DailyDirt: Can't Believe Everything You See...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Digital cameras have really made the field of photography much more approachable. Even monkeys can take some pretty decent photos. So how hard can it really be to take some nice shots? Here are just a few projects that show a bit of the spectrum of artful photography.

• If you want the subjects of your photos to look really small, take a picture of them next to a really big coin. Remember: it's not counterfeiting if you make coins the size of a coffee table... [url]
• Tilt-shift photographic effects can be created in a few different ways -- to fabricate images of a crowd of people, looking like ants. Someday this is what The Sims will look like. [url]
• If you think photography is easy, get ready to be mocked. If you like seeing photos with really bad composition and cheesy photoshop effects, youarenotaphotographer is the blog for you. [url]
• Who knew that photos of pregnant women could become an internet meme like planking? Thankfully, there don't seem to be any photos of pregnant women planking. [url]
• To discover more interesting photography-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  
By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: cameras, cheesy, photography, photoshop, photoshopping, pregnant, tilt-shift

Judge Slams Photographer For Bogus Copyright Lawsuit: Says Use Some Common Sense, Points Out 'Utter Lack Of Similarity'

from the nicely-done dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about a ridiculous lawsuit from photographer Janine Gordon against fellow photographer Ryan McGinley. Gordon claimed copyright infringement, despite the photos not really being very similar at all. Here are a few examples:


Thankfully, a judge has wasted little time in getting rid of this lawsuit and making it clear that the whole thing was pretty stupid, noting that basic common sense says that this is not copyright infringement:

In this case, the dictates of good eyes and common sense lead inexorably to the conclusion that there is no substantial similarity between Plaintiff’s works and the allegedly infringing compositions of McGinley. Although the Court declines to conduct an exhaustive inventory of the 150 allegedly infringing images, a representative sample illustrates and confirms this result.

From there, the judge picks a few of the images, and notes just how different they are. For example, he compares these two images: According to Gordon, this was "the most blatant" of the infringing images. The court doesn't buy it. After noting that, indeed, both images show men suspended in front of a cloudy sky with a bent arm, it goes on to point out:

But there the similarity ends. The Gordon Image is black and white and vertical, while the McGinley Image is in full color and horizontal. The Gordon figure is clothed in a short-sleeve T-shirt, dark pants, and tennis shoes; his hair is closely shorn. The McGinley figure is clothed in a longsleeve shirt and shorts and is barefoot; his hair is medium-length. Plaintiff attempts to obscure these “peripheral” differences by cropping and rotating the Gordon Image and converting the McGinley image to black and white. (Pl.’s Opp’n 18.) But not even these alterations can reconcile the “total concept and overall feel” of the two images. The Gordon figure is muscular and taut, with not one but both arms splayed in a gesture of virile triumph. The look on his face is intent, perhaps even defiant. The McGinley figure is slender and his posture relaxed, with both legs floating apart rather than clenched together. His head drapes to one shoulder and a dreamy look inhabits his face as he falls through the frame. Thus, the overall feel of the McGinley Image is that of a passive figure simply surrendering to gravity, while the overall feel of the Gordon Image derives from a dynamic figure jumping into the frame. No dissection of the images is required to discern the “utter lack of similarity” between the two.

Later, the judge notes that Gordon repeatedly "alters" images to try to make her infringement case stronger, and also notes that she has a "penchant for strained image descriptions."

