We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
groups.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

"lgb" wrote in message

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

After all that rigmarole, you gave Walmart your business anyway?

In article ,
lgb wrote:

We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
groups.

Technically, they are right. The original photographer *may* have all
his photos owned by his estate that has passed to relatives, or his/her
decendent who now runs that business. However, you're probably right
that the original is deceased. They are just "CTA" if something happened.

Work made for hire does not apply here. It only is a"work made for hire"
if a document is signed BEFORE the taking of the photos.

What really applies is "Fair Use" if anything does. You have a right to
make a copy for your own use, but not for others.

In the end you got what you wanted...but you could have scanned them if
you had a scanner and made copies or if a buddy had a scanner...

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

lgb wrote:
We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).


It is said to be a common problem at WalMart. Evidently, clerks have
been instructed not to make prints if a photo LOOKS as if it were made
by a pro. For me, that would be a problem: I am a pro, and most of my
photos, certainly those I make available for printing, look like it.
But, then, no professional would use WalMart, so they're truly
flattering themselves.

A 40 buck scanner and a 50 buck printer, and you can do as well, quite
possibly better. If you really want to do business with WalMart, buy
the scanner and printer from them, though I think Staples usually has
better prices--at least Staples' sales are truly sales.

In article ,
lgb wrote:
We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

Copyright law *is* a swamp. Most of the swamp revolves around what
is, and is not, "fair use" exemption, however. You're lucky -- that is
-not- an issue in your situation.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken.

True, as far as that goes. *However* subsequent legislation has muddied
the waters _considerably_.

And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission ...

Unfortunately, irrelevant. "Unable to identify" and/or "unable to contact"
the copyright owner is not a defense to copyright infringement.

... even if they had been copyrighted.


Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Portrait studio, etc. photos are *NOT* works "done for hire", unless it
_specifically_ states in the contract with the photographer that they
are such.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

The professional photographer who took them may have a different viewpoint.
wry grin

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Ownership rights in 'studio' photography works are _long_ established.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

"studio" (and other types of professional) photography _is_ "commercial work".

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
lgb wrote:
We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

Copyright law *is* a swamp. Most of the swamp revolves around what
is, and is not, "fair use" exemption, however. You're lucky -- that is
-not- an issue in your situation.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken.

True, as far as that goes. *However* subsequent legislation has muddied
the waters _considerably_.

And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission ...

Unfortunately, irrelevant. "Unable to identify" and/or "unable to contact"
the copyright owner is not a defense to copyright infringement.

... even if they had been copyrighted.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

The professional photographer who took them may have a different viewpoint.
wry grin

Yabbut there needs to be a limit, and it should be specified. As an
example, I've got an old photo of me that my mother used to have. It
was taken when I was 2 or 3 years old by an itinerant pro photographer
who wandered through neighborhoods and showed up at block parties,
always with a pony in train. He'd pop the kid on the pony, shoot a
flash fill photo, get an address and a couple, three bucks, and pop the
next kid on, etc. Pretty good money for the day, really, but that day
was 1940 or 1941.

He's almost certainly dead, but is certainly unlocatable. I live
hundreds of miles away now, etc.

If I wanted, say, WalMart to copy the photo, it's well enough done for
them to be a PITA about it, but the concept that it has commercial
value is slightly ludicrous.

Ah well. Olan Mills just did the photos for a directory at my wife's
church. At their prices, we get just enough for family, period.
Something else that's ludicrous is pay $150 for two or three 5x7s and a
dozen wallet sized photos. If I want more, I'll set up a background in
the shop and do it myself, duplicating the lighting and positioning.
Except my lights are better, as is my camera.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:17:46 -0700, lgb wrote:

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

A few years ago, I was in charge of producing a monthly newsletter for
my church, and had the same sort of run-in with Kinko's. They were
very concerned that I had submissions from others in the group
included, and would not make the copies until I got ahold of the
manager, and signed a liability waiver. I think that is just where
it's at these days- you're probably better off just buying your own
scanner/printer combo.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

I think the phrase "You can't fight City Hall" applies here.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

They should just hand you that form when you tell them you want
copies- instead of making you stand there and explain why you're not a
criminal. It'd make a whole lot more sense to me, but then again, I'm
not a lawyer...

lgb wrote:
We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
groups.

A few years ago my boss came in with an ad he cut out of
the paper. The ad had a family portrait taken at his
grandparents anniversary. Apparently the photographers
estate had sold the originals at some time and the
picture had been picked up and used for a "commercial
purpose". So there may be some commercial value in the
photographers work.

