copyright question regarding portraits
Bill Mecca
use visual representations of men who died in the 1700's and 1800's. I
have found illustrations of some of them in a book.
Since I cannot get these men to sit for a portrait,(since they have
long since decayed)what is the consensus on the legality of drawing
portraits myself (since I have some talent in that area) using those
pieces of art as a basis?
grinner
yourself gives you total freedom. Worry not and have fun.
grin
http://my.cybersoup.com/grinner
"Bill Mecca" <bi...@billmecca.com> wrote in message
news:74ede0dc.02082...@posting.google.com...
Steve Guidry
I had a similar instance come up a few years back, and got a legal opinion
on it. here it was in a nutshell :
The right to create derivative works is a right reserved to the copyright
holder.
Our solution was to go back to the original public domain work, and use THAT
as our source. This is not an option for him.
--
Steve Guidry
Video Works, Inc.
903.509.8838
www.videoworksinc.com
"grinner" <gri...@avideditor.com, man> wrote in message
news:umnlgpo...@corp.supernews.com...
Dirk J. Bakker
they _may_ be in the public domain, though the book itself might not.
That is if the illustrations were copied from material already in the
public domain and not created specifically for the book, which may or
may not be easy to discern. The simplest thing is to find a source that
is entirely in the public domain. But what you're considering is a
derivative work and it is not copying in the same sense of 'copyright'.
Larry Jandro
keyboard and said:
> I'm in the midst of producing and historical video and would
> like to use visual representations of men who died in the 1700's
> and 1800's. I have found illustrations of some of them in a
> book.
See if you can find similar photos in the online government archives.
Everything there is public domain.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
Are you a Sound/Video/Lighting/Staging Freelancer..?
If so, think about joining our mail list.
Send an e-mail to: avfreelance...@topica.com
(Requests from Yahoo & Hotmail will be rejected.)
Larry
jurisdiction. It would have to be proven that you could not have accessed
the originals and that you copied from a specific source which could be
proven.
If you are copying something which has been widely reproduced it would be
very difficult to establish what book you copied from and so who would be
able to sue ?
I think in practice that there is a risk factor in everything and that many
documentaries have violated copyright precisely because it would be too
difficult to procede strictly by the book. I have seen commercial videos,
which have no acknowlegement of sources whatever and on one occasion when I
asked the producers of one of them the source, for something I wanted for
myself they were stumm.
There has to be a common sense approach to all this.
Again if you copy from a suitably vintage book from a presently defunt
publisher there is no problem I would suspect, who on erth would spend the
time and trouble locating notional copyright holders unto the the third and
fourth generation, no-one is that jealous or zealos
Of course if you lived in Singapore ..............
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"grinner" <gri...@avideditor.com, man> wrote in message
news:umnlgpo...@corp.supernews.com...
Paul Tauger
"Larry" <n...@larry-arnold.com> wrote in message
news:akgvj1$1j14ua$1...@ID-129032.news.dfncis.de...
> The real question is what could be proven in a Civil court and in what
> jurisdiction. It would have to be proven that you could not have accessed
> the originals and that you copied from a specific source which could be
> proven.
Sorry, but that's not even close.
Proof of copyright infringement requires establishing ownership of a valid
copyright and copying. If copying can't be proven by direct proof, i.e. "I
saw him copy the picture," then it can be proven indirectly by showing
accesss to the original and substantial similarity. If there is no
possibility of access, i.e. the original was kept in a locked vault and
never shown to anyone, then there is no infringement. However, if a
possibility of access can be demonstrated, that is sufficient. A
possibility of access includes a work being published and distributed
publicly.
Substantial similarity generally has a subjective and an objective
component. The latter is established through direct comparison with the
original, expert testimony, etc. The former simply asks, "does the accused
work look like it was copied from the original?"
There is no requirement that access be proven, or that access was to a
specific version of the original.
>
> If you are copying something which has been widely reproduced it would be
> very difficult to establish what book you copied from and so who would be
> able to sue ?
The owner of the copyright in the original. If the publisher of the book
obtained a work that was in the public domain, but not readily available,
the book publisher could sue.
Incidently, do you have any idea what it costs to defend a copyright
infringement action? This is not something one would want to risk.
>
> I think in practice that there is a risk factor in everything and that
many
> documentaries have violated copyright precisely because it would be too
> difficult to procede strictly by the book.
On the contrary, most documentaries are absolutely rigorous in assuring they
do not infringe copyright. There are clip clearnace services that do
nothing but verify rights for film and television producers.
>I have seen commercial videos,
> which have no acknowlegement of sources whatever
What makes you think acknowledgment is required? All that is needed is a
license, nothing more.
> and on one occasion when I
> asked the producers of one of them the source, for something I wanted for
> myself they were stumm.
"Stumm"? You'll ave to help me, there.
>
> There has to be a common sense approach to all this.
And, indeed, there is:
1. For legal advice, consult a lawyer. Don't rely on lay advice received
over the internet.
