Railfan Technology > Using other people's work on TO

Buying or trading for a slide is not full reproduction rights to use and publish the work. It's only permission to own and view the slide.

When somebody posts other people's work to Trainorders must he get their permission (reproduction rights) to use their work?

And then, if one of the photos earns "image of the day" and the poster is compensated with a free months subscription to TO, who gets the compensation? The poster or the photographer?

~Steve Sloan
San Jose, CA

http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/14 09:05 by ssloansjca.

ssloansjca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buying or trading for a slide is not full
> reproduction rights to use and publish the work.
> It's only permission to own and view the slide.

From what I can tell, that would be correct. Unless the person who buys the slide or negative has written authorization that the sale includes transfer of reproduction rights, the copyright is still owned by the photographer or his/her estate (in the event the copyright holder is deceased and the copyright unexpired). It doesn't matter if the slide is an original or copy.

A good comparison, would be if I had portraits done in a studio. I would own the prints, but not the rights to scan or otherwise copy them. I would have to obtain reproduction rights to do so. The law views negatives and/or slides the same way. You own a physical item, but not the rights to reproduce or display it without the intellectual property owner's permission.

While I can't speak on Todd's behalf, I would imagine that one potential solution, if a copyright holder stepped forward and was able to assert rightful ownership to an IOTD, would be to remove the original post and invalidate the membership reward for the TO member who posted it without authorization. Now, if it was my image that had been stolen, I would likely ask for the IOTD membership extension, and the "thief" warned that another occurrence of image theft would result in them being removed from TO permanently.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/14 14:04 by bioyans.

From what I have seen it's a pretty common occurrence. Even posting with credit of the photographer is not enough. According to a friend who is a professional photographer and is very knowledgeable on this topic, "The moment the photographer clicks the shutter, the photographer owns the copyright to the intellectual property/image. Nobody else can use it in any way without the express written permission of the copyright owner."

According to an expert I asked. "There is some serious breaking of United States Code going on here. The copyright laws are specific and the penalties are expensive. You are not buying the image, just the piece of plastic that the image copy is affixed to."

In countries party to the Berne Convention, and in many other countries, the duration of copyright provided for by national law is as a general rule the life of the author plus not less than 50 years after his death. The European Union, the United States of America and several others have extended the term of copyright to 70 years after the death of the author.

Reportedly Disney got it changed to lifetime of the creator plus 75 years.

~Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/14 10:26 by ssloansjca.

All of which might be true if you feel like paying a lawyer to defend your copyright, and you can provide him with adequate evidence of ownership. The law is only the law until it is enforced by a court. Since few of us are likely to hire lawyers, it really boils down to personal decisions and social pressure, etc. A lot of things in life are like that.

JBWX



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/14 12:04 by jbwest.

jbwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of which might be true if you feel like paying
> a lawyer to defend your copyright, and you can
> provide him with adequate evidence of ownership.
> The law is only the law until it is enforced by a
> court. Since few of us are likely to hire
> lawyers, it really boils down to personal
> decisions and social pressure, etc. A lot of
> things in life are like that.
>
> JBWX

Which is why I am surprised TO wasn't quick to remove the images that may be in violation. "Looking the other way" on copyright infringement can have an unwelcome legal cost ... especially when one charges a fee to view the content here.

First off, if this thread is responding to the thread from yesterday of well known Kodachrome shooters on the Nostalgia Board, the images were not stolen off the internet and re-posted here on TO. Sloan at least referenced the fact that they were traded or bought images (slides in this case). Many of the photographers that were credited have passed on to a better place, where no one cares if this is food for a lawsuit. Many of the photogs credited, that are still with us, lurk here on TO, myself included, and if we gave a damn that our photo was used, even with credit listed, we would surely let the poster know it isn't appreciated and to take the post down. I see that hasn't happened yet, hmmmm! In addition, many of these guys are good friends and when they originally traded these slides between themselves, I'm sure there was some expectation that the images would be shared in some manner. Would they want there work published with out credit and some possible payment of some sort, probably not. I realize that posting a photo here is similar to publishing in a sense, but what did the poster get for IOTD using someone elses photo that was duly credited? A month extension on his TO subscription, not exactly a windfall. If this is such a big deal, then those that choose the IOTD better do a better job of checking who the photog was vs who posted it.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with it.

