Copyright theft or not
Jason
Particularly things like post cards and photographic images. Two local sites
regularly raid e-bay to "steal" enlarged versions of images they are
unwilling to pay for, but would like on their site/message board. I paid
quite a hefty sum for a rare stereo photocard and have just found it along
with other images from e-bay on one of the web site and on a message board.I
have reported this to the web hosts. I would like to warn people who buy &
sell collectable images to make sure that the enlargements are defaced in
some way and cannot be "lifted" My method is to put the word "sample" in a
large semi transparant decorative font. Be warned there's a thief about!!!!
Gordon Hudson
"Jason" <smallwa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dsb2rd$v20$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Do you own the copyright on the photocard image?
Surely that would belong to the original publisher?
All you did was scan it presumably.
I think you might be struggling to prove that it infringed your copyright
and as director of a web hosting company I don't think I would take any
action if it was reported to us (given that we have to prioritiseissues like
phishing, spam and child pornography).
One case we had recently was an artist who had done a watercolour paining of
a place and a photographer claimed it was done from one of his photos and
therefore he had copyright of the painting.
In fact the two were only similar because they were of the same place, and
one was a painting.
Even if it had been based on his photo he would not have had any claim to
copyright on the painting.
Rex Harrison
I can't understand what all the fuss is about, it's a picture for fucks
sake. I get 90% of my pictures using Google Images.
Amanda Angelika
Jason <smallwa...@yahoo.com> typed:
Well actually in the UK copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the
creator or for 70 years after first publication, if the originator is
unknown. Obviosly this means most collectable 19th Century images and even
some early 20th Century stuff up to about 1930s is in the public domain
which means any one can use them, because they are out of copyright. :)
--
Amanda
Jason
point being this.If you conduct your business on e-bay buying and selling
images then their worth is in there uniqueness. If eveyone who would like
the image, but does not want to buy it and just takes a copy of e-bay and
publishes it on a website or maybe a book, then it seems pretty pointless in
owning or buying or selling any image. (BTWI own the card. It is a one off,
amateur stereo image.) So what you are saying is that any image for sale on
e-bay, whether a postcard, photographic image etc. can be copied and used
and published in any form. Rather makes the whole thing rather pointless
doesn't it then. So instead of paying $20 dollars I should have just copied
it.
"Gordon Hudson" <gor...@usenet3.hostroute.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43e916c1$0$1173$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
Gordon Hudson
>I own the stereo cardand assumed copyright.
So how come YOU have the copyright and ther other person does not?
I think you should see a lawyer ASAP!
Peter Crosland
The copyright has already expired and you have no course of action.
Peter Crosland
Kim Andrews
<g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I own the stereo cardand assumed copyright. It is over 90years old.
>
>The copyright has already expired and you have no course of action.
Are not the copyright of the original image, and the copyright of his
own photograph of the item, different things? (I may have
misunderstood, but I think the OP has photographed the card).
--
by Kimbo!
Mail-order second-hand books at www.bykimbo.com
Find me on ebay at http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Books-by-Kimbo
dnsey
the card!
>Are not the copyright of the original image, and the copyright of his
>own photograph of the item, different things?
of the photo rather than the original?
Amanda Angelika
Jason <smallwa...@yahoo.com> typed:
> I own the stereo cardand assumed copyright. It is over 90years old.
Well since it's well over 70 years old since it was first published and it
is likely the original creater died more than 70 (used to be 50) years ago
the chances are the copyright is in the public domain which means you can
make images from it, but so could anyone else with a copy of the same image
or anyone whe has owned it in the past
> The point being this.If you conduct your business on e-bay buying and
> selling images then their worth is in there uniqueness.
But there is little value in digital copies because they are not unique. The
value is in the original item. It's like with a painting. I mean anyone can
have for example an image or even a print of Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa,
but these copies are virtually worthless compared to the original which is
practically priceless.
If eveyone
> who would like the image, but does not want to buy it and just takes
> a copy of e-bay and publishes it on a website or maybe a book, then
> it seems pretty pointless in owning or buying or selling any image.
> (BTWI own the card. It is a one off, amateur stereo image.)