2. See number 1.
>
> Again if you copy from a suitably vintage book from a presently defunt
> publisher there is no problem I would suspect,
And please don't take this the wrong way, but whether or not you suspect
there would be a problem is not a particularly good basis for deciding to
undertake a significant business risk. If "suitably vintage" means "public
domain by virtue of expiration of protection," then you're right, but it is
not always easy to tell what is a "safe" publication date (19th century is
probably safe, but 20th century -- anytime in the 20th century -- could be,
but is not necessarily, a problem). Whether or not the publisher is defunct
is irrelevant.
> who on erth would spend the
> time and trouble locating notional copyright holders unto the the third
and
> fourth generation, no-one is that jealous or zealos
Anyone who didn't wish to find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit
that could cost 6 figures to defend. It may not be necessary to obtain
rights to the OP's pictures, or it may be, but only a competent IP lawyer
can make that determination. It's worth spending a couple of hundred bucks
to have the material vetted before investing many thousands of dollars in
time and production expense making a documentary that might be
undistributable.
Jim Harvey
yourself, YOU OWN THE COPYRIGHT on THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE. (Of course,
we're not talking about Art Forgery).
Jim Harvey
"Bill Mecca" <bi...@billmecca.com> wrote in message
news:74ede0dc.02082...@posting.google.com...
Jim Harvey
pictures of people he saw in a photo. Unless he is reproducing the picture
exactly, I would consider the picture to be an original work based on
historical reference. (i.e. Drawing a picture of Abraham Lincoln) Hence, he
would be the copyright holder of THAT particular work.
Did I miss something?
Jim Harvey
"Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:akh2gl$1iojn6$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
grinner
having done many-a-documentary for The Learning Channel, Discovery and more
as well as being a portrait artist, myself, I stand bt my first post and
hope your not confused by wacky postings from confused posters.
Think about it... If you were to paint a picture of Mt Rushmore, would you
owe anyone for it???
NOT
grin
http://my.cybersoup.com/grinner
"Steve Guidry" <v...@ballistic.com> wrote in message
news:ENQa9.231635$m91.9...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Larry
news:akh2gl$1iojn6$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
>
If the original exists in identical form in a number of publications
???????????? you cannot prove anything. OK I am not a lawyer but the law
exists upon logical premises
I draw a picture of the mona lisa for instance, even a cartoon, who is going
to sue, several publishers of art works could on your suppositions
simultaneosly sue me but they could not all be right, they could not all
win, it is ridiculos
> >
> > If you are copying something which has been widely reproduced it would
be
> > very difficult to establish what book you copied from and so who would
be
> > able to sue ?
>
> The owner of the copyright in the original. If the publisher of the book
> obtained a work that was in the public domain, but not readily available,
> the book publisher could sue.
I agree but only if the original were not widely available, on the other
hand if as I said before, it is.
>
> Incidently, do you have any idea what it costs to defend a copyright
> infringement action? This is not something one would want to risk.
Depends upon ones profits and the likelihood of the copyright holder
everbeing in a position to identify, most of these occurences are chance
occurences. There is I do not doubt an actuarial risk that can be calculated
and I suppose that many companies providing legal insurance would cater for
it.
>
> >
> > I think in practice that there is a risk factor in everything and that
> many
> > documentaries have violated copyright precisely because it would be too
> > difficult to procede strictly by the book.
>
> On the contrary, most documentaries are absolutely rigorous in assuring
they
> do not infringe copyright. There are clip clearnace services that do
> nothing but verify rights for film and television producers.
>
That is what they would have you believe, but can you prove otherwise? it is
sufficient to prove in cases of doubt that one has made every reasonable
effort to find the copyright owner and seek permission.
In the case of a photographic collection held by a library who were not
assidous in taking the details of the donors (it happens) or a newspapers
photographic collection it can be difficult and the likelihood is that the
donors did not care to preserve there copyright.
> >I have seen commercial videos,
> > which have no acknowlegement of sources whatever
>
> What makes you think acknowledgment is required? All that is needed is a
> license, nothing more.
>
> > and on one occasion when I
> > asked the producers of one of them the source, for something I wanted
for
> > myself they were stumm.
>
> "Stumm"? You'll ave to help me, there.
They were not prepared to divulge what efforts they had taken to obtain
copyright.
>
> >
> > There has to be a common sense approach to all this.
>
> And, indeed, there is:
>
> 1. For legal advice, consult a lawyer. Don't rely on lay advice received
> over the internet.
True I can't disagree there
>
> 2. See number 1.
>
> >
> > Again if you copy from a suitably vintage book from a presently defunt
> > publisher there is no problem I would suspect,
>
> And please don't take this the wrong way, but whether or not you suspect
> there would be a problem is not a particularly good basis for deciding to
> undertake a significant business risk. If "suitably vintage" means
"public
> domain by virtue of expiration of protection," then you're right, but it
is
> not always easy to tell what is a "safe" publication date (19th century is
> probably safe, but 20th century -- anytime in the 20th century -- could
be,
> but is not necessarily, a problem). Whether or not the publisher is
defunct
> is irrelevant.
If there aint anyone around to sue, who is going to ????