KC

GRNDMND Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First off, if this thread is responding to the
> thread from yesterday of well known Kodachrome
> shooters on the Nostalgia Board, the images were
> not stolen off the internet and re-posted here on
> TO. Sloan at least referenced the fact that they
> were traded or bought images (slides in this
> case). Many of the photographers that were
> credited have passed on to a better place, where
> no one cares if this is food for a lawsuit. Many
> of the photogs credited, that are still with us,
> lurk here on TO, myself included, and if we gave a
> damn that our photo was used, even with credit
> listed, we would surely let the poster know it
> isn't appreciated and to take the post down. I see
> that hasn't happened yet, hmmmm! In addition, many
> of these guys are good friends and when they
> originally traded these slides between themselves,
> I'm sure there was some expectation that the
> images would be shared in some manner. Would they
> want there work published with out credit and some
> possible payment of some sort, probably not. I
> realize that posting a photo here is similar to
> publishing in a sense, but what did the poster get
> for IOTD using someone elses photo that was duly
> credited? A month extension on his TO
> subscription, not exactly a windfall. If this is
> such a big deal, then those that choose the IOTD
> better do a better job of checking who the photog
> was vs who posted it.
>
> For what it's worth, I have no problem with it.
>
> KC

Agreed.

Just enjoy the images. If a "gift" of about $3 really upsets someone whose image was used, then we're really getting to be a sad society. Having an image posted and receiving credit as the photographer is all that I would ask for.

Now if something came along that was a big money maker and my images were used then my viewpoint would change. Kind of unlikely in this hobby though.

Randy

baltimore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Agreed.
>
> Just enjoy the images. If a "gift" of about $3
> really upsets someone whose image was used, then
> we're really getting to be a sad society. Having
> an image posted and receiving credit as the
> photographer is all that I would ask for.
>
> Now if something came along that was a big money
> maker and my images were used then my viewpoint
> would change. Kind of unlikely in this hobby
> though.
>
> Randy

Randy,

I understand where you are coming from. But, the problem is this ... once you start to look the other way on posting other people's work, it encourages others with far less honorable intentions to do the same. I can think of one individual who has been removed from TO permanently ... the same guy who claims to see PRR steam locomotives in quarries ... who has done those sorts of things with the intent of misleading others. I only discovered the aforementioned threads AFTER posting here. While I don't believe that particular poster did anything with malicious intent, what happens when someone does exactly the same ... repeatedly ... in order to TRY and get their TO subscription extended for free?

The other problem is this. Yes, you might not mind your images being shared HERE. But, how many of those images end up getting downloaded and used elsewhere? I know of an office on a major Class 1 carrier, where if you walk in the door, there is a large wall of 16 x 20 canvas photos depicting several Heritage locomotives, as well as the company's executive train. When I asked the person who procured them where they got them, the answer was "I got the images off the internet." That was quickly followed up by a lighthearted, "Everyone who comes in here always comments how they love these photos. I should make up a bunch of copies and take them to train shows and sell them." In that case, I knew who the photographer was, and that they had permission for the original set of canvas prints. Had someone actually tried selling copies, I'm sure that would have changed real fast. If you share slides at a show, amongst friends, it's easy to tell someone to knock it off if they whip out an iPhone and try to copy a photo they see on a screen. When you share someone else's work here, you have no idea who is downloading it, and what they are doing with those copies. I wouldn't want to put my friends in a position where someone else may try to rip them off because of my actions.

So, how do you allow it in some instances, but then say no in others? It just seems to open up a huge can of worms legally and ethically.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/14 07:56 by bioyans.