The judge also berates Gordon for relying on a battery of "experts" who even admit they don't know much about copyright law:

Moreover, the substance of the expert affidavits simply underscores the infirmity of Plaintiff’s infringement claim. Several experts profess a belief that Plaintiff should prevail in this action while disavowing any familiarity with copyright law. (See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. B, Aff. of Dan Cameron, June 27, 2011, ¶ 4 (“I do not pretend to understand all the legal complexities of Ms. Gordon’s case”); id., Ex. F, Aff. of Volker Diehl, June 29, 2011, ¶ 9 (“I am unfamiliar with laws surrounding this issue, in particular the laws of the United States as it pertains to such causes of action”).) Another opines on the contours of “fine art ethics” (id., Ex. D, Aff. of Heather Holden, June 24, 2011, ¶ 12) and acknowledges that art expertise “may be needed” to discern the relationship between the images at issue (id., Ex. D., Holden Aff., ¶ 11). What is clear from the foregoing expert testimony is not that Plaintiff should prevail in this action, but that the remedy for the instant dispute lies in the court of public or expert opinion and not the federal district court.

Finally, after repeating, once again, that "good eyes and common sense" say there's no infringement, the court also points out that "not all copying results in copyright infringement" and that:

Plaintiff's apparent theory of infringement would assert copyright interests in virtually any figure with outstretched arms, any interracial kiss, or any nude female torso. Such a conception of copyright law has no basis in statute, case law, or common sense, and its application would serve to undermine rather than promote the most basic forms of artistic expression.

Additionally, the court is somewhat shocked that an artist would make such claims, and finds it even more ridiculous that her lawyers agreed to go forward with it:

One might have hoped that Plaintiff - an artist - would have understood as much, or that her attorneys, presumably familiar with the basic tenets of copyright and intellectual property law, would have recognized the futility of this action before embarking on a long, costly, and ultimately wasteful course of litigation in a court of law.

It's a nice clean ruling. It's just too bad the court had to waste time with it at all.

Filed Under: copyright, janine gordon, photography, ryan mcginley

If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'

from the artistic-copying dept

Okay. I'm going to say right from the top that I expect some (not all) photographers are going to read this and get very angry. I'm going to try to explain myself as carefully as possible to make my point clear, because it's not what many people are going to jump to a conclusion about. That is, I am not saying that photography is not art. I believe that photography absolutely is art -- and it's an artform I love. At one time in my life, I spent more time in a dark room than was healthy (perhaps literally, given some of those chemicals), and even pondered pursuing photography as a career. What I am going to say, however, is that it seems like there's a bit of a double standard when it comes to photographers, copyright and fair use on transformative and/or derivative works.

In the time I spend talking about copyright issues, it's always seemed that it was a certain group of photographers who get much more worked up about these things than anyone else. I very much understand why this is. In many cases, photographers are self-employed, and they've come to believe that copyright is their sole way of making a living (I believe they're wrong on this, but they believe it strongly). So anything that takes away from copyright protections -- including such legally enshrined issues as fair use -- are seen as being serious threats. Again, I think this is somewhat short-sighted and wrong, but I understand where the feelings come from.

We recently wrote about Andy Baio's legal fight with Jay Maisel over Baio's use of a pixelated version of Maisel's photograph of Miles Davis that became the iconic album cover for Kind of Blue. When I wrote that, I fully expected that many photographers would come to Maisel's defense, even as much of the internet commentary sided (heavily) with Baio (including some from photographers). There were, of course, also some very thoughtful discussions from some photographers, who disagreed with Baio's fair use analysis and presented reasonable explanations for why they did not believe his use would be covered as fair use. I disagree with their analysis, and think that the fair use case here is quite strong, but fair use is a funny thing and it very often comes down to the whims of the judge on the case.

However, there is one argument I've seen in numerous places by photographers that strikes me as either incredibly self-unaware, or just downright hypocritical. There were a few such comments on our post about it, such as this one that insisted that since you could still recognize the photo, Andy "didn't turn it into something different." Similarly, a photographer by the name of William Beem (and I really don't mean to single out Mr. Beem, but to use his comments as a sample of the general argument) commented a few times on a post by Mathew Ingram about this whole affair, again arguing vehemently that there's no fair use here and that Andy "stole" the image. For example, Beem states the following:

Andy took something that wasn’t his and he didn’t have any license or right to take it. Digital or physical, that’s theft. Your argument that Jay Maisel still has the original is true, so Andy stole a copy. It’s still not his. The image is recognizable as the original. All rights to that image belong with the copyright holder, whether original or duplicated.