>
> > who on erth would spend the
> > time and trouble locating notional copyright holders unto the the third
> and
> > fourth generation, no-one is that jealous or zealos
>
> Anyone who didn't wish to find themselves on the receiving end of a
lawsuit
> that could cost 6 figures to defend. It may not be necessary to obtain
> rights to the OP's pictures, or it may be, but only a competent IP lawyer
> can make that determination. It's worth spending a couple of hundred
bucks
> to have the material vetted before investing many thousands of dollars in
> time and production expense making a documentary that might be
> undistributable.
Well you could sue for 6 figures but who in there right mind would bear the
expence of suing for six figures from someone who did not possess and would
in the event of a succesful lawsuit never be in a position to possess six
figures, the litigant would be as big a loser as the alleged pirate
Anyway let me give you an example of a work of art in my home town of
Coventry stuck on the side of cathedral, I have never herd of the estate of
Jacob Epstein suing for the many times it appears in varios forms and
reproductions.
Anyway I am tired of arguing, I have been pirated on the internet myself
over an article which was copied for which I obtained permission to put
there in the first place. I know who dunnit but it's not worth the bother.
The internet is a morass.
Bill Davis
<n...@larry-arnold.com> wrote:
> "Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:akh2gl$1iojn6$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Larry" <n...@larry-arnold.com> wrote in message
> > news:akgvj1$1j14ua$1...@ID-129032.news.dfncis.de...
> > > The real question is what could be proven in a Civil court and in what
> > > jurisdiction. It would have to be proven that you could not have
> accessed
BIG OLD SNIP
> Anyway I am tired of arguing, I have been pirated on the internet myself
> over an article which was copied for which I obtained permission to put
> there in the first place. I know who dunnit but it's not worth the bother.
>
> The internet is a morass.
Look, Larry. Paul Tauger IS an intellectual rights attorney.
Argue with him all you want, but it's kind of silly.
I for one am glad he still stops by here and still gives us sage advice.
Heck, if he were sitting across his desk from us the same advice would
result in significant legal bills.
I remember back some years ago here on the newsgroup trying to address a
questions of copyright law with LOGIC, rather than with actual legal
knowledge. I remember feeling like an idiot when I read Pauls response....
primarily because what I posted was unknowingly idiotic.
Opinion is fine and dandy and the typical currency of this newsgroup. But
when you get an answer to a question about copyright law - from a lawyer
who DOES copyright law - it's time to stop speaking and LISTEN.
(Thanks again, Paul for your contributions to RVP over the years!)
--
Bill Davis
NewVideo
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Julian Maytum
--
Julian Maytum
www.New-Media.ca
www.MyWebMovie.com | www.MyNetVideos.com
"Bill Davis" <newv...@amug.org> wrote in message
news:newvideo-270...@d141-osel-phx.fastq.com...
Larry
lawsuits to conclusion,
Now I know why he would say what he did, it is in his interest, however as
with any minor illegality be that speeding or whatever, most drivers do it
at some time and it is usually bad luck when you are caught.
Maybe it is unwise for me to say this, but if any video maker from this list
were to use a photograph of mine in any commercial production, what real
chance would there be in me ever finding out, being as the image would flash
by in a matter of seconds and given the fact that what I have photographed
could as easily be photographed in a lot of cases by someone else? I would
have to be very beady eyed to spot it.
Given the use of photoshop I guess that the pirate could easily modify the
picture as well to disguise the fact it came from me making it that much
harder to establish in court.
If I were exhibiting in a gallery, could I really stop someone making
sketches from any of my pictures and using them in the future, unless I
caught them in the act?
I guess the best advice in any situation is to seek the permission of the
copyright holder if they can be found. (and it is not always possible,) and
to keep that correspondence.
For example I wanted to use a scan of an old magazine article on the web, I
contacted the newspaper and they would allow me to use the text but not the
pictures since they were by an outside photographer. When I phoned the
photographer who took the pictures back in 1966 she did not object.
Whilst I was in contact with the newspaper I mentioned that I had been using
a photograph which was technically theres for some time on my website, they
gave me official clearance, the picture was after all of myself. I think
even if I had not done either of these things there was still little chance
of them stumbling accross that page. In fact anyone who posts on usenet
should be well aware of the extent to which whole articles are lifted and
posted by lay people with no regard for copyright (a fact that constantly
annoys me) I have yet to see a prosecution let alone a succesful one.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Bill Davis" <newv...@amug.org> wrote in message
news:newvideo-270...@d141-osel-phx.fastq.com...
Steve King
> Well he maybe and he makes his money no doubt by pursuing
impossible
> lawsuits to conclusion,
>
> Now I know why he would say what he did, it is in his
interest, however as
> with any minor illegality be that speeding or whatever,
most drivers do it
> at some time and it is usually bad luck when you are
caught.
>
> Maybe it is unwise for me to say this, but if any video
maker from this list
> were to use a photograph of mine in any commercial
production, what real
> chance would there be in me ever finding out, being as the
image would flash
> by in a matter of seconds and given the fact that what I
have photographed
> could as easily be photographed in a lot of cases by
someone else? I would
> have to be very beady eyed to spot it.
>
If I understand you correctly, you believe it is okay to
commit unlawful acts if the chance of getting caught is
small enough in your estimation. If so, where do you draw
the line?
Steve King
David McCall
nice of him to go out on a limb by giving out free advice here.
He will be the first to tell you that not all cases are the same,
and that you should contact your own attorney to be covered.
