Am I correct in thinking that these 'image libraries' are charging for images they've potentially just lifted from archives? Or is this operation licenced by the RAeS?
Chris
And more importantly, the RAeS probably doesn't own the rights to the picture anyway, as the Mary Evans terms and conditions make perfectly clear, so you are paying them for a scan of a physical copy of photo that you'd probably need to license from BAE separately if you publish it.
If they didn't, everyone who licensed the images from Mary Evans (not to mention the RAeS and Mary Evans themselves) could have problems if the copyright holder ever realised it owned the rights and chose to enforce those rights. In the real world, it would undoubtedly cost BAE and the Government more money to attempt to enforce those rights through staff and admin costs than they could ever hope to recover from authors/publishers etc. It seems unlikely, therefore, that they would ever bother.
If they didn't, everyone who licensed the images from Mary Evans (not to mention the RAeS and Mary Evans themselves) could have problems if the copyright holder ever realised it owned the rights and chose to enforce those rights. In the real world, it would undoubtedly cost BAE and the Government more money to attempt to enforce those rights through staff and admin costs than they could ever hope to recover from authors/publishers etc. It seems unlikely, therefore, that they would ever bother.
This is my problem with it. They are selling it as if it is a properly licensed stock image, but when you read the small print they explicitly disclaim knowing anything about the original copyright of the image and say you may need permission from the original rights holder.
Therefore, it is legally no more correctly licensed than if I find the original brochure and scan it myself without attempting to obtain permission from the rights holder. This would be OK if they charged a reasonable and flat-rate fee for the scanning and hosting of the image, but they actually charge you based on what you want to use it for. This doesn't make any sense. If they are charging me for obtaining, scanning and hosting an image they don't have legal rights to, then what I do with the image really shouldn't make a difference.
"So if someone at the RAeS scanned the original, they have copyright on the digital image file thus created and can licence that image accordingly because it isn't, technically, the original image. "
I'm rather dubious about that assertion.
"So if someone at the RAeS scanned the original, they have copyright on the digital image file thus created and can licence that image accordingly because it isn't, technically, the original image. "
I'm rather dubious about that assertion.
"So if someone at the RAeS scanned the original, they have copyright on the digital image file thus created and can licence that image accordingly because it isn't, technically, the original image. "
I'm rather dubious about that assertion.
very interesting.
I'm dubious about that too. there is not "originality" added to an scanned image, it's a copy of an image already created in physical form.
It's not like a picture.
How I see it, examples :
- I scan a scaleplan under copyright, the original author owns the copyright of my scan. I should in fact have authorization before scanning.
If the I scan a long out of copyright scaleplan, then my scan is just a copy of a thing out of copyright, and I don't own any on it either.
there is no originality added by the scan per se. its a copy.
If I modify that out of copyright scaleplan (to what extent is the question), then yes, a new copyright apply.
- If i take a picture of a Mercedes car in the street, I own the copyright of that picture, because it's my interpretation of the image of a Mercedes in the street, and it's original. Mercedes doesn't own copyright on my picture, but on the design of the Mercedes car.
If I try to do and manufacture copies of Mercedes, then yes, problems.
But I may be wrong...
On the other hand, see how some flight sim creators had much problems incorporating aircrafts still having brands names in their sims...
One could argue that the 3d models incorporated in their sims are their original interpretations of the physical object.
After that, it's like many things, one maybe be "wrong" in claiming copyright of something, but pays a lawyer enough to be "right" in the end...
The absolute bedrock of copyright is - you create an image, you own the copyright to that image. It's really what you do with it that counts. Just creating an image which infringes someone's copyright and doing nothing with it, while in breach of their rights, causes them no real damage or loss. It would therefore make no sense to sue someone who scanned a scaleplan and then kept it to themselves for their own personal use.
To take your examples:
- You scan a scaleplan under copyright. You own the copyright to the image you just created. But if you publish your image anywhere and the scaleplan author can demonstrate that what you published is a direct copy of something they hold the rights to, they can sue you for breach of their copyright.
- You scan a long out of copyright scaleplan. You own the copyright to the image you just created. But if you publish your image anywhere someone else could copy it from your publication and when you tried to sue them for breach of your copyright you might have a tough time defending your case because they can claim that your image is a 'derivative' of something that is out of copyright.
