Good Copyright info/article in American Photo

10/25/2005 09:21:16 AM · #1

This month's supplemental "Wedding and Portrait Guide" that came along with my regular issue of American Photo has a great little reference article about copyright protection on page 64. It's written in layman's terms and is quite informative if you have questions about the current laws regarding duration, protection, and registration. I tried to find it on their website but didn't have any luck, so the supplement may just be a subscriber thing...but if you have access to it I found it to be handy. Just sharing! :)

10/25/2005 10:53:00 AM · #2

Can you scan and post?

Linky linky!?!?

Pretty please :-)

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

10/25/2005 10:56:46 AM · #3

Wouldn't that be breaking the copyright laws that it's talking about? LOL ;)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/25/2005 12:09:56 PM · #4

Originally posted by laurielblack:

Wouldn't that be breaking the copyright laws that it's talking about? LOL ;)

If you posted it to a personal site and directed certain people there for educational purposes, it would probably fall under the Fair Use Doctrine.

If you just post it in a public place and advertise "read the ___ article here for FREE! it would be infringement.

10/25/2005 12:13:03 PM · #5

OK...I'll scan it but if the copyright police come after me, I'm gonna sic them on you, GeneralE! ;)

10/25/2005 12:27:53 PM · #6

post removed

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 09:46:12.

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

10/25/2005 12:58:19 PM · #7

Thanx!

:-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/25/2005 12:58:26 PM · #8

Originally posted by laurielblack:

OK...I'll scan it but if the copyright police come after me, I'm gonna sic them on you, GeneralE! ;)

Just don't tell them about the Swiss bank accounts!

Felodese

11/08/2005 10:08:01 PM · #9

good info... thanks so much... you seriously just saved me HOURS of inter-netting

11/09/2005 09:39:43 AM · #10

It THIS months issue, its not like it�s out of some old obscure publication. Why can't others just go buy it or go to the library and read it? Doesn�t anyone else see the irony here? Learning to protect your own copyright by exploiting someone else�s. It might be technically legal (which is a joke), but it�s breaking the spirit of intellectual property laws.

11/09/2005 09:45:41 AM · #11

That's exactly why I didn't want to post it as a link to begin with...as I stated.

It seems that more and more on this site, you're damned if you don't help and damned if you do. Sheesh.

11/09/2005 09:47:40 AM · #12

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

The spirit of this website is helping each other in their photography endeavors. Personally I have a new baby, work full time, and have a household to take care of. I have VERY LITTLE time to even take a picture, much less find a magazine. I asked for a copy as a favor and to save me a little VERY VALUABLE time in the spirit of this site. I wasn't trying to endorse breaking copyright laws. Pretty much in the same spirit of someone copying a recipe out of a magazine and sharing it with a friend.

Edit: Thanks again Laurie

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 09:50:14.

11/09/2005 09:49:30 AM · #13

Originally posted by laurielblack:

That's exactly why I didn't want to post it as a link to begin with...as I stated.

It seems that more and more on this site, you're damned if you don't help and damned if you do. Sheesh.

It great that you pointed it out. I have a subscription and I didn't see it. But scanning the article and posting it is just too much.

11/09/2005 09:52:54 AM · #14

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

What if some graphic designer with a new baby, full time job and a household to take care of grabbed one of your photos to use because he or she didn't have the time to find one on their own. Would you still have the same attitude towards the subject?

11/09/2005 09:56:28 AM · #15

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

That's completely different. The article was for INFORMATIONAL purposes, not PROMOTIONAL.

11/09/2005 10:00:14 AM · #16

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

That's completely different. The article was for INFORMATIONAL purposes, not PROMOTIONAL.

How is that different? Who's to say that my fictional designer didn't use your work for an informational article?

Besides it really shouldn't matter the intended use. You think the criminal justice system will give an armed robber and less time if he is commiting the crime for charity?

11/09/2005 10:12:10 AM · #17

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

OK... I'm taking a step back... I just reviewed some basic copyright laws and yes you are right. Technically anytime you copy any type of photo, magazine article, etc. it's a violation of copyright. This kind of thing happens all the time though. Personally my wife has several three-ring binders of photocopied recipes (some of which have pictures) from magazines, websites, etc. I guess TECHNICALLY each instance is a copyright infringement. My question is how many instances of this type of infringement do YOU have in YOUR house. If you follow the letter of the law, (as I understand it), you technically can't copy any published material without a copyright release. But here's the interesting thing... IF I were to go to the library, look up the magazine, go to the copy machine located in the library, copy the article, and take it home, how is this different?

11/09/2005 10:14:44 AM · #18

The article posted by Laurie contained all the reference information. Proper credit was given to the magazine, author, etc. It was not published/posted as an original work. Is this a copyright violation? Going back to your example. If someone used my photo for INFORMATIONAL purposes and gave proper credit, personally I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 10:15:04.

11/09/2005 10:39:30 AM · #19

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

Personally my wife has several three-ring binders of photocopied recipes (some of which have pictures) from magazines, websites, etc. I guess TECHNICALLY each instance is a copyright infringement. My question is how many instances of this type of infringement do YOU have in YOUR house. If you follow the letter of the law, (as I understand it), you technically can't copy any published material without a copyright release. But here's the interesting thing... IF I were to go to the library, look up the magazine, go to the copy machine located in the library, copy the article, and take it home, how is this different?

The only thing close to a violation in my household would be the recording of Law and Order, but that's only for time shift reasons since I go to bed quite early. The important part is that I don't distribute the recorded shows to anyone.

My 10year old recently did a book report on Harry Potter, and included a picture she acquired online. I made her reprint the report without photo.

My wife is really into spinning and knitting. She has a friend who posted a pattern on her blog. One day she received a cease and desist order from a lawyer representing the estate of the women who wrote the book that the pattern came from. She came out cleanly, but it cost her several hundred dollars in legal fees and ALOT of time.

One of the reasons I posted my opinion here was to protect laurielblack from the potential of going thru a similar experience. I know the odds are rare that this would happen, but you never know is watching. Plus as photographers the chance of being a victim is much greater than average, and we should be proponents of intellectual protection.