The law is the law. When people post images in violation of copyright law, without express written permission of the owner of the image they (and the folks running the site) are setting themselves up for getting sued. The copyright laws are specific and the penalties are expensive. You are not buying (or trading for etc.) the image, just the piece of plastic that the image copy is affixed to. I did not write the law.

For example, I have a very, very extensive collection of SP steam images from the 1930's. I have not published them here or on my train web site because I do not have permission of family of the photographer to do so. I did have permission of the brother who did own the collection, but he has since died. I would now need to approach the surviving family.

Ethically I think you need to ask, always, even when copyright has expired. Then when you get permission publish with the term "used with permission." I did not write the law. The law is the law. It is considered theft to violate copyright.

If you think I am being a jerk for bringing this up, too bad.

~Steve Sloan

I guess one lesson to be taken from this would be the following ...

If you have an extensive collection of original slides or negatives that you have taken over the years, and you have them bequeathed to someone when you pass on, insert language into your will that specifically authorizes automatic transfer of copyrights (in writing) to the new owner in the event those slides or negatives are sold or donated. A little planning now will allow future generations to enjoy your work with little hassle or question.

Posted from Android



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/14 14:17 by bioyans.

Absolutely, that's a great idea!

Perhaps add a clause to your will that puts all of your work into the public domain. Open source your photos.

~Steve

Personally... I think it is ridiculous to give a rats arse if someone uses
another's work or images WHILE giving credit or perhaps instead, providing
a link back to that person's site assuming the use is not for profit.

Once you make a decision put it out there in public you should assume the
risk that the public will have access to it. Why are you putting it out
there anyway? To share. What are you loosing so long as you are credited
and have not lost a potential desired payment? There's a reason why most
of us post pics of trains on line but not pics of other things that we
would not want more then a handful of folks see.

I'm not talking outright theft of material that was not put out in public
such as a scan from a copyrighted book or stuff shared in private via
personal emails.

This brings up an important issue - original slides. Not duplicates, but
originals. If you buy one but receive no official paperwork nor claims to
the copyright does that mean the work should never ever be seen by others?

I've purchased slides of the UA Turbo for myself yet always wondered if I
were authorized to share them. I assumed so - if it were the original, but
have yet to actually do so. If the answer is no, then it would seem a lot
of valuable reference material will forever be kept in secret. Jeeze - it's
not like I bought a slide of some guy's naked girlfriend. Who sell's
original one of a kind slides with the intent of having them never shared?
Y'know... besides the guy who does sell a pic of his naked girlfriend? And,
yes, that is a fictitious example! And... I doubt an object would object
to being seen unless of course it was the Amtrak Talgo cab car.

In the end, once you put it out there to be seen, sharing is just getting
it (and you) seen more. Where's the harm assuming there was no malice nor
profit?

Now... the law. That's another story. It can be twisted for any outcome
you can afford.

/Mitch

I'll play Devil's advocate -

If I post a photo from TRAINS Newswire, or even TO's, that means
customers do not have to pay for those services to see that material
that other do, or perhaps others paid to have featured. This explains
why I can't find a TON of stuff on YouTube that I once could. Clips
from TV shows for instance, because, despite the free advertising, CBS
or Sony claim they are loosing sales of their DVD's.

I get that. It's a bit frustrating because in a sense it's like saying
libraries and the whole of the Internet should not allow sharing of
material without payment each and every time.

But... where's the harm when crediting folks who've posted with credit
from free sites? Or linked back to those or even fee based sites?

And again - what do you do with original slides that have no ownership
tags on them? It's not like the owner or his heirs was ever going to
formulate plans to USE the sold slide.

/Mitch

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've purchased slides of the UA Turbo for myself
> yet always wondered if I
> were authorized to share them. I assumed so - if
> it were the original, but
> have yet to actually do so. If the answer is no,
> then it would seem a lot
> of valuable reference material will forever be
> kept in secret. Jeeze - it's
> not like I bought a slide of some guy's naked
> girlfriend. Who sell's
> original one of a kind slides with the intent of
> having them never shared?