Paul has at least given you a good start toward knowing what
to say to your attorney.
Sure most people get away with speeding, but that doesn't
make it legal, and you won't find an attorney that will tell
you to go ahead and speed because the odds are that you
won't get caught. At least not in public :-)
And guess what, you have been informed. If you steal copy
protected property tommorrow, they will impound your computer
and see that you were given the scoop by Paul just a couple
days ago. That won't help your defense much, will it?
David
Ken P.
accessible to us laymen, but all have value:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://www.cciw.com/content/plagiarism.html
http://library.law.columbia.edu/music_plagiarism/index2.html
http://www.business2.com/webguide/0,1660,20745,00.html
Now, why would one take the chance?
Ken P.
Steve Guidry
We're not his clients. So Paul's not giving ADVICE. Remember ?
But Paul, keep on anyway. We love it.
--
Steve Guidry
Video Works, Inc.
903.509.8838
www.videoworksinc.com
"Bill Davis" <newv...@amug.org> wrote in message
news:newvideo-270...@d141-osel-phx.fastq.com...
Steve Guidry
You're confusing what's advisable in a business sense with what's legal.
Paul is giving us the law on this matter. If he was your attorney, he might
offer business advice as well, if you asked. That advice might well contain
an assessment of the risks of a particular action.
But, as an attorney, he has to be careful of his words. He can't have guys
like us going off doing stuff that's against the law, and then saying "Oh
yeah, Paul Tauger said it was OK."
--
Steve Guidry
Video Works, Inc.
903.509.8838
www.videoworksinc.com
"Larry" <n...@larry-arnold.com> wrote in message
news:aki6cj$1jjiqb$1...@ID-129032.news.dfncis.de...
Paul Tauger
"Jim Harvey" <sick.o...@nomorecrap.com> wrote in message
news:RgUa9.32982$yl3.6...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> I must have misread the original post. I thought that he was going to draw
> pictures of people he saw in a photo. Unless he is reproducing the picture
> exactly, I would consider the picture to be an original work based on
> historical reference. (i.e. Drawing a picture of Abraham Lincoln) Hence,
he
> would be the copyright holder of THAT particular work.
>
> Did I miss something?
What he described is a derivative work.
What everyone seems to be missing is that "media translation" can result in
a protectable derivative work. If the original was in the public domain,
translating it to a new medium, e.g., lithograph, can result in protectable
rights, albeit it only in that which constitutes original (or, in this
instance, new) expression.
I haven't given an opinion on what the OP is planning to do because (1) I
can't, and don't, give legal advice to non-clients over the internet, and
(2) it's impossible to tell from the OP's description whether there would be
a copyright problem or not.
Paul Tauger
I always love posts like this. "I'm not a lawyer, but . . ."
I'm not going to argue with you. I've explained how copyright infringement
liability is determined. You don't have to believe me, if you don't want
to.
Paul Tauger
> Well he maybe and he makes his money no doubt by pursuing impossible
> lawsuits to conclusion,
Evidently, you know very little about what lawyers do. I earn my money
providing legal counsel to my clients and, when necessary, pursuing their
interests in court. I don't litigate "impossible" suits -- I settle them.
>
> Now I know why he would say what he did, it is in his interest, however as
> with any minor illegality be that speeding or whatever, most drivers do
it
> at some time and it is usually bad luck when you are caught.
Okay, you need to read very, very carefully. I haven't given anyone here
legal advice -- I don't do it because my malpractice carrier won't let me,
and because there is never enough information in these posts to render an
opinion in the first place. What I have done is describe the analytical
process that's used in determining whether or not someone has infringed a
copyright.
Whether or not someone in this ng decides to risk an infringement action is
a _business_ decision, not a legal one, and I don't give business advice
here, either (well, I do to this extent: I think it's a good idea for
professional videographers to carry a general business liability insurance
policy, and I think it's also a good idea to consult an attorney from time
to time, so that an accurate assessment of risk can be made and the
videographer can determine for him/herself whether it's a level of risk they
are willing to accept).
>
> Maybe it is unwise for me to say this, but if any video maker from this
list
> were to use a photograph of mine in any commercial production, what real
> chance would there be in me ever finding out, being as the image would
flash
> by in a matter of seconds and given the fact that what I have photographed
> could as easily be photographed in a lot of cases by someone else? I would
> have to be very beady eyed to spot it.
>
> Given the use of photoshop I guess that the pirate could easily modify the
> picture as well to disguise the fact it came from me making it that much
> harder to establish in court.
I can't get into details for obvious reasons, but I have a client that
markets a product that consists, almost exclusively, of original protected
expression. This expression was created by staff artists, who had specific
instructions on what was permissible and what was not from a copyright
perspective. As it turned out, one of the staff artists ignored these
express instructions, and used a protected piece of original expression
which was manipulated by computer software until it no longer appeared to
resemble the original -- in the opinion of the artist.
Well, my client learned about this when a third-party spotted the
resemblence, and the original and my client's work wound up on my desk with
an urgent request that I evalutate the risk. My analysis is that there are
a couple of bases for liability, including copyright infringement, some of
which may be significant. We're now in the process of deciding how best to
address this situation, i.e. should we do nothing and keep our fingers
crossed, or contact the owners of the various rights that are involved, tell
them what happened and try to negotiate a non-judicial resolution. It's a
hell of a mess.