Well actually if you make a digital scan or photograph something which you
put up for sale on the internet you own the copyright of the digital images
which portray the item.
But when you have something such as an old photograph where the original
image is in the public domain it could be difficult to prove this since it
may have been copied by people in the past, so one may as well assign such
images to the public domain, because you may never be able to prove
copyright ownership of digital copies of such images and even if you could
what purpose would suing people actually serve?
So what
> you are saying is that any image for sale on e-bay, whether a
> postcard, photographic image etc. can be copied and used and
> published in any form. Rather makes the whole thing rather pointless
> doesn't it then. So instead of paying $20 dollars I should have just
> copied it.
That's not true of every image, and there is a huge difference in terms of
value between an original vintage or antique photograph and a digital copy.
But if all you were interested in was the image then paying $20 dollars for
the original when you could have downloaded a public domain digital copy for
nothing was perhaps a waste of money. That said rare original vintage and
antique photographic images have an intrinsic value that digital images do
not, so there is no reason why you couldn't sell the picture you have bought
to get your money back or even make a profit.
In some ways the internet has rendered copyright law in regard to digital
images almost unworkable. That said original art works such as paintings and
actual old photographic images whilst they can be forged, faked or copied by
others (often very talented in their own right), this has little if any
affect the value of the original, you don't therefore need any copyright
laws to protect actual original works of art because they are totally
unique.
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
dnsey <dn...@aol.com> typed:
If the image has been in existence for 90 years or more even if in itself it
is a one off image It would be difficult to prove the image was not copied
in the past and those images may have already been assigned to the public
domain.
The other thing is when buying a work of art or even a photograph unless
agreed otherwise the copyright either remains with the original artist or if
the copyright has already expired it would remain in the public domain. The
purchase of original art works doesn't normally include the copyright.
That said the value of an original work is in the fact that it is original
and unique, so you don't really need copyright laws to protect original
works that use traditional media because unlike digital images that can be
infinitely copied original works can only be original and unique and their
value is based on that fact and they remain immutable.
--
Amanda
Chris Howells
> Well actually if you make a digital scan or photograph something which you
> put up for sale on the internet you own the copyright of the digital images
> which portray the item.
In the US it was ruled (I forget the case name, it involved a library)
that creating a digital image of something, such as a painting, was not
sufficiently creative to be covered by copyright.
Is there case law in the UK which says otherwise?
Jason
My whole point. As I deal in buying/selling images I would like to point out
that if I were to allow copies of my copies (to illustrate my for sale
item), then, I would never sell anything.
"Amanda Angelika" <manic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MtbGf.31948$494...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Amanda Angelika
Chris Howells <som...@example.com> typed:
No I don't think there is
That is a good point. Copyright applies to *original* works. Something that
is scanned or simply recorded would simply be derivative and it would be
difficult to claim copyright. That said if you altered the image or
presented it in a context of some sort such as put a frame around it, it
could become sufficiently original to come under copyright protection at
least in that specific form.
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
Jason <smallwa...@yahoo.com> typed:
> The photograph 'stolen' is of course a digital copy, therefore
> copyright. My whole point. As I deal in buying/selling images I would
> like to point out that if I were to allow copies of my copies (to
> illustrate my for sale item), then, I would never sell anything.
Well it depends if you are selling the images as originals or as digital
images. I mean original old photographs and postcards are collectable not
just for the image, but because they are collectable objects in their own
right and a digital image is no substitute for the real thing if you are the
sort of person who appreciates original things. But you are dealing with two
markets people who are interested solely in the image are not going to
purchase something original in any case.
I suppose I run across similar issues myself. I sell art on the Internet.
Obviously I have to put images of my paintings up which of course people can
download, but the images shown on the screen are usually no larger than 640
x 480 pixels and in slightly compressed JPEG format. If people wanted to
download these images for their own use or even to print out, there is
nothing I can do about it. There is nothing I would particularly want to do
to prevent this, because I'm trying to sell an original artwork and like if
people don't know the difference well they are not in the market for
original art in any case.
Recently though I have put some digital images up to sell as desktop
wallpaper which I simply send to people by email in that instance I have
images with "sample" written on them which are fairly small 320x240 pixels.