Bill Gill

In article ,
says...
"lgb" wrote in message

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

After all that rigmarole, you gave Walmart your business anyway?

I'd already made the copies. The brouhaha started when I went up to pay
for them.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article ,
says...
n the end you got what you wanted...but you could have scanned them if
you had a scanner and made copies or if a buddy had a scanner...

They get 37 cents for each 4x6 and the quality is superior to anything I
could do with my scanner and printer. And I suspect the cost to me of
photo paper and ink could well be more than 37 cents.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Bill Gill wrote:
lgb wrote:
We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
groups.

A few years ago my boss came in with an ad he cut out of
the paper. The ad had a family portrait taken at his
grandparents anniversary. Apparently the photographers
estate had sold the originals at some time and the
picture had been picked up and used for a "commercial
purpose". So there may be some commercial value in the
photographers work.

Actually, without a model release, the estate has no business selling
photographs of recognizable people. It is actionable.

This is becoming a problem in many photo processing outlets, not just
Wal Mart. Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/business...C06-225211.htm

"Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits
and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a
photographer's permission. In the old days, questions about an image's
provenance could be settled with a negative. If you had it, you
probably had the right to reproduce it.

"Now, when images are submitted on CDs or memory cards or over the Web,
photofinishers often have to guess whether a picture was truly taken by
the customer -- or whether it was scanned into a computer or pilfered
off the Internet."

Guess your Wal Mart doesn't trust prints, either.

lgb wrote:
We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

Maybe it's just me but I find copyright law to be pretty clear and
easy to understand. Not so for many other areas.


First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.


"Works for hire" isn't a gray area at all. The law is quite plain,
it is the term of art "works for hire" that is confusing because
that particular doctrine typically does NOT apply when you hire
someone to creat a work of art for you. "Works for hire" actually
are works done by your employee, not by an independendant contractor
you hire. The doctrine should be called "works by employees" to
avoid the confusion.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

The purpose of the law is to protect the rights of the creator of
a creative work.


If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.


I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
international standard.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.


If you Google through the archives of the rec.photo and misc.legal
heirarchies you will find this is often cussed and discussed.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I expect you are too. I cannot fault WalMart for wanting to obey the
law, signing form is a trivial thing to ask of you.

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

--

FF

Robert Bonomi wrote:
...

And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission ...

Unfortunately, irrelevant. "Unable to identify" and/or "unable to contact"
the copyright owner is not a defense to copyright infringement.

Ah but ignorance on the part of the copyright holder of the
infringement
is even better than a legal defense. He can't sue if he doesn't know
there was a violation.

In many respects it IS like furniture or jigs and fixtures. If you
make an exact copy of someone's furniture or a patented jig or
fixture for your own personal use you hav violated someone's
intellectual property rights. But unless you tell them you've
done that (like by bragging about it on rec.woodworking) you're
pretty much safe from retribution.

But you might see a class-action suit against WalMart if WalMart
were to routinely copy such photos. Heck, their present policy
might be part of the settlement from a previous class-action suit.

--

FF

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:17:46 -0700, lgb wrote:

some lugnut at Walmart was pulling your chain..
take them to Costco or Sam's Club and get them done right and without a hassle..

We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I also posted this in rec.gardens - my apologies to those who read both
groups.



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

writes:


[...]

I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
international standard.

In other parts of the world people get under the impression that "the
international standard" is set by the US law and the US government
trying to enforce it everywhere...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

wrote:

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think. And Disney is probably one of the most aggressive
policers of their trademarks and copyrights in the world. That's all
they've really got, plus a warehouse full of old cartoons and a
reputation (not always deserved) fo rmaking good family movies.

Juergen Hannappel wrote:
writes:


[...]


I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
international standard.


In other parts of the world people get under the impression that "the
international standard" is set by the US law and the US government
trying to enforce it everywhere...
No.............. not under the impression under the facts.
When Australia negotiated the recent free trade agreement with the USA
one of the conditions was that we bought our copyright legislation into
line with the USA. One example, we now have death + 75 years instead of
50 years for copyright expiry. Oh well such is life when your the 51st
State
regards
John

In article .com,
Charlie Self wrote:


wrote:

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think.

*NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
_anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
Disney's works.

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:17:46 -0700, lgb wrote:

some lugnut at Walmart was pulling your chain..
take them to Costco or Sam's Club and get them done right and without a
hassle..


