I'm confused...

[srwatters]

And what is new about that?

I'm researching some of the images that Richard Avedon made on his "American West" trek because I've found a young lady that reminds me of Sandra Bennett, the twelve year old in the overalls seen in this image:



While browsing around searching, I come across someone on Pbase who has a gallery of "Masters" uploaded to his portfolio.

http://www.pbase.com/omoses/_masters

On his profile, he is listed as a member of ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers). He has this disclaimer on the gallery:

Originally Posted by Oleg O. Moiseyenko

"Disclaimer: During the production of these essays, some pictures and text were obtained from the Internet with the belief that they are freely distributed material. If you are the rightful owner of any of the picture or the text, please let us know. We will remove them as soon as possible."

Surely he must know that all of these Master's works are owned by someone other that himself or can he believe they are in the public domain? Am I incorrect in thinking that you are not supposed to upload and publicly display the work of other artists without their permission? Is this a case of ask for forgiveness rather than permission?

Can someone with more knowledge and/or a legal reference please help clear my fog?

[Silvernic]

Were any of your images in his collection of "masters?"

[johnastovall]

I'm sure his estate at the Richard Avedon Foundation would like to know.

[HotHolly]

I think that is an ethical no no. The fastest way to find out is to alert the rightful owner. If you know who's it is, then they should have. I don't think a disclaimer is enough. We've had legal advice on images on websites and the consensus is (if you don't wanna be sued) is they better be yours for professionals. If its a fan site, the images are supposed to have proper credits or you risk the same issues.

[srwatters]

I'm trying to find references to federal laws on the subject rather than what I have read as opinions from others. So far I think this is a good layman's description from the US copyright office http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
Something really simple from the US DOJ http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyberc...ules/rules.htm

If anyone else comes across something in this area, I'm collecting links for a FAQ page that I'm going to link from my website and other portfolios.

[johnastovall]

Note the site in question is in Russia, so Copyright laws don't go very far.

[Dobick]

from the above mentioned website: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

If this were a case of an American, it would still seem that (to me anyway) the use on this particular pbase account would come very close to satisfying the four criteria for fair use.

Of course Avedon would probably have some very very good lawyers, and upon request, the easiest course would be to remove the offending works.

The way that each of these masters are presented make me suspect that the use is of an educational intent, and that the value of the original works are in no way diminished by their display (if anything, they are made more famous because of it), also in the case of a digital reproduction, these are very small reproductions, of the original copyrighted material.

That's my take as a complete laymen as far as legal matters are concerned.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Note the site in question is in Russia, so Copyright laws don't go very far.

Not according to the Network Solutions database. Pbase.com is registered in Research Triangle Park, NC. What site are you referring to?

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by srwatters

Not according to the Network Solutions database. Pbase.com is registered in Research Triangle Park, NC. What site are you referring to?

The mail link. top.mail.ru on the page.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

The mail link. top.mail.ru on the page.

John, that's pretty weak evidence. His Pbase profile says USA. If you look at the images in his portfolio, they are all US locations. His profile on Photo.net shows he currently resides in Plainsboro, New Jersey, USA.

It doesn't really matter to me. I'm not looking to become the copyright police. I just wanted to make sure my understanding of the law is correct so I don't make mistakes and I can rightfully protect the copyright on my works.

[boxofrocks]

Since the is subject came up....

Let's say I shoot an image. At what point is it "legally" copyrighted? Do I just have to put a disclaimer on my website/contract/etc, or must I file for a copyright for a specific image through the gubment?

What if I develop a Photoshop file that is a multi-layered template? If I loan that to someone for a single use (say to make a poster), and tell them it's copyrighted, do I have any rights if they re-use it?

I'm not clear on how the process works, and it seems kinda dodgy that I could just say "this image is copyrighted" and then it's magically so.

Can someone explain the copyright process to me?

[Wes]

I'd kinda like to know, too.

[srwatters]

The image is copyrighted by the person who presses the shutter release at that moment. Any derivative works (edits) are also covered.

I can't answer about the template scenario you presented, but typically a limited use license would specify exactly what and how they could use your work. At least that's my understanding.

[LoungeLizard]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

Since the is subject came up....

Let's say I shoot an image. At what point is it "legally" copyrighted? Do I just have to put a disclaimer on my website/contract/etc, or must I file for a copyright for a specific image through the gubment?

I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TPF, but as soon as you take the photo it is copyrighted to you and you have all rights to it. Now, if you DO NOT register it with the US government (Library of Congress?), your ability to collect some damages is limited.

[Duffy Pratt]

Copyright accrues upon the creation of the work. So the same thing would presumably true about a layered Photoshop file, which could be loaned out for a single use.

Before you can sue someone for infringement, you need to register the copyright. If you register at the time of creation, you may be able to recover presumptive damages and attorney fees.

The mark that people put on their work is more like a "Beware of Dog" sign than anything else.

Duffy