Of course the actual images people will get if they buy them are 1024 x 768
and 1280 x 960 (I'm selling them in a set of two sizes) see:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZartberryQQhtZ-1
I haven't sold any yet. I suspect I shall have to list them in separate
listings at 10p each so I can attract the people who are more interesting in
buying feedback than purchasing the actual images still I have no limit to
the number of images I can list.
The thing is though if you are going to put images up to show an image you
are selling you make sure it's sufficient in size for people to get an idea,
but too small to do anything with in terms of printing. Another thing you
can do is add the words "sample" and perhaps an even more effective method
is to create a layout in something like for example PowerPoint which
incorporates both your image and description and export this as a JPEG
image. as long as you host this externally you can have it appear in your
description area, and of course if people download it they are going to get
your whole description as well :)
Of course there is yet another method of thwarting down loaders. Put the
image up in an externally hosted import protected Macromedia Flash file.
But ultimately you can never entirely protect images on WebPages because if
someone wants an image badly enough they will simply press print screen
paste it into an image editor and crop it out. So really the most effective
method is keeping your images too small to do anything with and accept the
fact that people will download your images. Well I can't say I blame people
for downloading images I download thousands of digital images and often use
them for inspiration for my art and even incorporate parts of images in
altered form into my own digital work and paintings in traditional media so
it would be rather hypocritical of me to condemn people for something I do
on an almost industrial scale LOL
--
Amanda
Mike Scott
...
> Even if it had been based on his photo he would not have had any claim to
> copyright on the painting.
That's where you'd be wrong. An unauthorized painting of an original
photo is just as much a breach of copyright as an unauthorized photo of
an original painting.
--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)
Mike Scott
> In news:dsbher$oht$1...@news.liv.ac.uk,
> Chris Howells <som...@example.com> typed:
>> Amanda Angelika wrote:
>>
>>> Well actually if you make a digital scan or photograph something
>>> which you put up for sale on the internet you own the copyright of
>>> the digital images which portray the item.
>> In the US it was ruled (I forget the case name, it involved a library)
>> that creating a digital image of something, such as a painting, was
>> not sufficiently creative to be covered by copyright.
>>
>> Is there case law in the UK which says otherwise?
>
> No I don't think there is
>
> That is a good point. Copyright applies to *original* works. Something that
> is scanned or simply recorded would simply be derivative and it would be
> difficult to claim copyright. That said if you altered the image or
I believe museums argue that taking a photo of a painting (they all do
it for their catalogues of course) does of itself require significant
skill and original input in arranging appropriate viewing conditions,
and therefore such a photo does have its own copyright. Having tried to
photograph the occasional picture at home, I can well see their point.
> presented it in a context of some sort such as put a frame around it, it
> could become sufficiently original to come under copyright protection at
> least in that specific form.
--
Kim Andrews
>But the OP has infringed any copyright that existed by photographing
>the card!
That has expired.
>>Are not the copyright of the original image, and the copyright of his
>>own photograph of the item, different things?
>Interesting point, but how would anyone prove that the filched copy was
>of the photo rather than the original?
It may well be obvious, if the surrounding space, for example, is
visible.
Mike Redrobe
> I assume ALL images of items being auctioned on E-bay are copyright.
Copyright to ebay ;)
Don't ebay "remake" the picture when they resize it and stamp their
ipix logo on it?
--
Mike
Chris Howells
>> That is a good point. Copyright applies to *original* works. Something
>> that
>> is scanned or simply recorded would simply be derivative and it would be
>> difficult to claim copyright. That said if you altered the image or
Right.
> I believe museums argue that taking a photo of a painting (they all do
> it for their catalogues of course) does of itself require significant
> skill and original input in arranging appropriate viewing conditions,
> and therefore such a photo does have its own copyright. Having tried to
> photograph the occasional picture at home, I can well see their point.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you... but a US court actually found
otherwise a few years ago. Just managed to find the case name again
thanks to the wonderful serach term of "library original painting
copyright -"creative commons" court" :)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm
I don't know how much US and UK copyright law differs, but I'd be
interested to know if there was similar case law in the UK.