Saying that all art is derivative in some way is very nebulous.

It's this form of argument that I find incredibly hypocritical. The whole "took something that wasn't his." What did Baio (or, really, the guy he hired) do? He copied an image that he saw, but did so in a different and artistic way. What did Maisel do to make his photograph: he copied the scene of Miles Davis in front of him, but did so in a different and artistic way. It's the same thing any photographer does. Part of the very process of photographing is, literally, making a copy, often without a "license" from whatever it is you're making a copy of. Again, that doesn't make it any less art. In fact, the reason that photographs are considered eligible for copyright protection at all (and some have questioned this) is because of the artistic choices in making a photograph: how it was framed, lighting, etc. Yet, in the pixelated image, again, there are similar artistic choices made: how to pixelate the image. How to still make it look good, but within the limitations of the pixelated artform, etc.

Some have, incorrectly, assumed that you could just apply a filter to the original image and get out the pixelated version that Baio used. This is false. You can see, pretty obviously, just from looking at the tie, that the guy who made the pixelated image didn't just Photoshop it, but found a way to recreate the general feel of the original image, but within the artform of pixelated images. You could just as easily argue that Maisel found a way to recreate the general feel of Miles Davis performing, but within the artform of photography. If you don't understand this, you can see if you look at an actual attempt to run a Photoshop filter on Maisel's original, the result is quite different. Furthermore, as David Liu pointed out, a scaled down version of an image is quite different than a hand-pixelated image, and in the case of Kind of Bloop, the image was hand-pixelated, using all sorts of artistic choices by the artist.

What I have trouble with is the argument that this is different than photography. In both cases, you have artists who took something that was out there -- something they did not create -- and then turned it into an artform. In Maisel's case, it was taking the real, physical 3D Miles Davis performing, and turning it into a photograph. In Baio's case, it was taking the Maisel photo, and turning it into an 8-bit image in homage to the original.

Photography, by its very nature, starts with simply copying what's on the other side of the lens. Yes, there is more to it on top of that. There are all sorts of artistic choices to be made about how to copy. How to frame, how to focus, how to light, how to shade, how to dodge, how to print, etc. That's what makes it an artform. But it's incredibly hypocritical to then decry others similarly making a copy, with similar artistic choices, by somehow claiming that that version of copying is "theft." So, photographers, please don't be so quick to decry other artforms that also start with copying, but which also then apply additional artistic choices. If Jay Maisel's photograph of Miles Davis is unique and original artwork (and I believe it is), then so is the cover of Andy Baio's album.

Filed Under: 8-bit, andy baio, art, copying, copyright, culture, jay maisel, photography, pixelation

Federal Officials Finally Admit That Photographing Federal Buildings Is Not A Crime

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

There is nothing against the law about photographing federal buildings from public property. And yet, there have been plenty of stories about security guards and law enforcement trying to block photographers from taking those shots. There have been stories of seized cameras, demands to delete photos, etc., and the usual defense is that they're just "protecting against terrorism." However, after a settlement in a lawsuit concerning a guy who was arrested for videotaping outside the Federal courthouse in NY, Homeland Security has issued a notice to federal employees not to disrupt the photographing of federal buildings. An excerpt from the now released document (which is fully embedded below):

For properties under the protective jurisdiction of FPS, there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography of any federally owned or leased building, absent a written local rule or regulation established by a Court Security Committee or Facility Security Committee. Furthermore, it is important to understand that this regulation does not prohibit photography by individuals of the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible spaces such as streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas.... Absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, law enforcement and security personnel and (sic) must allow individuals to photograph the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible space.

