Railfan Technology > Copyrights and Photographs

The following is from the website of  Professional Photographers of America:

• Under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, photographs are protected by copyright from the moment of creation.
• Photographers have the exclusive right to reproduce their photographs (right to control the making of copies). Copyright
• Unless you have permission from the photographer, you can’t copy, distribute (no scanning and sending them to others), publicly display (no putting them online), or create derivative works from photographs.

Marty Bernard

I would say there are aspects of the 2nd and 3rd points in your post that are pretty much unenforceable. What are the technical criteria by which a photograph is determined to be an illegal copy? 

Ray

If it's a copy without permission it's technically illegal. It usually doesn't become an issue until a copy is posted on the www or published in a report, magazine, newspaper etc. I'm not sure how TrainOrders copies are considered if they don't have a copyright on them, since TO becomes a third party with consent/permissions. I presume there is some rights extended to the paying subscribers, but I don't know.

Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say there are aspects of the 2nd and 3rd
> points in your post that are pretty much
> unenforceable. What are the technical criteria by
> which a photograph is determined to be an illegal
> copy? 
>
> Ray

Since the internet, it seems like a hopeless job to keep anything sacred.  My friend's wife is very paranoid about downloading or printing any photos for fear of "getting busted".
I don't see any way to effectively enforce it.
There is a "gentleman" in Florida who seems to be the most egregious violater of pirating images and selling them.  In his case I am surprised someone hasn't gone after him. I have seen an original slide for sale on ebay that would sell for a good price to someone I know, and within a week this guy would be listing prints of the same slide for sale. It was obvious he pirated the image from the ebay listing and is selling digital prints.  To me, that's just wrong.
I have seen him selling prints from negatives that I own.
Nothing is safe.

Determining whether something is a copy or not has to rely on some rigorous technical criteria, and I have not seen what that might be in the case of a photograph.

In the days before computers, engineers relied on books of mathematical tables to perform their calculations. Mathematical tables are generated by some algorithmic process, so theoretically one publisher could do all the work and others simply copy it to produce their knock-off editions. The way the original publisher got around this was to have the author generate specific errors in the tables, so if someone published a copy edition with the same errors, that is how they would be caught.

Today, with software products, the integrity of a deliverable can be verified by calculating a checksum. Having the correct checksum ensures that the executable code has not been corrupted in any way, but it is also virtually impossible for someone else to create a software item with the same interfaces and performance that has the same checksum, too.

Regarding digital photo files (commonly distributed as .jpg's), the minute I put the file into an editing program and re-save it, it has changed.

So, again I ask, what objective criteria make it possible to prove a copy is a copy?

Ray    

One method would be to crop the original for the Internet version, also to have the original at a much higher resolution. But the arguement could be made that the photo was made at the same location on a different day, or in the crowd along with the photographer, or simply nearby, etc. It has happened.
 

Here is my understanding:

• Museums and Libraries that receive photograph collections (should) have a signed agreement with the photographer or his/her heirs concerning the use of the photographs.  If the library or museum posts the photographs on the Internet their site should say if the photographs are in the public domain (i.e., may be used freely), if they are restricted for personal use, and/or if they can be used for commercial purposes.  The museum/library may restrict the use of the photos so they can sell them as a revenue source.
• Facebook, for example, has the right to use anything you post however they want with little restriction.  You gave up that right when you joined.
• Internet.  A photograph publish/posted on the Internet is obviously a copy.  Only the photographer or someone with his or her permission can legally post a photograph.  For someone else to copy it to another place in the Internet or use it for any purpose, is a violation of copyright law unless the photograph is in the public domain.

Marty Bernard

Read the "Terms and Conditions" for any website before uploading your photos. They will usually state weather you retain the copyrights or that you relinquish them to the website.

Bob

I noticed yesterday that one of the sellers of slides on eBay has in his descriptions the following:

"NOTE:  A high-res scan is being retained and I am reserving the right to publish, duplicate, and/or print these images."

As many of the slides he sells command prices in the hundreds of dollars...I thought this was interesting.

Also, I have noticed more and more images being sold on eBay in various ways where you just know copyright laws are being violated.

As far as I'm concerned, Anything I post on Trainorders is up for grabs if someone likes it and wants to make a copy or a print.  I get a few decent shots every now and then but nothing near what some of you guys do.  If someone is going to use my picture in a commercial way, then I might get concerned.  If I spend the money to buy the camera, my car and the gas to get to the location, and my time, plus years of honing my skills (what little that amounts to,) then I expect to be compensated.  I've done a few weddings for friends and I have donated my work to them.  Other times, someone would ask me to do it for a friend or acquaintance.  Those people are expected to had over some $$$.  Sometimes it's hard to define the line between a hobby and a profession when the two intermingle.  

My daughter-in-law wanted some train pictures for my grandson's room.  I had none of steam so I copied a few off Trainorders and ask the poster if I could print  them.  I explained the situation and in every case the answer was yes.  One even offered to send me the full size file.  Like just about everyone else, I've copied a few pictures to send to a single person.  A friend and I took a trip on Amtrak about 2 years ago and after the trip I sent him a picture of "we went through here."  Another friend has been introduced to PVs when they were in town a few years ago.  He didn't know what a PV was but I've sent him a few pictures of, "do you remember this?"  In both cases I'm sure that they didn't go any further and no profit was gained in either case.  I posted one picture here that I have had a few request for a copy (print) when I showed it to someone.  I would guess that of the thousands of members on here, someone probably made a copy of it and that's OK with me.
 
