[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
VMs: copyrights
Hi all,
While it's true that there were no copyrights at the time we believe
the VMs to have been penned, the situation regarding *images* and
photographs is not nearly as simple as you or I'd like it to be. It
seems that the key concept here is that a photograph or negative is not
the same thing as what it records in its image.
U.S. copyright law as it pertains to images is quite complicated and
has been the subject of discussion on another list I read regularly,
rlhsgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Railway and Locomotive Historical Society.)
The ferroequinologists are quite concerned about copyright as it
pertains to photo and negative collections accumulated over the last
century.
From the last few weeks discussions of copyright and U.S. law:
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:11:31 -0500
From: "Davis, Peter" <davispn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: De Fazio message on publishing photographs
15 July 2003
Dear Tom et al,
I am both a railfan and a teacher of copyright law at the University
of Missouri-Columbia law school. I can answer some of your questions
about publishing old photographs. Here is a table I prepared for class
that indicates the present existence of copyrights for materials
created at any date. For works created after Jan. 1, 1978, publication
is not the basis for federal copyright protection; creation of the work
is, and the date of creation is the critical date for computing
copyright duration. For works created before that date, first
publication is the critical date for federal copyright protection.
Works published before Jan. 1, 1978, without a copyright notice affixed
are in the public domain. Unpublished works created before Jan. 1,
1978, are protected by state common law (not statutory) copyright. So
far as I can determine, unpublished works created before that date do
not fall into the public domain until published; such a common law
copyright on an unpublished work may last forever. (References are to
the Copyright Act of 1976 as amended, 17 U.S.C.; works published before
jan. 1, 1978, are still governed by the 1909 Copyright Act.)
Current copyright durations
works created after January 1, 1978: Life of author + 70 years [§
302(a)]
institutional & anonymous authors: 120 years from creation, or 95
years from first publication, whichever expires first [§ 302(c)]
works created before January 1, 1978, and and remaining unpublished
after January 1, 1978: Same as above [§ 303(a)]
expires not earlier than December 31, 2002 [25 years after effective
date of 1976 Act] [id.]
works created before January 1, 1978, and first published between
January 1, 1978, and December 31, 2002. Same as above. [§ 303(a)]
expires not earlier than December 31, 2047 [70 years from effective
date of 1976 Act] [id.]
works published after January 1, 1950 (in first 28-year term under
1909 Act): 28 years from first publication, voluntarily renewable for
an additional 67 years [§ 304(a)]
automatically renewed if published between January 1, 1964, and
December 31, 1977 (but voluntary renewal optional) [id.] [28 + 67
years == 95 years]
works published after January 1, 1922, and renewed before January 1,
1950 (in second 28-year term under 1909 Act): 95 years from first
publication [§ 304(b)]
copyright terms run to the end of the calendar year of expiration.
[§ 305]
So you can see from this chart that for photographs first published in
the early 1920's, there are three possibilities. If the photograph
never was published after creation in the 1920's, it is still protected
by state common law copyright. If it was published before Jan. 1, 1922
(with copyright notice affixed or protected by a blanket copyright
affixed to the work in which the photograph appears), it is in the
public domain. If it was published before that date with or without
copyright notice affixed, it is in the public domain. If it was
published with copyright notice affixed after Jan. 1, 1922, and if the
copyright was renewed under the 1909 Copyright Act at the end of the
first 28-year term, the copyright remains in effect for 95 years after
first publication. Those are the possibilities for photographs created
before 1922 or published after that date but in the 1920's. Sorry the
answer is so complicated.
Cheers, Pete Davis
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:10:33 -0500
From: "Davis, Peter" <davispn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: More on Photo Copyrights
22 July 2003
Let me comment further on photo copyrights. Arnold Menke states that
he thought that if you own an original negative taken by another
person, you have the right to reproduce or publish it. That is only
partially correct.
Before January 1, 1978, under the Copyright Act of 1909, transfer of
physical possession of a copyrighted work (the original painting,
photo, etc.) carried with it an implied transfer of title to the
copyright. (Unless the transfer was accompanied by a disclaimer of
copyright assignment.) Thus, purchase of an original photo negative
usually carried an assignment of the photographer's copyright in it.
This is true for all physical transfers prior to January 1, 1978.
For all physical transfers of copyrighted works after January 1, 1978,
there is no implied copyright assignment. The copyright remains with
the creator of the work even though he/she makes a physical transfer of
the work itself. Assignment of the copyright in the work must be done
by a separate document. (17 USC s. 202.) Thus, the purchaser of an
original negative after January 1, 1978, does not acquire the right to
reproduce or publish it unless the purchaser obtains an executed
copyrighted assignment from the photographer/seller.
Giving the photographer credit in the publication does not legally
immunize the contributor and publisher from liability for copyright
infringement unless the contributor has acquired title to the
copyright. It does, however, insulate the contributor and publisher
from liability for common law plagarism. (Plagarism is passing off a
work of another as his/her own; it is false attribution of origin.)
Peter N. Davis, Professor Emeritus of Law, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia
________________________________________________________________________
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 01:03 PM, steve ekwall wrote:
(sigh) hello?? (THERE WERE NO "copyright LAW '*.*'" back then!!!!
this "Script" * IS FOR EVERYONE here! (yes, -+- even YOU Too!) all
vms-listers/SeEkErS etc...*)
know ye just this/that,
"THAT THE/ITS "TIME IS *NOW*""
best to you & yours
-=se=-
steve (~whispering, & IT's "_older_ than you think"~) ekwall :-)
todays (current) "coPyrighTs?" MS4? is BACKHILL Battle.in.Time
frame(s) .GO back to working - on the _subject at hand!_ =v m s
B A S I C 's !!! "K*I*S*S" all!
-=se=->
That (above) "K*I*S*S" is just for those OVER THINKING "IT" etc..
R E L A X ! Brain-massage etc = 1 dollar $ :-)
<-=se=-
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list