Don't be so sure that you can commit copyright infringement with impunity.
You don't know the standard for substantial similarity that is used in
determining infringement liability.
>
> If I were exhibiting in a gallery, could I really stop someone making
> sketches from any of my pictures and using them in the future, unless I
> caught them in the act?
Yes, you could, and you wouldn't have to catch them in the act.
>
> I guess the best advice in any situation is to seek the permission of the
> copyright holder if they can be found. (and it is not always possible,)
and
> to keep that correspondence.
The best advice is this: if your livelihood depends on using other's
protected expression, spend a couple of hundred bucks to talk with a
competent IP attorney and find out what your options are with respect to
licenses, liability, etc. You may not need a license at all.
>
> For example I wanted to use a scan of an old magazine article on the web,
I
> contacted the newspaper and they would allow me to use the text but not
the
> pictures since they were by an outside photographer. When I phoned the
> photographer who took the pictures back in 1966 she did not object.
>
> Whilst I was in contact with the newspaper I mentioned that I had been
using
> a photograph which was technically theres for some time on my website,
they
> gave me official clearance, the picture was after all of myself. I think
> even if I had not done either of these things there was still little
chance
> of them stumbling accross that page. In fact anyone who posts on usenet
> should be well aware of the extent to which whole articles are lifted and
> posted by lay people with no regard for copyright (a fact that constantly
> annoys me) I have yet to see a prosecution let alone a succesful one.
I didn't realize that you subscribed to the court advance sheets or any of
the various IP journals which publish such decisions. What makes you think
you'd know whether or not there has been a successful prosecution for this
kind of internet infringement (and, btw, there have been many)?
Paul Tauger
> It doesn't matter where you take your inspiration from, if you draw it
> yourself, YOU OWN THE COPYRIGHT on THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE. (Of course,
> we're not talking about Art Forgery).
>
> Jim Harvey
Sorry, but that's not quite right. There's a fine line between "taking
inspiration from" (or "working in the style of," etc.) and impermissible
copying. The rule in copyright infringement law is: "You can copy the
original, but you can't copy the copy." As an example, if I see your video
about New York, and like your shot taken from a helicopter that goes under
the Brooklyn Bridge, I can go to New York, rent a helicopter and do a
similar shot without violating your copyright. I cannot, however, load your
video into my computer and use AfterEffects to manipulate it without
infringing your rights.
Paul Tauger
> I'm not sure why steve wanted to chime in with such athority, Bill but
> having done many-a-documentary for The Learning Channel, Discovery and
more
> as well as being a portrait artist, myself, I stand bt my first post and
> hope your not confused by wacky postings from confused posters.
> Think about it... If you were to paint a picture of Mt Rushmore, would you
> owe anyone for it???
> NOT
Right, but if someone painted another picture of Mt. Rushmore based on the
picture Bill painted, that would be copyright infringement. There's an old
saw in copyright law that says, "You can copy the original, but you can't
copy the copy."
>
Larry
I guess you are from the USA, we are not quite as litigios in the UK.
If I were to take action against the person who lifted an article written by
a third party from my site, removed the links to my site but failed to
remove all the varios references that is was mine that are still in the HTML
code could I proceed.
I know they did it, they know they did it, but I also know they have even
less wherewithal than I do and If it were possible to action them being as
we both live in different jurisdictions neither of them the USA I would lose
a lot of good faith which is more important to me within the mileau where
this occured, notwithstanding whose copyright was infringed.
My HTML code or the author ot the article, who would probably in any case
have granted permission for the person who poached my code.
Trouble is I inhabit a different world
Law at the end of it all is a matter of opinion or should I say the ability
to persuade enough people that one matter of opinion supercedes and is more
valid than another.
Well we all know what happened to Socrates, and did Plato infringe his
intellectual property, and what of Aristophanes.
Glad you can make your money. I alas remain a poor student for the time
being
Notwithstanding that the Berne convention could be revoked and laws remade.
Do you really suppose the digital millenium act will last?
100 years from now, if there is 100 years from now, who will care.
Dickens became famous in the USA because of the very pirate editions he
wanted to suppress.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:akippe$1j6u6q$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
Larry
law in a relative and mutative world where what goes today is not going to
be the same tommorow.
Locke and Hobbes had there own perspective of law as did the framers of the
US constitution which from the UK persective was an act of rebellion and
treason.
In the end the only rights are those that can be enforced, and were it not
for law breakers I wonder whether attorneys would have any jobs at all.
Perhaps I should depart back to my native debating chamber.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"David McCall" <david...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Pp4b9.214062$983.426903@rwcrnsc53...
Larry
point laws and justice divert, in that laws are made by those who excercise
power and authority. Those who have something to protect.
The utility maximising individual with a less than altruistic mindset will
always make cost benefit calculations, that is pyscology and the law cannot
determine human nature, at best it can offer a detterent. Do not forget to
that for operation the law depends upon that most nebulos of concepts the
social contract
I do not know what the penalties for tomb robbing were in ancient Egypt,
pretty drastic I should think but overall the robbers were more succesful
than the pharoahs.