As someone else said, once it's on the web, it's pretty much up for grabs.  That may not be right but that's what happens.  Even if you slap a big copyright sign on it, someone that is really good with Photoshop can work around that unless it's so obvious that it destroys the photo completely.  If it's bad with photos, just think how bad it is with music.

John

I think in many cases, the deciding factor is, is it worth it to go after the unauthorized copy maker?  Unless you have a lawyer on retainer, the  time, trouble and expense of suing for copyright infringement may be more than the amount likely to be recovered from the infringer.  I wonder if the owner of the rights to a popular song like "Stairway to Heaven" or "Free Bird" tries to collect royalties from every band that plays it at a local pub.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One method would be to crop the original for the Internet version, also to have the original at a much
> higher resolution. But the arguement could be made that the photo was made at the same location
> on a different day, or in the crowd along with the photographer, or simply nearby, etc. It has happened.

I have had several of my photographs stolen over the years ... and while one may claim that they took a similar picture having people and objects who were moving at the time of my photo be in the exact same position and angle as the stolen copy would be "impossible" unless the theoretical other photographer was standing inside my body.

One thief was a consulting firm that put my pictures in a planning document they wrote for a government agency. They credited the photos to "Bing". Bing didn't take those photos.

It is a chilling effect ... I share less because of the thiefs. Unfortunately I do not have the resouces to file infringement lawsuits against people - and that is likely the reason why so much theft happens. Unless one is a paid professional who makes a lot of money off of one's photos the cost of protecting the copyright on a hobby photo is higher than the return.

What hasn't been discussed is slides acquired thru trades, bought on ebay etc.  Obviously selling a print is illegal but what about posting a copy here or elsewhere on the net.  Again illegal but really as already discussed hard if not impossible to enforce.  Back in the day some prograpghers took multiple copies of the same image, particularly roster shots.  Also  what about slide sets purchased,  The company (Blackhawk) is long out of business and the person is long gone, can we share the picture on line as long as we do not profit its use?
 

David Potter
Other, CA

In general a copyright is valid for 70 years after the writer/artist/photographer dies unless he or she sells or gives away those rights.  I'm not sure how that works with his or her heirs.

 Back in the day of paper copies, if the photographer kept the negative or slide, he or she really didn't have to worry much about additional copies being made.  Duplicated slides could be copied.  Now, digital copies are a whole new ballgame.

 I'm not worried about publishing my photos on Train Orders because all the members are honest and wouldn't steal my intellectual property.

 As to the value of train slides, I think the most I was ever paid for the use of one of my pictures was $30.  Mostly I give permission to use my photos for free.   So why worry?  Why put a blemish on them in terms of a watermark (now there is an ancient concept).

 In terms of Blackhawk Slides, I assume he had permission from the photographer to make copies for a small royalty.  I bought some of his slides without any promises about what I could not do with them.

 Marty Bernard

So this raises another question.  I have a collection of slides I acquired from a variety of sources that I am in the process of scanning.  Someone asks a question regarding something that can be answered by one of the slides in my collection, am I violating the law by posting the scanned copy?

David Potter
Other, CA

Your question is, are you stealing someones intellectual property?  As I understand it, it depends how you acquired each slide.  If you didn't get permission to make copies when you acquired the slide, you don't have permission to post it.  If the copyright holder is still available you can ask permission.  And permission requires giving credit to the photographer unless the photographer says you don't need to give credit.  I suggest you look at: http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/

Marty Bernard

There's also more complexity to it than that - a great deal depends on when it was taken, was it ever published, and were any necessary copyright formalities adhered to.  All of those things affect whether a work has passed into the public domain or not here in the US.   Cornell University's law department actually has a very nice guide to this online.

There's also the more pragmatic view:  copyright is really only an issue if the owner if the rights gives a darn.  If the photographer is long dead and nobody formally acquired the collection and rights to it (and followed any formalities needed to keep those rights current), the discussion is almost purely academic.  At that point, the old "possession is nine tenths..." is a pretty good rule of thumb, even if it's not an admissable defense in court.  There's a lot of grey area here for the lawyers to fight in and suck up all the money, particularly where any provinance of rights isn't clear.

As for me, I don't really get too excited about my own photography.  Do whatever you'd like with it, just give me credit somewhere.  Anything of mine on my own website is under a Creative Commons BY-SA license, which basically says you can do whatever you want with it, as long as you share it under the same terms and credit me.   Even then, as many have said, once it's loose on the internet, it would be an expensive and insane battle to try to enforce even that.  However, it gives me a plausible justification to publically ridicule you and call you nasty things if you don't comply.  What I'd ever earn from rights is so incredibly tiny that it's not worth the hassle.  I make more before lunch at my day job than I've earned in payments for folks wanting to pay to use my stuff in the last twenty years.  I'd rather just share them and let folks use and enjoy them in the name of railroad history and preservation.

Nathan
 

Apropos of this discussion, this NYT article about a famous photograph of a prep school football game (taken 50 years ago) is interesting to read:  

http://nyti.ms/1F3r6h4

I'd like to know who this Florida "gentleman" is ..... If nobody wants to name names I'll be happy to do it for you.
 

Bill Miller
Galt, ON

CCMF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd like to know who this Florida "gentleman" is
> ..... If nobody wants to name names I'll be happy
> to do it for you.
>  

It would be good to know, and perhaps discourage others from buying from the guy!