Actually, they're not really pulling his chain mac. I don't think the clerk
was right in this particular case, since the photo had no copyright (or
related) information on it, but in a more general sense, Walmart is right in
the way they handle the copyright issue. As the OP indicated, all he had to
do was to sign a document that stated blah, blah, blah...

--

-Mike-

Juergen Hannappel wrote:
writes:


[...]

I quite agree with you that it will not do any good. Surely you read
about the Berne Conventions. US Copyright largely law adheres to an
international standard.

In other parts of the world people get under the impression that "the
international standard" is set by the US law and the US government
trying to enforce it everywhere...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Hmm, maybe Berne was annexed using "emminent domain" sometime when I
wasn't paying attention.

--

FF

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article .com,
Charlie Self wrote:


wrote:

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think.

*NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
_anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
Disney's works.

ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."

IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark,
rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to
represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing
sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

--

FF

In article ,
says...
As the OP indicated, all he had to
do was to sign a document that stated blah, blah, blah...

Of course they didn't mention that until they'd pulled my chain with "we
can't let you copy that", "don't argue, you're on camera", and similar
bull****. Let's just say I won't be using that facility again.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

"lgb" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
As the OP indicated, all he had to
do was to sign a document that stated blah, blah, blah...

Of course they didn't mention that until they'd pulled my chain with "we
can't let you copy that", "don't argue, you're on camera", and similar
bull****. Let's just say I won't be using that facility again.


Don't argue, you're on camera? Tell me - you *did* moon the camera didn't
you? That's too much - don't argue, you're on camera...

--

-Mike-

All very nice & legal . . . however . . .

There was a recent article in the local paper {Philadelphia Inquirer} where
the columnist ran into the same problem at a local WalMart. The excuse for
the refusal to give him his prints so ticked him off that he made it the
subject of a column.

The reason they wouldn't give him his prints was because . . . "they look
TOO GOOD . . .". In the opinion of the "$6.oo-an-hour, minimal IQ,
photographic moron, clerk" anything 'this good' had to be 'Professional' as
opposed to the work of someone with maybe 10+ years of experience with
various cameras.

With the magnitude leaps in technology the 'film' camera is in danger of
becoming 'extinct', or at the very least, 'endangered'. {Recently I found
that my 35mm Nikon equipment is almost valueless. A rapid decrease from as
recently as a year ago - when I sold a Nikkormat for $100}. I then sold off
ALL my Mamiya TLR equipment . . . the camera went for almost nothing, the
lenses brought in the money.} What caused this is obvious . . . the 'Digital
Age'.

I've had a *simple* digital camera for several years. I used it like a
'visual notebook'. Illustrating 'work in progress' for my self or for the
'e-zine' column I write, making note of a particular detail on a boat at
Mystic Seaport, or to e-mail a photo to ebay. An H-P, it was so inexpensive
that it was under $50 if purchased with a external drive - that I intended
to get anyway. A few months ago it was bumped off a table. It would no
longer 'transfer' the images to the memory card. Rather than repair it {it
was considered 'obsolete' anyway}I looked for a new one . . . more like my
Nikons. Anyhow - it was a revelation !! I finally found what I wanted . . .
it was a 'discontinued' model - probably because it was so very similar to a
35mm SLR. I also found out a few things. The 'trained' clerks in most of the
'Photo Shops' had NO IDEA what 'Rangefinder' meant. They had also redefined
'SLR' {single-lens-reflex}. Where this ties in with the subject at hand is
the LITERATURE.

Looking in the library, getting a few {deeply discounted}books, {and later
even the owners manual of the camera} - I got myself up-dated in the
'Digital Era'. ALL THESE BOOKS - 'How To . .', 'Technique . .', 'Using .
..' - after a few pages that define the physical differences between 'film'
and 'digital' - then go on for three-quarters of their length with the SAME
words, illustrations, tips, etc on Composition, Lighting, Portraits,
Landscapes, etc. as ALL of the 'FILM PHOTOGRAPHY' that has gone before.

A good photographer with a good 'eye' . . . is a good photographer with a
good eye . . . PERIOD !! The particular camera is his 'tool' - no mater it
be 35mm, 2-1/4, 4x5, or Digital.