Did you ever see the movie "How to murder your wife" where Jack Lemon
defends himself?
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Steve King" <stevek...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3W3b9.273558$UU1.46537@sccrnsc03...
Paul Tauger
<snip>
> Law at the end of it all is a matter of opinion or should I say the
ability
> to persuade enough people that one matter of opinion supercedes and is
more
> valid than another.
Only someone unfamiliar with the law would make such a statement.
Larry
I am nonetheless entitled to the free expression of my opinion on these
matters under both our jurisdictions.
Let us end amicably since this is an open NG and not a court of law
fortunately. I am expressing an opinion which people are free to accept, you
of course have somewhat more status as your profession does I admit give you
something of a more expert status but don't forget that McDonalds and all
there millions were defeated by a gruop of untrained individuals fighting in
a British court of law, one of the longest civil cases in British history I
believe.
I would not wish to meet you either as my attorney or my opponenent in a
court of law so let us leave it at but it would be interesting to have a
second legal opinion from an academic lawyer or retired high court judge
(noted for there eccentricity) I think.
Maybe this is the wrong forum for such speculation
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:akj4ml$1j5b81$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
Bill Mecca
As I remember (I don't have the book with me at the office) the
pictures in the book are credited to various collections, several were
banks, that no longer exist, at least with the same name as when the
book was first published in the 1950's. Others apparently from a
family collection.
The original artwork therefore, may or may not be accesible. The
original artists are long dead, probably before any codified copyright
laws. So that begs the question, at least to this inquiring mind, who
would hold the copyright? Whoever has the original paintings would
indeed hold the property rights, but who would have the copyright,
heirs to the artist, or subject or someone else? they could very well
be public domain right?
Seems to get more confusing with every step. And since this is a no
budget, sparetime project that I have put 4 years work into... I want
to complete it.
Any suggestions on alternatives to using portraits. In contect, the
script is discussing who owned the towns, and their successors.
Or maybe suggest a good, inexpensive IP atty with whom I could discuss
this project?
Paul Tauger
> You would say that, obviosly I am in no position to poach on your
practice,
> I am nonetheless entitled to the free expression of my opinion on these
> matters under both our jurisdictions.
Believe me, you're not poaching on my practice. And you're free to say
whatever you want on these ngs. Just as I am free to comment on what you
say.
> Let us end amicably since this is an open NG and not a court of law
> fortunately. I am expressing an opinion which people are free to accept,
you
> of course have somewhat more status as your profession does I admit give
you
> something of a more expert status but don't forget that McDonalds and all
> there millions were defeated by a gruop of untrained individuals fighting
in
> a British court of law, one of the longest civil cases in British history
I
> believe.
Irrelevant.
>
> I would not wish to meet you either as my attorney or my opponenent in a
> court of law so let us leave it at but it would be interesting to have a
> second legal opinion from an academic lawyer or retired high court judge
> (noted for there eccentricity) I think.
And I would be more than happy to discuss such an opinion with an academic
lawyer (whatever that is) or a retired judge, the point being that either
would have a basis for their opinion founded in fact and practice, rather
than myth.
Dirk J. Bakker
<snip>
>Don't be so sure that you can commit copyright infringement with impunity.
>You don't know the standard for substantial similarity that is used in
>determining infringement liability.
>
Paul,
Pardon me if I 'digress' and attempt to return the discussion to what
was on topic (i.e. the original poster's question), the text of which I
quote here:
Bill Mecca wrote:
>I'm in the midst of producing and [sic] historical video and would like to
>use visual representations of men who died in the 1700's and 1800's. I
>have found illustrations of some of them in a book.
>
>Since I cannot get these men to sit for a portrait,(since they have
>long since decayed)what is the consensus on the legality of drawing
>portraits myself (since I have some talent in that area) using those
>pieces of art as a basis?
>
Based on your statement elsewhere: "The rule in copyright infringement
law is: 'You can copy the original, but you can't copy the copy.' ", it
stands to reason, as Bill states, that the 'original' subjects are not
available. However, provided the illustrations reproduced in the instant
book are not recently created _original_ works (and, admittedly, Bill
neither addressed himself to the illustrations' nor the book's vintage,
perhaps he can't) and were in fact created from life (i.e. in the 1700
and 1800s) and outside the purview of copyright law, why must he search
and use as 'inspiration' the 'original' painting/drawing/or (for the
1800s conceivably) photograph(s), when in all likelihood the
illustrations in the book (easily determined by a phone call to the
publisher, or a reasonable attempt at discovery) were themselves copies
of work in the public domain (PD)?
In other words, if a publisher acquires a copy of a graphic from, let's
say, the Library of Congress and mechanically reproduces it as part of
this book, why must I get a copy of the same graphic from the LC and not
use the book as reference for 'inspiration' when in fact no CREATIVE
interest nor commercial value (of the new work, the book) are being
jeopardized? LC copy fees?