The report does say they can go speak to the photographer to determine the purpose of the photography if they believe it's warranted. However, unless they establish a higher bar of suspicion, they need to allow the photography to continue. They also are not allowed to seize cameras and cannot demand that a photographer delete the contents of the camera.

Filed Under: federal buildings, photography

Erotic Art Museum Comes Up With Bizarre Justification For Suing Photographer For $2 Million

from the that-doesn't-sound-legal dept

Davis Freeberg pointed us to a blog post on Thomas Hawk's website, about how he was being sued for $2 million by the World Erotic Art Museum. However, if you click that link, you'll get a 404, as Hawk appears to have taken down the blog post (perhaps because the Museum was not happy about it). However, as of this posting, you can still find a copy of the posting via Google's cache, though who knows how long that will last.

Hawk's version of the story is that he went to the museum, took a bunch of photos and uploaded them to Flickr and the museum got upset about it. Since it's missing, I'll repost the pertinent info here:

The World Erotic Art Museum in Miami is trying to sue me for a minimum of $2 million for posting photographs that I took in their Museum on Flickr.

Below is most of the complaint that the museum's attorney has filed against me this morning in Federal Court. In the complaint they accuse me of violating their policy stated at their entrance saying that the museum prohibits professional or flash photography.

I saw no sign when I visited the museum.

However, I took no flash photographs in the museum, and Flickr (where I posted the images) is strictly defined as a non-commercial photosharing site. I have not sold any images of that I took at the museum and I have not profited one cent on any the images that I posted on Flickr. What's more the complaint says "at no time did Plaintiff or Plaintiff's agents give express or implied permission or authorization to Defendant to take the photographs." This is a bald faced lie. One of the employees at the museum in fact approached both me, and my friend Mo, who were taking photos to talk to us about them. He specifically asked me if I was making a book and I said no. He said fine and we continued photographing in the museum at the time.

Further Flickr explicitly describes itself as a non-commercial site. This is not professional photography.

[...]

Further the museum filed a DMCA request fraudulently and had flickr remove many images that they do not in fact own copyright to. In fact most of the images that they had flickr remove they do not own copyright on.

All of this seems rather bizarre. If the DMCA takedown claim is accurate, it sounds especially ridiculous, and almost certainly against the law, and could lead to fines against the museum, if Hawk wishes to take it that far.

The folks over at Gizmodo spoke to the museum to get its side of the story, and the museum owner there did not do herself any favors, initially claiming that Hawk lied, and then giving one of the most bizarre defenses for a bogus lawsuit we've heard in a while:

While WEAM allows media and photographers to enter the premise and take photographs, it's with the unspoken and unwritten understanding that no one would ever post anything explicit--especially not visuals involving penetration--online. By posting 334 photos--which Wilzig claims the museum was not aware he took--Hawk failed to respect this understanding and gave WEAM no choice: They had to do what "no one else had the money or guts to do."

Wilzig explained that she feels that by posting his photographs on Flickr, Hawk put WEAM at risk of "exposing [its] art work to young people" and made it appear as if he somehow represented the museum. This meant that WEAM had to stop what Wilzig describes as an "unsavory character" and the way to do it was to make an impression.

So the museum, on its attorney's advice, threatened Hawk with a $2 million lawsuit.

According to Wilzig, this was not done in an intent to make a profit off the situation, but because it was important to let Hawk know that WEAM was serious about pursuing the matter. Wilzig says that there is currently negotiation between WEAM's legal representation and Hawk--who was unable to comment on this whole matter as he was busy seeking legal advice--regarding how to settle the whole mess.

So much to comment on here. First up, if there's an "unspoken and unwritten understanding" that people wouldn't post such things, then there's no legal claim at all that you can legitimately file for someone breaking that "understanding." There's certainly no agreement or breach of an agreement. To then try to cook up other reasons to sue Hawk seems really sneaky and disingenuous.