Nobody is going to go to WalMart, K-Mart, or any of the other -marts, to get
a photo/digital image copied that they are then going to publish in a book,
or magazine, or TV commercial for some insane amount of profit. Our society
maybe litigious, but this crap is just an exercise in 'abuse of power' for
that twit of a clerk, and a way for corporate lawyers to justify their
existence and obscene salary's.

Rant Off . . .

Regards & Thanks for the 'soapbox',
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop


"Dhakala" wrote in message
oups.com...
This is becoming a problem in many photo processing outlets, not just
Wal Mart. Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/business...C06-225211.htm

"Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits
and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a
photographer's permission. In the old days, questions about an image's
provenance could be settled with a negative. If you had it, you
probably had the right to reproduce it.

"Now, when images are submitted on CDs or memory cards or over the Web,
photofinishers often have to guess whether a picture was truly taken by
the customer -- or whether it was scanned into a computer or pilfered
off the Internet."

Guess your Wal Mart doesn't trust prints, either.

I represent a number of professional photographers in Canada and in the USA.

In both countries,

Copyright is automatically assigned to the photographer with two
exceptions...

1. The photographer is taking the picture un the course of his employment.
(In this case the copyright belongs to the employer).

2. There is a specific written agreement, between the photographer and
client, that assigns the copyright to a third party.

When you hire a photographer, you do not become his employer and, therefore,
are not entitled to an automatic copyright.

Copyright is automatic, in favour of the photographer, upon production
(prints, digital images etc.,) of the photograph.

Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.

A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has
no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish
copyright.

Copyright does not expire when the photographer dies. The copyright becomes
the property of the photographer's estate and remains valid for 75 years
following his death.

Almost all photographs have "Commercial Value" even if it is just the value
obtained from selling further copies of the work.

In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for at
least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will be
actionable.

Many large volumes photofinishers have already been caught in this web. It
is probably unreasonable to ask them to accept the risks of litigation in
exchange for the dollar or two that they will make on duplicating an image.

If you are comfortable signing their "hold harmless" waiver, then you "pays
your money and takes your chances."


Fleet

wrote in message
IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark,
rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to
represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing
sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

IIUC, they can be both. The character may be a part of a logo or represent a
particular business as a trademark, but in the Sunday funnies, that strip
would be protected under copyright. OTOH, a character that happens to
appears in a strip would not necessarily be used as a trademark.

Clint Eastwood's work in copyrighted, but he is not a trademark. Alfred
Hitchcock's work is copyrighted, but his profile is trademarked.

"Peter McCormick" wrote in message

In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for
at
least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will
be
actionable.

OK, the law is the law and I'm not going to dispute it, but what do you do
as a practical matter?

You have an old family photo take by a professional about 55 years ago.
There is a good probability the photographer is dead as he would be 75+
years old, maybe over 100. His business has been long gone, closed up
probably 40+ years ago. No one can recall his name as we were only kids and
our parents and grandparents are also long gone. The copyright would still
be in effect if any of the unknown heirs are alive.

How do you go about getting the photo copied?

Edwin Pawlowski (in ) said:

| How do you go about getting the photo copied?

D'you suppose I should work up a plan for a wooden copy easel so you
can take pictures of your pictures? The commercial jobs can be fairly
expensive but shouldn't be all that difficult to build in a home
shop...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Charlie Self wrote:

wrote:

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).


It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think. And Disney is probably one of the most aggressive
policers of their trademarks and copyrights in the world. That's all
they've really got, plus a warehouse full of old cartoons and a
reputation (not always deserved) fo rmaking good family movies.


Ah, the poor people. Don't know the difference
between trademarks, trade names, copyrights,
patents, etc.

In article ,
says...
Under current legislation, virtually ALL photographs are copyright.

A written notice of copyright, on the image or on the back of the image, has
no effect on the assignment of copyright and is not required to establish
copyright.

But these photos weren't made under current law - they were made under
the copyright laws of 1909 or thereabouts. Those laws did require the
photographer to stamp the photo if he wanted it copyrighted.

Since none of these bore such a stamp, it is a logical assumption that
the photographer did not care to copyright them.

The fact the current law may have changed the status of these photos
only goes to show how asinine Congress can be. Isn't there something in
the Constitution about post facto laws?

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

If there is, it's routinely ignored.
"lgb" wrote in message
...

Constitution about post facto laws?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Peter McCormick" wrote in message

In short, if you did not take the photograph and are not certain, to the
point of being able to proove it, that the photographer has been dead for
at
least 75 years -- There is a very good chance that making that copy will
be
actionable.