- You scan a scaleplan under copyright. You own the copyright to the image you just created. You then modify the image so that it no longer closely resembles the original scaleplan and you publish it. The copyright owner cannot sue you because your image no longer infringes their rights.
- You photograph a Mercedes car in the street. You own the copyright to the image you just created. You publish your image and there is nothing Mercedes can do to stop you because it is not a direct and accurate copy of any design that they have made. Your skill and judgement in positioning the camera, the lighting, the background etc. make it a unique image.
- You create an accurate 3D model of a Mercedes car. You own the copyright to the model you just created. But if you use your model to 3D print a precise copy of the Mercedes car, Mercedes will easily be able to demonstrate that what you have made is a direct copy of a form they hold the rights to, so they can sue you for breach of their copyright.
Agree. Only, in the first example bellow in bold :
The absolute bedrock of copyright is - you create an image, you own the copyright to that image. It's really what you do with it that counts. Just creating an image which infringes someone's copyright and doing nothing with it, while in breach of their rights, causes them no real damage or loss. It would therefore make no sense to sue someone who scanned a scaleplan and then kept it to themselves for their own personal use.
To take your examples:
- You scan a scaleplan under copyright. You own the copyright to the image you just created. But if you publish your image anywhere and the scaleplan author can demonstrate that what you published is a direct copy of something they hold the rights to, they can sue you for breach of their copyright.
- You scan a long out of copyright scaleplan. You own the copyright to the image you just created. But if you publish your image anywhere someone else could copy it from your publication and when you tried to sue them for breach of your copyright you might have a tough time defending your case because they can claim that your image is a 'derivative' of something that is out of copyright.
- You scan a scaleplan under copyright. You own the copyright to the image you just created. You then modify the image so that it no longer closely resembles the original scaleplan and you publish it. The copyright owner cannot sue you because your image no longer infringes their rights.
- You photograph a Mercedes car in the street. You own the copyright to the image you just created. You publish your image and there is nothing Mercedes can do to stop you because it is not a direct and accurate copy of any design that they have made. Your skill and judgement in positioning the camera, the lighting, the background etc. make it a unique image.
- You create an accurate 3D model of a Mercedes car. You own the copyright to the model you just created. But if you use your model to 3D print a precise copy of the Mercedes car, Mercedes will easily be able to demonstrate that what you have made is a direct copy of a form they hold the rights to, so they can sue you for breach of their copyright.
Not sure about that. Making a copy of something under copyright doesn't give me copyright on my copy The scan it's not an "original" creation.
I just have the ownership of a copy (be it numeric or physical) of something under copyright, not the copyright which would give me the rights to sell/publish/whatever the copied image.
It's like at the times of audio CDs or cassettes. Burning an audio CD of MP3 songs/album, i wouldn't have copyright on the audio CD burned. there is nothing originally creative in burning an audio CD. I would just have ownership on an physical copy , a audio CD , of something (songs/album) that I shouln't have copied (unless having the proper authorization), cause I don't have the copyright on it...
We are getting far from GOR.339, OR.343, TSR.2...
This whole discussion on copyrights is very interesting, and deserves its own thread with a proper title.
And to be moved to a proper location (maybe the bar?).
What think?
I have (slightly) a dog in this fight.
Many years ago, I got a photocopy at the PRO of a certain document which is no longer available. I made a scan of this document. Copyright here is a distinctly murky area. However, the scan ended up on WikiLeaks (against my better judgement), and someone found it, and used it in a book he published with the credit "Author's collection".
I'm not sure what I admired the more: the sheer cheek of not acknowledging the source, or the chutzpah of describing it as "Author's collection".
Once an image is out there on the Internet, it is there for anyone to take.
There are some commercial firms which scan the Internet for images which they claim the copyright to. I belong to an organisation which published such an image in an internal document. This commercial firm (cough, Getty images) asked for a considerable sum of money because this image had been used without permission. Well, I'm afraid to say that the organisation caved into them and paid them a three figure sum of money in recompense.
If it had been me, I would have asked a few questions. Firstly, who was the original photographer? Had he passed the copyright onto Getty Images? Can you prove that? Secondly, you can claim compensation for loss of revenue. Exactly how much did Getty Images lose as a consequence of this publication. Well, they lost peanuts, but they extorted a considerable sum of money on zero evidence.