The idea that people might think he represented the museum also seems like a stretch. Basically the lawyers try to tie some sort of common law trademark claim against Hawk, but it seems unlikely that there would be much actual confusion among those who find the images, and the owner has already admitted that her real concern had little to do with viewer confusion.

The full filing seems to get a number of basic things incorrect. It claims that Hawk sold the images, but he claims that's simply untrue. The copyright claim is also a bit strange. It's possible that the museum could own the copyright on some of the pieces in the museum, but apparently much of the work in the museum is quite old, and any copyright would clearly now be in the public domain. Also, according to Freeberg, at least one of the images complained about was a "8 ft tall fiber glass phallus to be used for customers to take a photo souvenir." That would certainly suggest a pretty clear implied license that it's okay to photograph. On top of that, it does not appear that the museum actually registered the copyright on any of the works, if it actually holds the copyright at all, meaning that its ability to sue for damages (as it appears to be doing) would be severely limited.

Basically, this looks like a museum that got upset because it didn't want images online, and then came up with a bunch of highly questionable claims over which to sue, just to show Hawk that it "was serious." That's not how the legal system is supposed to be used. While Hawk took down the post, hopefully he's getting good legal advice on how to respond.

Filed Under: copyright, photography, thomas hawk, trademark
Companies: world erotic art museum

Would Photography Have Been Different If It Had Been Patented Up?

from the who-needs-patents? dept

Reader Murdoch points us to one of Wired's regular "this day in tech" history pieces about how Louis Daguerre revealed all of the "secrets" to making daguerrotypes, which was the basis for photography, in 1839. Rather than a "patent" to lock up the offering, the French government gave Daguerre and his partner, Isidore Niepce, pensions in exchange for freeing the knowledge -- with each receiving the equivalent today of $30,000 per year -- a decent, but hardly huge sum. And with all that information public, suddenly everyone started innovating on the idea and trying to improve it, leading to modern photography.

Also, as you read the details, you could see how it could have even made sense for Daguerre to have freed up the idea anyway, without the government pension:

With a flurry of advance publicity, Daguerre and Arago made the technical details public on Aug. 19. They also described Niepce's earlier processes, heliography and the physautotype, but presented the daguerreotype alone as having a future.

And what a future! Within days, opticians and chemists in Paris sold out of the supplies needed to make cameras and plates. Improvements to the process followed within weeks. Daguerre's instruction manual was translated into a dozen languages within months.

No one wanted to have a portrait painted; everyone wanted a daguerreotype. Studios opened all over Paris. "Daguerreotypomania" spread from Paris to the rest of France, then across the continent, across the channel to England and across the Atlantic to America.

Notice how the freeing of the ideas not only led almost immediately to important improvements, but it also drove all sorts of business opportunities in related scarcities. In theory, even without a pension, you could see how the inventors could have lined up a partnership or investment to help sell the supplies needed to make the cameras and plates -- which quickly became a lucrative business. or, certainly, they could have helped set up or financed the "Daguerreotypomania" studios as well.

It's yet another example of where freeing an idea, rather than limiting it, actually resulted in much greater innovation and much greater economic activity. That's what promoting the progress is supposed to be about, but it's funny how it's the lack of patents that seems to do that more than patents.

Just as a thought exercise, what do you think would have happened if Daguerre had been able to patent the concept instead. Would there have been such a rapid pace of innovation? Would there have been as many sales? Would studios and such a mania happen all over the world? I would bet that all of that would be quite unlikely.

Filed Under: louis daguerre, patents, photography

German Photographer Plans To Add Back In Buildings That Opt-Out Of Google Street View

from the proving-the-ridiculousness-of-the-situation dept

We've never quite understood the general fears about Google Street View's photographs, since they're photographs of public places. However, many still seem somewhat freaked out by it all, and especially in Europe, they've continually put new rules and restrictions on Google's Street View operation. Apparently, in Germany, people can specifically request that Google remove images of certain buildings. Of course, this is silly, and to prove that point, a German photographer is going to go photograph all of those buildings that have been excluded, then upload them to Google's Picasa image hosting service, link them up to their GPS coordinates, and then "re-connect" them with Google Maps.