OK, the law is the law and I'm not going to dispute it, but what do you do
as a practical matter?

You have an old family photo take by a professional about 55 years ago.
There is a good probability the photographer is dead as he would be 75+
years old, maybe over 100. His business has been long gone, closed up
probably 40+ years ago. No one can recall his name as we were only kids and
our parents and grandparents are also long gone. The copyright would still
be in effect if any of the unknown heirs are alive.

How do you go about getting the photo copied?

Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
can find his heirs to get their permission.

Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.

--

FF

CW wrote:
If there is, it's routinely ignored.
"lgb" wrote in message
...

Constitution about post facto laws?



It's not ignored, like 'legal tender' it simply does not mean what
many people think it means. 'Ex post facto' and retroactive, for
example, are not the same same thing.

It _may_ be that the copyrights, once relenquished as described,
were NOT restored in 1977 or whenever the law was changed to conform
to the Berne Conventions. I dunno about that.

--

FF

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski (in ) said:

| How do you go about getting the photo copied?

D'you suppose I should work up a plan for a wooden copy easel so you
can take pictures of your pictures? The commercial jobs can be fairly
expensive but shouldn't be all that difficult to build in a home
shop...

Pretty much what I did. I used my frame for holding photo paper under the
eenlarger. It was also a good excuse to buy a close up lens.

wrote in message

Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
can find his heirs to get their permission.

Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.

--

FF

..Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it.
While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be
some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family
photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message

Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
can find his heirs to get their permission.

Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.

--

FF


.Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it.
While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be
some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family
photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.


I agree, even more strongly. The latest change in
copyright and patent law are contrary to the
original idea. Most of the changes seem to be
aimed, not at the artists, but at the producers,
e.g., record companies, recording studios,
computer programs etc. Extending the right well
beyond the the death of the originator is counter
productive to protecting the inventiveness of
artists and scientific progress. The original
patent and copyright laws were to the point
(artists and inventors) but the changes have
changed the focal point to salesmen and
distributors who contribute little.

In article . com,
wrote:


Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article .com,
Charlie Self wrote:


wrote:

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think.

*NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
_anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
Disney's works.

ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."

No, I meant _exactly_ what I said. Referencing the 'creative work'.

It is no different than a used car dealer selling "Ford" automobiles.

Using the trademarked name, to refer to the trademark owner's item is *not*
infringement (or 'dilution') of the trademark.

Producing a 'new' work, using the trademarked character _would_ be violation
of trademark.

Reproducing the _trademark_owner's_ work is *not* _trademark_ infringement,
Unless you are representing that is something other than the trademark owner's
work.


IMHO, cartoon characters SHOULD be protected under trademark,
rather than copyright. SOME cartoon characters, when used to
represent a commercial entity, like caricatures representing
sports teams ARE treated as trademarks.

Trademark *alone* is not sufficient protection.
*NEITHER* is copyright, alone.

You need trademark to prevent people from creating their own works using the
character.

You need copyright to prevent people from copying _your_ works.

There's a bunch of case-law on this -- a lot from the newspaper cartoon-strip
field.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:


Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article .com,
Charlie Self wrote:


wrote:

BTW, I bet you never asked a baker to make you a cake with an image of
picture of MIckey Mouse in the icing. It seems there is some damn
Mickey Mouse protection in Copyright law (thanks to the late Sonny
Bono).

It's a trademark, not a copyright, in the case of the mouse and
friends, I think.

*NO*. "The Mouse" was a big issue driving the last couple of extensions
of the duration of _copyright_. Early Disney works -- e.g. "Steamboat Willy"
were about to run out of eligibility for copyright protection. Meaning that
_anybody_ could duplicate and sell those works. Would *not* be a trademark
infringement issue, as long as they represented what they were selling _as_
Disney's works.

ITYM "as long as they did NOT represent what ..."

No, I meant _exactly_ what I said. Referencing the 'creative work'.

That makes no sense. In the example as stated, the cakes were not
being baked by Disney. Refering to them as being Disney's work
absolutely would be infringement (also fraud).

--

FF

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message

Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
can find his heirs to get their permission.

Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.

--

FF

.Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it.
While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be
some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family
photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.

'Actionable' I think, is the preferred term since the sort of
copying you intend would not rise to criminal conduct.

Your 'defense' is practical, rather than legal. That is to say
the 'wronged' party, even if still alive, most likely will remain
forever ignorant of the infringement. And if not, most likely
will not care.

--

FF