(maybe this should be a generic thread? or BB's subtitle?)
www.boingboing.net/2006/12/..._wei.html
Man is upset that he doesn't own the copyright to photo's he paid to have taken.
Yeah, well, you don't own the copyright to books you pay to have shipped to you, either.
Okay, mixed metaphor. But photogs retain the copyright to their images, even if you buy prints. You're buying copies, not rights to those copies. There's a reason you don't get the negatives.
you don't like that business model? Then buy your own damn camera & go to photog school (or, in the case of the mass-marketers, read the 3-ring binder).
www.boingboing.net/2006/12/..._wei.html
Man is upset that he doesn't own the copyright to photo's he paid to have taken.
Yeah, well, you don't own the copyright to books you pay to have shipped to you, either.
Okay, mixed metaphor. But photogs retain the copyright to their images, even if you buy prints. You're buying copies, not rights to those copies. There's a reason you don't get the negatives.
you don't like that business model? Then buy your own damn camera & go to photog school (or, in the case of the mass-marketers, read the 3-ring binder).
posted by:
|
Scranton
|
-
Re: copyright outrage
Tue, December 26, 2006 - 8:00 AMInteresting discussion, I didn't realize photography worked that way. I think my only major gripe would be that, in the case of something like the Santa photos, they're only of value to the people in them. There really isn't any reason for the Studio to own the copyright to them, aside from price gouging the consumer on CDs and Prints. Can you really justify $25 for a mall minimum wager and a rent-a-santa? Makes me wonder what it costs to rent the space, the equipment, and how many people buy the photos. Sounds lucrative. -
-
Re: copyright outrage
Wed, March 14, 2007 - 7:43 AMwww.boingboing.net/2007/03/...cen_.html
>Weirdly, these public domain images are labelled "all rights reserved" -- even though the law allows you to freely copy them.
yes, the law does allow you to copy the public-domain labels, much as the photographer did. But the law does not allow you (except for fair use) copy the photographer's work, lens choice, lighting, image clean-up, etc.
correct me if I'm wrong, here.
-
-
Re: copyright outrage
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 2:08 AMIm a bit confused.
I thought maybe because they are 19th century images, any copyright would have expired (ie 70 years max duration). So you can copy the images now, or do whatever you like with them.
Where the labels say "some rights reserved", I think they mean that under a creative commons license you can copy and share the work, but you still have to give proper attribution to the author (ie - the photographer). This would only apply to work still under copyright protection.
Any thoughts?
-
-
Re: copyright outrage
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 7:19 PMif they say "some", then, yes, I think, if I'm following you.
As far as the rights to original labels expiring, we're in agreement. What rights haven't expired though, are those of the photographer -- the person who shot the labels.
It's like taking a photo of the Grand Canyon -- you're not copyrighting the canyon (rights expired at least 6000 years ago, depending upon who you talk to), you're copyright this particular image.
Thus too, with labels.
And so with books - the copyright does not extend to the words, but this particular ar- or de- rangement of them.
-
-
-