He's basically doing a good job of pointing out how incredibly silly it is to say that you can't photograph something that's in public view. Anyone can photograph it, and with today's technology, those photographs will likely end up online. Pretending that opting out of Google's Street View protects any sort of privacy is folly, so congrats to Jens Best, for coming up with a simple and effective way of showing that.

Filed Under: buildings, germany, jens best, photography, privacy, street view
Companies: google

AFP Sues Photographer Whose Photographs It Used Without Permission

from the this-gets-confusing-fast dept

David Sanger points us to a case that is so full of confusion and ridiculousness that it's difficult to know who to support. It appears that both parties are greatly confused about the law, terms of service and what each other did. It involves news giant AFP and a photojournalist, Daniel Morel, who was in Haiti at the time of the earthquake, and took some photos right after it happened. That's when things get mixed up. In an effort to get the photos out to the world, the daughter of a friend helped him upload the images to Twitpic, and then announce them via Twitter. From there a different photographer, Lisandro Suero, based in the Dominican Republic, apparently copied those images to his own account on TwitPic and tweeted that the images were available for licensing. The AFP then used those photos, uploaded them to Getty for distribution, and credited Suero. The photos then started appearing in a variety of places credited to AFP/Getty/Suero. Morel gets upset and sends a legal nastygram to the AFP... and after some back and forth the AFP sues Morel (yes, the AFP sued Morel after using his photos without credit) asking for summary judgment that it did not infringe on his copyrights and saying that Morel's claims that his work was infringed upon were "commercial defamation."

You can read the (relatively short) complaint here:
And you can read Morel's much longer response here (which, by the way, includes the photographs in question):


Where to start on the mess here? First, let's start with AFP. This is the same organization that once sued Google for merely linking to AFP stories with the AFP's headline in Google News. So for the AFP to pretend it's on the moral high road here for blatantly using a photo without licensing it is pretty damn hypocritical, even if you believe it had the right to do so. Given its own actions on copyright issues, the AFP seems to think that any use is infringing.

Second, as Dan Kennedy points out, the AFP's defense appears to be based on a bizarre reading of the Twitter terms of service. Those terms of service read:

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

AFP uses this in its filing, noting:

When Mr. Morel posted his photographs on Twitter, he made no notation that he was in any way limiting the license granted to Twitter or third parties or that he was in any way limiting the ability of Twitter and third parties to use, distribute, or republish his photographs. Thus, a third party would reasonably assume that based on the Twitter Terms of Service and typical use, by posting his photographs on Twitter, Mr. Morel was granting the requisite license to Twitter and third parties to use, copy, publish, display and distribute those photographs.

There are two very big problems with this line of argument (though, oddly, Mr. Morel doesn't seem to point out either problem in his response). Problem #1: The photos were posted to TwitPic, not Twitter. While many people don't seem to realize this, TwitPic is not a part of Twitter, but is a separate company. Thus, Twitter's licensing terms are somewhat irrelevant. Problem #2: Twitter's terms of service are between Twitter and the user, not for a third party. Reading the terms in question should be familiar to anyone who's set up any online user-generated content service. They're boilerplate terms that mean the service in question has the right to post the content that the user submitted. Not some third party. Note that the terms clearly say "you grant us a worldwide..." That "us" is Twitter. Not the AFP. For the AFP to claim otherwise is really bizarre.

Of course, this doesn't absolve Morel, either. First, once his lawyers contacted the AFP, the AFP did seek to stop distribution of the image. Yes, this was late in the process, but if it's true that AFP was really confused and thought it had the proper license, it did appear to act to rectify the situation as soon as it was notified. Morel's claims that AFP must have just known that he was the originating photographer seem questionable. On top of that, he immediately jumps to demanding a huge fee from AFP, even though he admits that the reason he uploaded the images was to help them get widely seen. As he said, he posted them online "in the hopes that his images would span the globe to inform the world of the disaster." He also claimed he posted them there so that he would "receive compensation and credit as a professional photographer," but just because you post images hoping to "receive compensation," it doesn't mean you're automatically entitled to compensation.

