Digital BW, The Print

Keith,

> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely, but the poster DID in fact pay for it.  He said he
> had a book
> > that had that very image in it.
> >
> >
> Actually he never SAID that, for illustrative purposes (which may or may
> NOT indicate he actually own it) he said:
>
> " It's no different
> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them."

What IS important is that HE owns a copy of the image.

> Copyright allows one to buy a copy or
> copies of a print, certainly.  However, it does not give one
> non-exclusive usage rights to an image contained in a copyrighted
> volume.

Of course, no one said it does.

> If I buy a copy of Weston images in a monograph, I might
> reasonably expect to be able to use those VERY images, those very
> prints, assuming I am willing to cut them free.  However, it would not
> give me license to include said images in a book I write, nor would it
> give me title to a poster of the same image(s).

It DOES entitle you to make at least one copy of any image in the book for
YOUR use.  Exactly the same as you buying CDs and making a compilation
cassette from the music on the CDs.

> Similarly, if I license an image to a client for use in in-house
> publications, they don't have any right to resell that image (even to a
> sponsor).

Of course, that's correct...unless you have a contract that says
differently.

> Although I find it highly unlikely anyone would be willing to endure the
> trouble and negative publicity of prosecuting behavior like "rcoda's"
> actions, it certainly looks like a clear copyright violation on its
> face.

How?  He owns a copy of the image, it is in a book he owns.  He is not
selling the copy, and he is solely using the ONE copy for his own use to
view, critique etc.

> However, were he to scan prints in his monograph (assuming he has
> one) and place them on his own walls, the violation is not so clear.

Well, the result of what he did was the same.  I see no problem with it,
especially since it's a degraded copy anyway.  Now, if he were to have a
post card of that image, and then get a copy of a large print of it, that
would be different.

>  Fair use would likely turn on whether a reasonable person would have
> seen that as implicit in the use license granted when purchasing the
> copyrighted monograph.  I would guess the answer on a legal basis would
> still be "no."

Why?  Again, you can copy songs from a CD to a tape for your own use, why
not an image?

> To look at this from a slightly different angle let's look at patent
> law, based upon the same premises..  I can buy a patented item.  But, if
> I blueprint it and/or copy it, I have violated the patent and probably
> voided my own usage license.

Absolutely not true.  You can use ANY patent you want, providing you do not
sell (and technically, give away too) what you make.  But, for YOUR OWN USE,
that is not a patent violation at all.

> Basically, the real issue comes down to what the author/artist/inventor
> would have considered a reasonably expectable use of the item once it is
> purchased.

Again, what do you have to say about the allowable use, that is clearly
legal, with regards to music?

Austin