Chris Howells
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm
>
> I don't know how much US and UK copyright law differs, but I'd be
> interested to know if there was similar case law in the UK.
Sorry for replying to myself, but a possibly slight easier to understand
summary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
Amanda Angelika
Mike Scott <usen...@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> typed:
>
> I believe museums argue that taking a photo of a painting (they all do
> it for their catalogues of course) does of itself require significant
> skill and original input in arranging appropriate viewing conditions,
> and therefore such a photo does have its own copyright. Having tried
> to photograph the occasional picture at home, I can well see their
> point.
Well yes I've worked as a museum photographer myself in the past so can
certainly see that point.
I think in general museums see themselves as custodians of the past,
providing a public service and wouldn't usually wish to prevent the public
from using images for personal and educational purposes or wish to prevent
people from freely distributing and sharing images for personal use. Because
the point is these images belong to the people, the tax payer and those that
provide one's funding.
Where problems arise is when people attempt to sell such images for
commercial gain and I think that is the main reason museums wish to retain
some control over the copyrights of their images. In which case it is
copyright protection for the greater public good. (see:
http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php as an example of this kind of
copyright policy)
However it could be argued such terms and conditions are completely
meaningless when images are in reality in the public domain, in which case
such terms and conditions exist as a kind of political statement which has
no moral, ethical or legal status whatsoever and is a total waste of
bandwidth, though does perhaps keep lawyers in employment.
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
Mike Scott <usen...@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> typed:
> Gordon Hudson wrote:
> ...
>> Even if it had been based on his photo he would not have had any
>> claim to copyright on the painting.
>
> That's where you'd be wrong. An unauthorized painting of an original
> photo is just as much a breach of copyright as an unauthorized photo
> of an original painting.
In theory yes but I think it was Picasso who said "talent borrows genius
steals" I mean if you are any good at painting (or even just very bad at
drawing for that matter) you can create something entirely new through a
process of recreation that includes error and correction until something new
is formed out of the aether
I mean I did this cat painting from a picture I downloaded off a website
http://images.goantiques.com/dbimages/LAG5660/LAG5660AMA199.jpg
But through a combination of inaccurate freehand drawing and reference to my
own experience of cats in general I managed to create something that if
compared to the small original pixelated digital image I used as a reference
source bears very little resemblance to that source, and in in essence I
have created a portrait of a new metaphysical cat that never existed before
or has become a kind of archetypal cat. I suppose I should have called it
Schrodigger's Cat. :)
But at the end of the day no one is going to come after me for borrowing
their image or try to sue me because they wouldn't recognise it and secondly
if you attempted to overlay the original over what I have done with it there
would be very little if any actual correlation :)
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
Mike Redrobe <mi...@redrobe.net> typed:
LOL if that were the case one would have no problems redistributing all
one's ripped MP3s since one could claim to own the copyright on them all :)
--
Amanda
Jason
other images for a new web site I am developing. So I take it I can
lift/borrow/steal and publish them. Right? So what is the difference
between the images (digital) on your site and the images (digital) on E-bay?news:3KpGf.9095$37....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Amanda Angelika
Jason <smallwa...@yahoo.com> typed:
> re your web site. I quite like the charcoal drawing of the chair and
> a few other images for a new web site I am developing. So I take it
> I can lift/borrow/steal and publish them. Right? So what is the
> difference between the images (digital) on your site and the images
> (digital) on E-bay?
Well I'm not sure I've ever drawn a charcoal drawing of a chair, but
assuming it is one of mine, as long as it was attributed correctly assuming
you are asking permission I'd be quite happy if people publicised my art on
other Websites, after all digital images have one purpose people are
supposed to see them and the more the better :) There is no difference
between an image on eBay or any other website.
--
Amanda
Jason
>
>
Amanda Angelika
Jason <smallwa...@yahoo.com> typed:
Surely the point is to make money but it's difficult to make money from
things that are freely available copyright was mainly designed to stop
people copying and selling things it was never designed to stop people
seeing and listening to things (i.e. personal use) in some ways the internet
makes lots of things freely available for personal use and renders many
things unsalable. That's the nature of the Internet. But there is still
money in selling "real" products original works, prints' posters, and even
CDs if they come with worthwhile extras. I think really one has to
concentrate on selling real things, and use the internet to that end,
because there will always be a market for real things. :)
--
Amanda
Dave (from the UK)
photographer. *If* that is so, then it is might be difficult to prove
the copyright has expired. It is probably equally difficult to prove one
or the other owns the copyright.