As a creative individual, you won't find a more committed defender of
copyright, as both law and concept. I'd be shooting 'myself in the
foot', if I weren't. However, also as a creative individual, I find the
ever looming 'threat' of possible litigation counter creative in the
worst possible way, as the greater part of creativity is based on
imitation, witness the number of Davids, Mona Lisa knock-offs, Marilyn
Monroes, etc. Manually executing an illustration based on another
(itself a copy of a work in the PD), unless part of a FORGERY of the
entire (new) book, does not injure anyone, legal notices notwithstanding.
What would keep the publisher, in the example above, from claiming that
I used the illustration in HIS book, rather than one I may (or may not
have) acquired directly from the LC?
In other words, is the spirit of the law to protect the rights of the
original creative INDIVIDUALS or whom ever they may have explicitly
surrendered those rights to, or the interests (however meritorious) of
the latest anybody that happens to have procured and published a copy?
Were one to follow this reasoning to its absurd conclusion, one could
copy any work that just comes into the PD and claim it as one's own,
which I know I can't, as it would be a contradiction in terms.
Other than making a reasonable attempt at establishing the status of the
illustrations he intends to draw, and once he determines they were in
the PD, why should Bill be concerned that the recent(?) use of PD
material has somehow ELEVATED this publisher to the status of creator
(of the PD material, not the book)?
Appreciate your comments and/or correction,
Dirk Bakker
Paul Tauger
"Dirk J. Bakker" <dba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D6D421C...@mindspring.com...
> Paul Tauger wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >Don't be so sure that you can commit copyright infringement with
impunity.
> >You don't know the standard for substantial similarity that is used in
> >determining infringement liability.
> >
> Paul,
>
> Pardon me if I 'digress' and attempt to return the discussion to what
> was on topic (i.e. the original poster's question), the text of which I
> quote here:
No problem.
>
> Bill Mecca wrote:
>
> >I'm in the midst of producing and [sic] historical video and would like
to
> >use visual representations of men who died in the 1700's and 1800's. I
> >have found illustrations of some of them in a book.
> >
> >Since I cannot get these men to sit for a portrait,(since they have
> >long since decayed)what is the consensus on the legality of drawing
> >portraits myself (since I have some talent in that area) using those
> >pieces of art as a basis?
> >
> Based on your statement elsewhere: "The rule in copyright infringement
> law is: 'You can copy the original, but you can't copy the copy.' ", it
> stands to reason, as Bill states, that the 'original' subjects are not
> available.
Except that the original would not be the people who sat for the portraits,
but the portraits themselves. The pictures in the book are reproductions of
the portraits, i.e. "copies of the original."
> However, provided the illustrations reproduced in the instant
> book are not recently created _original_ works (and, admittedly, Bill
> neither addressed himself to the illustrations' nor the book's vintage,
> perhaps he can't) and were in fact created from life (i.e. in the 1700
> and 1800s) and outside the purview of copyright law, why must he search
> and use as 'inspiration' the 'original' painting/drawing/or (for the
> 1800s conceivably) photograph(s), when in all likelihood the
> illustrations in the book (easily determined by a phone call to the
> publisher, or a reasonable attempt at discovery) were themselves copies
> of work in the public domain (PD)?
The problem is, you're mixing apples and oranges. The pictures in the book
are reproductions of portraits. The portraits may very well be in the
public domain, depending upon when they were created. The pictures in the
book, on the other hand, were published in 1950 and almost certainly are not
in the public domain.
>
> In other words, if a publisher acquires a copy of a graphic from, let's
> say, the Library of Congress and mechanically reproduces it as part of
> this book, why must I get a copy of the same graphic from the LC and not
> use the book as reference for 'inspiration' when in fact no CREATIVE
> interest nor commercial value (of the new work, the book) are being
> jeopardized? LC copy fees?
The key is "mechanically reproduces." Medium translation is, generally, not
a question of mechanical reproduction, and the U.S. courts have held that
the process of making the translation introduces original expression which
is protectable. Note, though, that the only thing which acquires protection
is that which constitutes the new original expression.
>
> As a creative individual, you won't find a more committed defender of
> copyright, as both law and concept. I'd be shooting 'myself in the
> foot', if I weren't. However, also as a creative individual, I find the
> ever looming 'threat' of possible litigation counter creative in the
> worst possible way, as the greater part of creativity is based on
> imitation, witness the number of Davids, Mona Lisa knock-offs, Marilyn
> Monroes, etc. Manually executing an illustration based on another
> (itself a copy of a work in the PD), unless part of a FORGERY of the
> entire (new) book, does not injure anyone, legal notices notwithstanding.
Please note that I'm not saying that what the OP proposes to do would
constitute infringement. I'm also not saying that it wouldn't. I'm only
explaining that translation to another medium introduces a new layer of
copyright protection with may or may not be relevant to what the OP proposes
to do.
>
> What would keep the publisher, in the example above, from claiming that
> I used the illustration in HIS book, rather than one I may (or may not
> have) acquired directly from the LC?
Nothing, since anyone can suy anyone for anything at any time. However,
proving it by a preponderance of the evidence is a separate issue
altogether.
>
> In other words, is the spirit of the law to protect the rights of the
> original creative INDIVIDUALS or whom ever they may have explicitly
> surrendered those rights to, or the interests (however meritorious) of
> the latest anybody that happens to have procured and published a copy?