Even worse, while I don't think Twitter's terms of service matter at all here (see two paragraphs up), Morel's response to that issue doesn't help his case at all. He claims that Twitter's terms of service shouldn't apply because he didn't read them:

Mr. Morel had no prior experience with Twitter, the social networking site and did not read the Terms of Service.

While I don't think Twitter's terms of service apply for all the reasons above, his failure to read the terms hardly is the best reasoning in his defense.

If he should be upset with anyone, it sure looks like his real complaint should be with Lisandro Suero, who copied the images, claimed the work as his own, and offered them up to news agencies. Morel's complaint blames AFP for not taking the time to do the "due diligence" to make sure Suero actually took the photos:

What steps did AFP take to verify Suero's identity? From where were the images sent? Did they call Suero and ask him where he was when the images were taken? Did they contact other AFP resident photographers in Haiti or the Dominican Republic to inquire whether anybody had ever heard of Lisandro Suero?

Yet, this is coming from the same guy who just pages before admits he didn't bother reading the terms of service for the website on which he was uploading photos -- and many months later still doesn't realize that he uploaded them to a totally different service, called TwitPic, rather than Twitter? Complaining that the AFP failed in its due diligence seems a bit strange, considering the lack of due diligence on his own part.

In the end, this is a lot of arguing over nothing. Both parties seem to have screwed up in their actions. Morel admits he wanted the world to see his photos and various news agencies helped in that regards, and have helped boost his reputation as a photojournalist. It appears there are lots of ways that he could cash in on that recognition. Meanwhile, the AFP clearly mislabled the images and appears to be blatantly misreading the terms of service on a different site than the photos were uploaded to.

Filed Under: afp, photography

Historical Association Claims Copyright To Scans Of 100 Year Old Photos

from the one-step-forward,-two-steps-back dept

The Clinton County Historical Glass Negatives Portrait Project has been "diligently identifying, sorting, re-sleeving and generally rediscovering a collection of over 15,000 glass negatives dating back to 1897." They have made a selection of these photos available for purchase as reprints, but they have also put all of the photos behind a copyright gate that requires anyone viewing the photos agree to a ridiculously large block of legalese:

All photographs in this gallery are the property of the Clinton County Historical Association and are protected by the Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) and by the Berne Convention. Reproduction, storage or transmittal by any means, of any image on this web site, whole or in part, is prohibited without express prior written permission. Prints purchased from this gallery may not be reproduced or scanned for any reason and may only be used for personal display. If you wish to publish or reproduce the materials in any physical or digital form or use them for any commercial purpose, including display or Web page use, you must obtain prior written permission from the Clinton County Historical Association.

Reader Luke T. Bush, who submitted the story, astutely asks: "I understand charging for the work of scanning and printing negs but can they claim copyright to prevent copying of the prints?" As ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), exact photographic copies of works in the public domain cannot be copyrighted. So, the question then extends to whether or not those photos are in the public domain yet. The copyright is owned by the photographer and lasts for life plus 70 years. Since the photos in question were taken from 1901-1905, it is likely that many have already passed into the public domain.

Even if CCHA actually did own the copyright to the photos, they are unnecessarily hamstringing themselves by adding this needless "protection." Not only are the low-resolution scans on their site marred with a digital watermark, but hiding them behind their own particularly restrictive copyright gate also prevents the images from ever being included in a search engine. So, while CCHA has taken the admirable step to saving these photos from obscurity by scanning them, putting them behind this copyright gate effectively re-hides them.

Filed Under: copyright, photography, public domain