--
Dave K
http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. The month is
always written in 3 letters (e.g. Jan, not January etc)
Dave (from the UK)
> I haven't sold any yet. I suspect I shall have to list them in separate
> listings at 10p each so I can attract the people who are more interesting in
> buying feedback than purchasing the actual images still I have no limit to
> the number of images I can list.
It begs the question should eBay allow feedback to be left for very low
value items. As you say, you can buy feeback this way.
I've twice been offered money for removing a negative comment. Both
times the other party proposed this trough a 'square trader' who seem
quite happy to pass on such comments.
Of course the other party does not put it quite like that, but in one
case it was
"If he will remove the negative feedback, as I gesture of good will I
will pay him $40." So the Squaretrader put that to me. I said he did not
accept bribes.
But $40 is a lot to have a feedback comment removed, when, as you point
out, you can probably buy them at 10p.
Amanda Angelika
Dave (from the UK) <see-my-s...@southminster-branch-line.org.uk> typed:
> Amanda Angelika wrote:
>
>> I haven't sold any yet. I suspect I shall have to list them in
>> separate listings at 10p each so I can attract the people who are
>> more interesting in buying feedback than purchasing the actual
>> images still I have no limit to the number of images I can list.
>
> It begs the question should eBay allow feedback to be left for very
> low value items. As you say, you can buy feeback this way.
>
> I've twice been offered money for removing a negative comment. Both
> times the other party proposed this trough a 'square trader' who seem
> quite happy to pass on such comments.
>
> Of course the other party does not put it quite like that, but in one
> case it was
>
> "If he will remove the negative feedback, as I gesture of good will I
> will pay him $40." So the Squaretrader put that to me. I said he did
> not accept bribes.
>
> But $40 is a lot to have a feedback comment removed, when, as you
> point out, you can probably buy them at 10p.
Even less there are people selling desktop wallpaper and ebooks for 1p. In
some cases even selling the resale rights to so the whole thing is almost a
sort of feedback pyramid scheme. Which means one could in theory get a
massive amount of positive feedback fairly quickly without it costing much
at all.
--
Amanda
Amanda Angelika
Dave (from the UK) <see-my-s...@southminster-branch-line.org.uk> typed:
>> I own the stereo cardand assumed copyright. It is over 90years old.
>>
>> The copyright has already expired and you have no course of action.
>>
>> Peter Crosland
>>
>>
> My understanding it expires 75 years after the death of the
> photographer. *If* that is so, then it is might be difficult to prove
> the copyright has expired. It is probably equally difficult to prove
> one or the other owns the copyright.
>
Well according to my research it's 70 years after the death of the
artist/photographer or if the artist/photographer is unknown 70 years after
first publication. But of course in practice it's a bit more complicated
because it used to be 50 years and I believe it was extended in 1988,
apparently because some of Walt Disney's stuff was about to enter the public
domain (e.g Mickey Mouse) which it will eventually. But obviously there were
things already in the public domain for nearly 20 years before the law was
changed. So many things first published 90 yeas ago by unknown photographers
were already in the public domain in the 1960s
--
Amanda
Mike Redrobe
> Amanda Angelika wrote:
>
>> I haven't sold any yet. I suspect I shall have to list them in
>> separate listings at 10p each so I can attract the people who are
>> more interesting in buying feedback than purchasing the actual
>> images still I have no limit to the number of images I can list.
>
> It begs the question should eBay allow feedback to be left for very
> low value items. As you say, you can buy feeback this way.
Agreed, the main failing of feedback is that it favours high volume
low value sellers. Ebay should show the item's end price in the
feedback, or an icon showing approx value: £10, £100 and £500.
I mention price (but not what the item is) in my feedback as a
buyer or seller if it's over £100:
"great ebayer on a high value sale (£350)"
--
Mike