> /Mitch

Believe it or not, Mitch ... I have seen folks do it. This was many years ago. I went to a multi-day convention for the historical society of a large, well-known railroad. One of the vendors was a fairly well known publisher, who also did a TON of photography of said railroad. Among the items they were selling, was a large number of original slides that, for whatever reasons, they didn't want to hold onto because they were deemed surplus and took up storage space. Even though they were all originals, and for sale, all the slides were clearly stamped with the photographer's name, and "copyrighted material, do not reproduce without written authorization."

Getting back to your question, as near as I can tell owning even the sole copy of an original slide doesn't transfer copyright automatically. It still has to be granted separately in writing. I'm sure there's a way to do so with little hassle, but I agree that the more technical aspects of the law could cause valuable reference material to be lost, or of little value.

Now ... if the slide is unmarked, and not a duplicate, it gets tricky. You may not own the reproduction rights ... BUT for the original owner, or their heirs, to even prove they owned the rights to the slide would be near impossible. It's not marked, how do they know you weren't standing next to the person when the photo was taken?

As I stated before, I don't think there was any malice or harm intended with the threads in question. It appears that most of the folks involved are lurking here on TO, and are OK with the work being shared.

Like you said, the reason many of us share photos with friends, or online, is because we WANT them to be seen.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/14 14:14 by bioyans.

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Getting back to your question, as near as I can
> tell owning even the sole copy of an original
> slide doesn't transfer copyright automatically.
> It still has to be granted separately in writing.

Why do you claim is has to be granted in writing? I'm not an attorney, but one of the first things I learned in a business law class is verbal contracts are just as valid as written contracts, so long as you can prove them and so long as written contracts are not specifically required, as for real estate. Where in copyright law is there a requirement for a written grant?

JBWX

jbwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why do you claim is has to be granted in writing?
> I'm not an attorney, but one of the first things I
> learned in a business law class is verbal
> contracts are just as valid as written contracts,
> so long as you can prove them and so long as
> written contracts are not specifically required,
> as for real estate. Where in copyright law is
> there a requirement for a written grant?

From Copyright.gov:

Transfer of Copyright

Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any
subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer
of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in
writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or
such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a
nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.

A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and
may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by
the applicable laws of intestate succession.

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to
the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership,
inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as
terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information
about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The
Copyright Office does not have any forms for such transfers.
The law does provide for the recordation in the Copyright
Office of transfers of copyright ownership.

Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the
parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be
required to validate the transfer as against third parties. For
information on recordation of transfers and other documents
related to copyright, see Circular 12, Recordation of
Transfers and Other Documents.

As per an IP attorney, exclusive rights transfers (meaning the person who bought the slide now owns ALL rights to it) MUST be in writing to be valid. Non-exclusive use can be done with an oral contract, but can be revoked at any time by the copyright holder. In other words, the copyright owner can enter a verbal agreement to allow the photo to be published in a book (non-exclusive use, or licensing an image to be used). But, to transfer ALL the rights along with the slide (transferring the ownership of the copyright in its entirety to another party), the transfer of copyright must be in writing.

Although an oral contract can be used for non-exclusive rights, it is highly advisable that a written contract be used.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/14 15:59 by bioyans.

