he violates the legal declarations, be they right or wrong. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks he is guilty. In society he is guilty only if society thinks him so."
- Jason Epperson (1976-2054)

chimericvisions

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

05/02/2007 05:53:54 PM · #34

Originally posted by formerlee:

No, you can't. That's why if you take a photo with a copyright or studio stamp to a photo processor (Walgreens, etc.) for enlargements or copies they will refuse to process it unless you have a release from the IP owner. It's what prevents you from going to a studio, getting a handful of wallet photos, and then blowing them up to 8x10 for $1 down at the corner drugist.

Originally posted by formerlee:

If I am wrong about US law, who cares!

The people who fine you lots of money or argue for jail time.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

05/02/2007 06:01:37 PM · #35

I scan old photos? I never check for copyright. They are my family's property and I will do what I wish with them. I don't publish them or distribute them other than in the family. So, who is going to know or sue me??

Chill out and do what you want, they are yours to do as you wish...

As long as you don't post them here or sell them to anyone else.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

05/02/2007 06:17:39 PM · #36

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by Matthew:
The copyright is worth so little and the context so unobjectionable that it does not warrant the attention that we have given it.

Hmmm...who defines the value of copyright? Is it OK to steal a stick of gum but not a car, just because of it's value? Can we slaughter everyone in the next town over just because WE don't place a value on their lives? At what point is the line crossed here, as the principal is the same.

Some folks get up in arms when an image is taken from this site and posted on another, with or without credit, original or modified. Most would argue that The copyright is worth so little and the context so unobjectionable that it does not warrant the attention that we have given it.

The attitudes expressed, or perhaps more correctly, the way they're being expressed is what is bothering me more than what the OP is really trying to do.

"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so."
â�� Immanuel Kant, Prussian geographer and philosopher (1724-1804)

Your comparisons are inaccurate in that you compare criminal acts (theft of goods, murder) to civil acts (breach of copyright for non-business purposes). Also, you seem to be confusing commercial issues with artistic integrity: the argument "what price, art?".

There are two relevant aspects to copyright - civil rights, which deal with the commercial value, and moral rights, which address artistic integrity issues like rights of attribution.

It is not usually hard to assess the commercial value of copyright - it may be assessed in various ways, most commonly by market value. In the case of the OP, if the original photographer was still selling the image or had the prospect of sales, then it could have some value. But this is a 30 year old image of an individual of no public interest and a market of pretty much just one person. I can tell you that it has no significant commercial value with a reasonable degree of certainty.

There are a myriad of different issues that arise when it comes to the reuse of DPC imagery. Common issues include civil issues such as bandwidth theft, use for commercial purposes, use for personal purposes involving gain (ie the image has been used in place of something that would have had to have been bought), and moral rights issues such as failure to attribute or misattribution (of the original or source of the modified image). Some of these may very well be reasonable grounds for complaint. In the case of the OP, scanning and repairing a family portrait for private use does not involve any of these issues.

However, I stand by my original statement that some people lose all sense of proportion when dealing with any copyright and adopt a righteous attitude that would be impossible to maintain in other areas of life.

Message edited by author 2007-05-02 18:25:19.

saracat

Pentax K10D

05/02/2007 06:43:45 PM · #37

Wow. I didn't mean to open up such a can of worms! :)

inshaala - thank you very much for the translation

Matthew & ClubJuggle & theSaj - thanks for your help!

GeneralE (or whoever wants to tackle this one) - a question - How does one determine whether or not a work is 'published'? Especially a photographic work where one might or might NOT know the photographer/studio or the date the photo was taken?

For anyone who wants to tackle this hypothetical situation: I have a photo of a family member. I do not know who took the photo and I only have a vague idea of when it was taken (say, for instance, some time after 1985) since there is NO information on the photo - no copyright, no photog or studio name. What are my responsibilities to the unknown photog? I'm not speaking of ethical responsibilities here - I'm merely looking for what I should legally be doing in this case.

I feel like I may be asking questions in circles, as it were, but sometimes the nuances of the answers help me to understand things better. :)

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/02/2007 07:07:13 PM · #38

okay, we were married in 2000 and the photographer we hired was film. We have a set of 5x7 prints. Can I scan them, email them, make a web site, re-print them larger, do some photoshop magic stuff to them?

I'd say yes, UNLESS the contract I signed with him specifically said I could not (in which case I would not have signed the contract...)

angelfire

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

05/02/2007 07:17:15 PM · #39

A little something related to this topic. I took some pictures of my sister-in-law with HER camera while she visited for the summer. We were just playing around with hairstyles and makeup, having fun. The time stamp was, for many of the pics 2am. When she went home my father-in-law took them to be developed. Walmart refused to even develop them. They wouldn't even accept me going with him a week later to develop them because I didn't have a buisness licence number to prove the images were mine. Mind you these images were on a digital camera, a point and click one at that. There wasn't any text on them being that I didn't do any post processing on them at all. I was livid and given a piece of paper saying if I signed it I could be audited and sued if someone claimed the photo as theirs. Of course I signed it, because they were my images, I knew no-one was going to claim them. However, it didn't keep the manager from being increadably rude to me. Needless to say I never developed there again.

chimericvisions

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

05/02/2007 07:49:24 PM · #40

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Are you able to do it? Yes. Are you able to do it legally? No, not without a release. Copyright is not something that has to be requested. Copyright belongs to the author/creator of content at the moment of its creation. There is no registration process required, although registration makes things much easier for the author to fight in court.

chimericvisions

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

05/02/2007 07:54:21 PM · #41

Originally posted by saracat:

Legally speaking, you're required to use every reasonable means at your disposal to locate the photographer. If, after that, you're unable to identify or locate the person, you're generally allowed to use it provided that if the original photographer raises a complaint you deal with them. Problem only arises if you would have been able to contact them had you tried, and failed to do so.

IANAL, of course.

05/02/2007 08:26:20 PM · #42

Originally posted by LoudDog:

The strict legal position does depend entirely on the contract.

If you don't have the negatives, you may find that the contract says that you don't have permission to make new prints.

How you deal with an absence of permission is a little more based on your conscience and what you intend to do with the images. What you would be doing would be infringing, and from your description could extend beyond private personal use. There is the risk of liability if the photographer were to make a complaint.

If you have permission to make repros, you may still not have the right to photoshop the images into something else.