Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Truman Prevatt 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image theft


  As an interesting note the estate of Gershwin has been lobbying to get 
  the 75 year limit extended since Gershwin died in 1937 which means his 
  estate will not be able to collect royalties past 2012 on all his songs. 
  I had an interesting issue arise. I participate in the sport of  long 
  distance horse races ( 50 to 100 miles). At many rides there is a 
  photographer who takes pictures of the riders as they go past a point 
  and then sells the prints.

  I've bought these prints from time to time and one was particularly 
  good. I wanted to use it in a calendar being produced to raise money for 
  a non profit (501-C3) corporation. I asked the photographer and she 
  informed me she had a copywrite on said picture and she had to be paid 
  or each copy of the calendar and she would sue if it were used and she 
  wasn't paid.

  I asked a lawyer friend about it and he asked me if she got a signed 
  agreement from me that she could take my picture and use it in marketing 
  for her business.  I knew she was using - and could prove -  it as an 
  example of her work. The answer was of course no. She was just on the 
  trail. Then he said to tell her that I won't sue her for using my 
  picture to advertise her work if she doesn't sue for inclusion in the 
  calendar. I his opinion this photo was not valid copywrite material - 
  since she was not a journalist, this was not a news worthy event and she 
  didn't have my permission to use the photo.  

  Truman

  Michael J. Kravit wrote:

  > Truman,
  >
  > What we are doing here is adding to the urban myth. I remind everyone
  > that they would be wise to read the law if in doubt. I recently won a
  > copyright suit on one of my projects. And BTW, the statute of limitation
  > on one of my works is 75 years after my death. So beware, do not copy
  > one of my buildings. ;-)
  >
  > Mike
  >
  >
  > On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 03:13 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:
  >
  > > Copywrite laws are complex at best, some say convoluted.  While it is
  > > technically illegal to even copy a page out of a book, it is recognized
  > > that it is not in violation of copywriter laws if this is done for
  > > personal use, say a student doing a paper, a graduate student
  > > researching his thesis, etc.
  > >
  > > There is also the issue of age of the item being protected. Copywriter
  > > protection does not last forever. At some points an item - be it a song,
  > > a play, etc., enters "public domain" where it belongs to the public. I
  > > believe 50 to 75  years is the limit to copywrites (depending on what
  > > the item is). There was a push last year to overhaul the copyright laws,
  > > but I am not sure what happened to that.
  > >
  > > So depending on a lot of particulars, there may or may not be an issue
  > > of using these images for personal reasons based on copywrite laws. I am
  > > not saying it's the "proper" thing to do, but it is not necessarily in
  > > violation of copywrite since they may have expired.
  > >
  > > Truman
  > >
  > > Kevin Gulstene wrote:
  > >
  > >> I can't believe you really believe this.
  > >>
  > >>> Hi Todd:
  > >>>
  > >>> I don't believe it's illegal unless I try to sell them or even give
  > >>> them away.
  > >> This is wrong. It is illegal to use a copyright image for _any_ purpose
  > >> without the copyright owner's permission.  The only possible way this
  > >> could
  > >> be legal is if you used the small image as part of a larger 'original
  > >> work'
  > >> where the small image did not form a material or recognizable part.
  > >>
  > >>> I'm just putting them up in my kitchen. It's no different
  > >>> than if I took my Edward Weston: 50 Years signed, slipcased
  > >>> monograph, and cut out those pictures to frame them.
  > >>
  > >> The only way this is the same is if you stole the material you then
  > >> cut up.
  > >>
  > >>> I've seen people do it with Ansel Adams calendars.
  > >>> As long as it's for yourpersonal enjoyment and you are not depriving
  > >>> anyone of any income, it's not illegal.
  > >>
  > >> You are depriving people of income by using their images without
  > >> paying for
  > >> them. If you really believe this then I assume I am free to plaster my
  > >> home
  > >> with the best quality reproductions I can achieve from the images you
  > >> post
  > >> on your web site.
  > >>
  > >>> I was just trying to make a point that even with low quality scans
  > >>> you can achieve a decent print (if you know what you're doing, of
  > >>> course).
  > >> I understand.
  > >>>
  > >>> Rich
  > >>>
  > >>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...>
  > >>> wrote:
  > >>>> Rich
  > >>>>
  > >>>> That's some pretty illegal stuff you're up to there. I wouldn't
  > >>> advertise it
  > >>>> so much if I were you.
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Todd Flashner

  Guess that just goes to show, Lawyers tend to specialize as well ... your friend obviously isn't a copyright attorney.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]