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jbwest Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Why do you claim is has to be granted in
> writing?
> > I'm not an attorney, but one of the first things
> I
> > learned in a business law class is verbal
> > contracts are just as valid as written
> contracts,
> > so long as you can prove them and so long as
> > written contracts are not specifically
> required,
> > as for real estate. Where in copyright law is
> > there a requirement for a written grant?
>
> From Copyright.gov:
>
> Transfer of Copyright
>
> Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive
> rights or any
> subdivision of those rights may be transferred,
> but the transfer
> of exclusive rights is not valid unless that
> transfer is in
> writing and signed by the owner of the rights
> conveyed or
> such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of
> a right on a
> nonexclusive basis does not require a written
> agreement.
>
> A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of
> law and
> may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal
> property by
> the applicable laws of intestate succession.
>
> Copyright is a personal property right, and it is
> subject to
> the various state laws and regulations that govern
> the ownership,
> inheritance, or transfer of personal property as
> well as
> terms of contracts or conduct of business. For
> information
> about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.
>
> Transfers of copyright are normally made by
> contract. The
> Copyright Office does not have any forms for such
> transfers.
> The law does provide for the recordation in the
> Copyright
> Office of transfers of copyright ownership.
>
> Although recordation is not required to make a
> valid transfer between the
> parties, it does provide certain legal advantages
> and may be
> required to validate the transfer as against third
> parties. For
> information on recordation of transfers and other
> documents
> related to copyright, see Circular 12, Recordation
> of
> Transfers and Other Documents.
>
> As per an IP attorney, exclusive rights transfers
> (meaning the person who bought the slide now owns
> ALL rights to it) MUST be in writing to be valid.
> Non-exclusive use can be done with an oral
> contract, but can be revoked at any time by the
> copyright holder. In other words, the copyright
> owner can enter a verbal agreement to allow the
> photo to be published in a book (non-exclusive
> use, or licensing an image to be used). But, to
> transfer ALL the rights along with the slide
> (transferring the ownership of the copyright in
> its entirety to another party), the transfer of
> copyright must be in writing.
>
> Although an oral contract can be used for
> non-exclusive rights, it is highly advisable that
> a written contract be used.

Just to beat a dead horse (but it is an interesting dead horse), I wonder how much of the above applies to unregistered copyrights versus registered copyrights. Not to mention images that have no identification and no evidence of a copyright claim. Registered copyrights get a bunch of statutory protection. Most of the stuff we are talking about here have unregistered copyrights (which appears to provide fewer rights than a registered copyright) and rarely are identified as copyrighted. The basic point is given the fact that few railfan photographers make any effort to protect their rights, how much of this is really relevant to the vast majority of us. And the ones that do care clearly mark their photographs. Are the rules the big boys play by really relevant here, so long as you exercise reasonable common sense and don't try to steal something from say
Getty Images or one of the big newspapers (who have retained legal firms who seem more interested in extortion than protecting rights).

JBWX



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/14 16:34 by jbwest.

If folks want their material to be distributed as widely as possible, and that's a very honorable and fine desire for a content creator to have, there is a simple solution. Release it to the public domain, under a creative commons, or a general public license or some other way to open source it.

This should be encouraged and the creative commons has lots of information on that here:

http://us.creativecommons.org

I think we all need to remember, the choice to do that rests with the creator of the content or his/her survivors who own the photo, not with a person who happens to have a slide, or set of slides, they traded for.

~Steve

The law is the law only until it is manipulated, which is done day in and day out in our legal system. I do believe in laws, just believe some issues can be overlooked and aren't worth pursuing. I also realize there are others that believe laws are to be followed without exception.

I have had many of my images used on other sites without my permission. As long as I was credited and there is no monetary gain I have no issue. I have had requests to have my pics turned into posters for personal use in train rooms. Some processors required written permission, but most didn't.

For other forms of duplication for monetary gain - placemats or books-- there had better be a written agreement.

If money is involved I do believe there should be a written agreement, and I do believe that TO shouldn't give IOTD to a photo posted by anyone other than the original photographer. (Mind change!)

I did have an instance several years ago where an individual was duplicating, for sale, several of my slides. You can ask them to stop but if they don't, is it really worth the time and $$$ to give a rat's patootie?

I guess what I'm saying is I understand both sides of this issue. I just tend to not get upset over the minor infractions. It's up to each individual to pursue a copywrite issue as they see fit. I don't police others.




Randy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/14 17:19 by baltimore.

The US law governing copyright transfer is quite short, and available online: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204.