I fully uphold the concept of copyright, since I know as an author that pirated copies of my works are available out there on the Internet.
The Internet is both a curse and blessing.
Perhaps a new thread on this topic might be a good idea.
My original point exactly, CNH. These image licencing companies are taking the Mickey. Certainly there are image libraries for photographers that do an excellent job and provide an income for photographers, but this grabbing an image and declaring you have the rights is just nonsense (I prefer the British version of this term, but it might nor translate).
The question is: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Could be the title of the thread?
Chris
Following yer man at the IWM's logic Dan, soon as we scan a pic, it's ours?
Chris
Copyright has always been explained to me as being a case of, "if you have a copyrighted image and you reimage it/scan it/alter it in anyway", you now have copyright of the changed image, while the original copyrighter still has copyright of the original image. This makes things murky but understandable.
PRO is BTW, the Public Records Office.
Ok, how's this scenario?
I have a photo, a print, that was issued by the company press office in nineteen oatcake and has 'Free to use' or similar stamped on the back. The same photo is up on an image library website.
I scan it and send it to Malky McAvhist who uses it in a book, credited via me.
Where does Malky stand?
Discuss
Chris
My understanding is that if you make a scan (or photocopy in the old days) of an image from a copyrighted book or magazine, what you make could be put to your own use under the Fair Use provision. That fair use does not mean you can claim copyright to that copy. When Scott works from a scan, or photocopy to produce a new drawing, he has made the step from fair use to copyright holder because he used the copy only as personal reference in creating the new drawing - which he can then claim copyright to.. However. Even this approach can be full of snags if you are working with a design that someone can claim trademark protection over as well as copyright protection. How could this apply to the work of members here? Well, just imagine if Boeing found a reason to go back to work on Dyna Soar. In doing so, they filed for trade mark protections on all their Dyna Soar artwork already in existence. Not likely, I know, but with the way companies are reaching these days, something like that could happen someday.
Another thing that is going on these days is that there are some who are buying things out of public domain and filing for new copyright protection. (I don't fully understand how that works, but it can be done.)
Painting copies of paintings for learning is a time honored practice. In fact, you can register to go into many art museums to paint a copy of one of their works. When you do that, you have to do your copy larger or smaller then the original size and you have to have other markings on the frame so the museum security has no confusion. If you are painting a copy in your studio from a picture in an art book - then what you paint will likely be a different size from the original and from the picture in the book. And again, as long as you note it as a copy in your signing, (and don't try to mass market that copy) you should be fine.
Thanks to all those who are contributing their specialised knowledge to this thread. As an author, I find it fascinating if somewhat depressing. My biggest problem in producing books is in finding images that I can use without running into copyright issues - for the sort of books I write, the profit margin is too small to justify paying lots of reproduction fees (yes IWM, I mean you!).
Suppose I possess a digital image of a photo of an object (in my case, probably a cannon!) which I want to use but for which I am unable to locate any copyright info (most of the images I use are old ones of historical equipment). If I went to the trouble of removing the background, leaving the image of the object standing alone, where would I stand in copyright terms?
I hope you are joking about that one.
Your comment reminds me of a discussion at an American Society of Aviation Artists (ASAA) Art Forum once on the practice of 'stealing' part of a sky in someone else's work as inspiration for painting the sky in the piece you are working on for your client. Apparently, this was wide spread in the commercial art biz back then. A few of the artists spoke of getting caught at it. I learned from that to build up my own personal collection of sky photographs to use as reference.
I hope you are joking about that one.
Your comment reminds me of a discussion at an American Society of Aviation Artists (ASAA) Art Forum once on the practice of 'stealing' part of a sky in someone else's work as inspiration for painting the sky in the piece you are working on for your client. Apparently, this was wide spread in the commercial art biz back then. A few of the artists spoke of getting caught at it. I learned from that to build up my own personal collection of sky photographs to use as reference.
I'm not, Prince became famous for he "re-photography" of Malboro ads. I could've sworn Marlboro threatened suing him but I can't find anything about that now. He has been sued since then, and usually has won for the most part.
Court Rules in Artist’s Favor (Published 2013)
In a case with broad implications for the art world, a court decided largely in favor of the appropriation artist, who made use of work by the photographer Patrick Cariou without permission.www.nytimes.com
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. | |
You are free:
|