Both. Copyright is, for all intents and purposes, an absolute and exclusive
right, the intent of which is to compensate the author of creative
expression.
> Were one to follow this reasoning to its absurd conclusion, one could
> copy any work that just comes into the PD and claim it as one's own,
> which I know I can't, as it would be a contradiction in terms.
Right. You can only claim as your own that which is your original creative
expression. Look at it from the other side -- as a videographer, isn't your
work protected, even though you're doing "nothing more than making a video
copy of something that's in the public domain"?
>
> Other than making a reasonable attempt at establishing the status of the
> illustrations he intends to draw, and once he determines they were in
> the PD, why should Bill be concerned that the recent(?) use of PD
> material has somehow ELEVATED this publisher to the status of creator
> (of the PD material, not the book)?
How does he know what the publisher did to the portraits in the process of
preparing them for publication? Even if it were as simple as snapping a
photograph and preparing a lithograph from it, decisions still had to be
made about contrast, grain, color, etc.
Ed Anson
If your hypothetical shot were substantially similar to the original, wouldn't
you still be infringing?
I recall once reading about a case where a photographer sold his rights to a
photograph. But he liked it so much he hired the model again and shot a very
similar photo. He was sued (successfully) for infringement. The issue is not
the mechanics of copying but the production of an expression that is
substantially similar.
How would your hypothetical differ? [This copyright law is gnarly stuff. It's
no wonder folks are confused.]
Ed
anthony.gosnell
> original artists are long dead, probably before any codified copyright
> laws. So that begs the question, at least to this inquiring mind, who
> would hold the copyright? Whoever has the original paintings would
> indeed hold the property rights, but who would have the copyright,
> heirs to the artist, or subject or someone else? they could very well
> be public domain right?
Copyright lasts for 50 years after the author/composer/painter dies. If
they were made in the 1800's the original paintings are certainly in the
public domain.
Copyright also subsists in the book you are copying from. You should try
and get permission from the publisher. Getting permission is usually free
or very cheap. If the publisher is out of business then you needn't worry.
Anthony Gosnell
Paul Tauger
"Ed Anson" <EdA...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D6D7E55...@attbi.com...
> Paul,
>
> If your hypothetical shot were substantially similar to the original,
wouldn't
> you still be infringing?
>
> I recall once reading about a case where a photographer sold his rights to
a
> photograph. But he liked it so much he hired the model again and shot a
very
> similar photo. He was sued (successfully) for infringement. The issue is
not
> the mechanics of copying but the production of an expression that is
> substantially similar.
I vaguely remember this case from law school and, to be honest, don't recall
the holding off the top of my head. This falls into what I used to call
"international date line scenarios," which was my short hand for "stump the
law professor" hypotheticals, e.g. "If the statute of limitations has
expired, but you cross the international date line and serve the defendant
on the other side, have you preserved your cause of action?"
My guess (and this is strictly a guess at this point) is that if you
specifically set out to recreate a photograph then you are, in effect,
making a copy of the protected original.
>
> How would your hypothetical differ? [This copyright law is gnarly stuff.
It's
> no wonder folks are confused.]
It does, indeed, get gnarly, and I can get confused myself.
Paul Tauger
"anthony.gosnell" <live...@metroweb.co.za> wrote in message
news:3d6def1d$0$18...@hades.is.co.za...
Well, you were doing pretty well up til the last -- Whether or not the
publisher is in business is irrelevant to the question of infringement. The
successor in interest to the publisher's IP would have standing to sue.
BTW, the current term is author's life plus 70 years, or, for works for
hire, 95 years from date of first publication or 120 years from date of
creation. However, this only applies to works created after 1978.
Copyright term is a very sticky question, because different terms apply
depending on when the work was created.
>
> Anthony Gosnell
>
>
>
>
Larry
winding up of a not for profit company. Amongst the things that the company
did was run courses on photography, now amongst the remnants I had to
dispose of were the negatives of all those photographs many of them of local
events.
I gave them over to the local record office as they were of considerable
community interest.
Now who owns the copyright, being as the photos were taken using the
equipment supplied and under the instruction of the company. The records of
individuals who took the photographs were never kept.
I was the last person to have any legal responsibility for the affairs of
the company before winding up.
If someone wishes to make prints of those pictures, who gives permission, or
does the question forever stay in limbo ?
There are a number of pictures in the local library which lie in this legal
limbo as no record was kept of the donors of the pictures, being presumably
taken by themselves but informally donated with no assignments given. The
library currently will not allow the copying of these pictures because
copyright cannot be established thus effectively burying a usefull resource.
Is there not a probability that the intention of the donors can be supposed
that they wished the pictures to reside in the public domain, though through
the ignorance of the librarian accepting the pictures and the individuals
themselves no formal assignment or statement to that effect was made?
I suppose we have to wait for the very long term for that problem to resolve
itself.
As for my dads photo's do I as the inheritor of his estate still hold
copyright on those since they are in my possesion ?
I also have several of my brothers artworks, some of which I have
photographed. Now I did not make the artworks but surely I hold the
copyright of the photo's I made seeing as I own the artworks themselves.
UK law remember.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:akls2o$1jqgno$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
Paul Tauger
I don't know UK law.