Question about copyright-Any professionals in here?

motcon · Jul 28, 2003

this should help:

http://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/copyright/formalities_flow_chart.htm

junk250 · Jul 28, 2003

Thanks to everybody for entertaining my questions,I am now 99.9% sure they are public domain(even though in my private library),but I am afraid I now have more questions.So here I go...again!

#1 The Mona Lisa improvement scenario from previous postossibly still under copyright?That would explain why improved version would be questionable.

#2 The billboard improvement scenario from previous post: Billboard still under copyright,but what if 70 yrs old and public domain?

#3 The use of public domain for profit.An example I saw just today:A calender "for sale" that was a group of twelve 1930's vintage photos from a library archive(I assume public domain),but is the "compiled group" of public domain photos(the calender) covered by copyright?Thats a hum-dinger huh...,maybe the answer I'm looking for!Copyright a group?

#4 Copyright when "placed in tangible form",are the negs a tangible form,or the prints?I purchased negatives but no prints and as far as I know they were never printed,surely not publicly at least.Another hum-dinger huh!

MOTCON here is the B/W,(looks bad because It has been moved from one format to another over and over,and I started with a picture of the print because I didn't have a scanner,and I attempted to edit out a telephone pole that was right in the middle of pic).I would share more with you guys but I only had four printed and a friend of mine picked out the most interesting three and made an offer I could'nt refuse.So I'm showing the only print I have left until I fork out the bucks to have more printed,It's rather expensive since the negs are of an obsolete size.

metroshane · Jul 28, 2003

Once you click the shutter = put in tangible form

You can't copyright something already in public domain. I'm not sure about "improvements". Too bad we can't ask Andy Warhol. You'd probably need a copyright attorney for an interpretation given your specific scenerio because your questions are really different and very specific. And remember, an attorney gives you an interpretation not a guarantee. Anyone can still sue you for any reason at all. They may win or may not, but the law is always interpreted.

Yes you are allowed to profit from works in public domain...but so is everyone else.

Now, let's call a spade a spade. You want to sell these photos, possibly in a collection. Are you wanting to make sure you don't get sued or make sure someone doesn't steal them? Both? If you are serious and are planning on making a profit then consult an attorney. BTW, I think it's great. I'd rather see you publish and profit than lose them forever.

junk250 · Jul 28, 2003

METROSHANE,Andy Warhol...now theres food for thought,a hum-dinger!I have spent countless hours reading what MOTCON calls "light reading"(the copyright laws)and just keep getting more and more confused.I'm just "throwing it at the wall to see if it sticks".It would seem that the calender would have some copyright but I dont know,I forgot to look.Public domain photos published in books seem to be covered by"no part of this book may be reproduced without the express written consent of".It would be nice to think I had exclusive rights to something so interesting,but I hear you...maybe "just do it" applies here.

motcon · Jul 28, 2003

out of curiosity...how long has the person who created the negatives been deceased?

motcon · Jul 28, 2003

junk250 said:
#1 The Mona Lisa improvement scenario from previous postossibly still under copyright?That would explain why improved version would be questionable.

#2 The billboard improvement scenario from previous post: Billboard still under copyright,but what if 70 yrs old and public domain?

#3 The use of public domain for profit.An example I saw just today:A calender "for sale" that was a group of twelve 1930's vintage photos from a library archive(I assume public domain),but is the "compiled group" of public domain photos(the calender) covered by copyright?Thats a hum-dinger huh...,maybe the answer I'm looking for!Copyright a group?

#4 Copyright when "placed in tangible form",are the negs a tangible form,or the prints?I purchased negatives but no prints and as far as I know they were never printed,surely not publicly at least.Another hum-dinger huh!

#1 - original copyright is somewhat irrelevant here; people take photos of artwork everyday. what this person did was create a derivative work and claimed ownership of the derivative. the copyright law does address derivative works, but what is a derivative work? that is the problem here...as much of an ethical issue exists as well.

#2 - it is then a photograph of record in public domain.

#3 - let's put things into buckets here. when you send work(s) to be copyrighted, you can send in a 'volume'. this is usually done to pay the fee only once instead of 'x' times. this does not apply to the calendar scenario. the collecting of works in a published form can not be copyrighted; only the contents can. which brings us back to....you can't copyright the negs since you are not kin.

#4 - as already mentioned, shutter clicking = tangible form. another way of saying this is, 'ideas can not be copyrighted'.

motcon · Jul 28, 2003

by the way, i'd love to give you the answer that would make the clouds dissipate, but clearly i can't :/

Dew · Jul 28, 2003

i have an idea ... why not give credit to the orignal author and have them copyrighted for him?

... im sure as a photographer he felt strongly about his work .... that would be a perfect homage to pay to him

metroshane · Jul 29, 2003

Great idea Dew, but I don't think it's legally feasable.

Honestly I think you are ok with what you want to do.

Aliciaowens · Jun 30, 2022

When considering whether or whether to seek intellectual property protection and how to safeguard intellectual property rights, there are numerous aspects to consider. For the vast majority of businesses, identifying intellectual property that corresponds with their fundamental business strategy and determining the best means to protect that intellectual property is essential. All of these considerations may emerge, including whether the company's proprietary advancements should be patentable, copyrighted, or retained as a trade secret, as well as whether to seek any type of protection.