legal or illegal?
Feb 19, 2012 08:49:13 #
Now that all the opinions have been expressed, let's answer the original question that was asked by pigpen.
".... I know scanning an image is illegal, but I wouldn't think what I've done is. Does anyone know for sure?"
The simple answer to that simple question is "No!"
However, the sentence preceding the question is widely open to debate. So carry on.
:roll:
".... I know scanning an image is illegal, but I wouldn't think what I've done is. Does anyone know for sure?"
The simple answer to that simple question is "No!"
However, the sentence preceding the question is widely open to debate. So carry on.
:roll:
Feb 19, 2012 08:55:22 #
pigpen wrote:
My family has a 11x14 b&w image of an aerial v... (show quote)
As long as it is for your personal use and you do not intend to market it for profit or to distribute it for free, why even be concerned. I would scan it.
Feb 19, 2012 09:07:31 #
After reading the legalease language in Captain C's link, My impression is that, if you own it, you can do anything you want with it except sell it as your own work. In my mind, if you want to scan it? Go right ahead and scan away, especially if it's damaged or aged and you want to repair the photo. I could be full of crap so take my advice with a grain of sand. Unless the original creator has been dead for 95 years. Go have at it! I don't think anyone is going to come after you...unless your farm is in Area 51.
Feb 19, 2012 09:08:40 #
vinnya
Loc: connecticut
the picture was taken in 1969 why would the photographer have passed on if he was in his 20's or even 30 he would only be 60- 70 yrs old now
Feb 19, 2012 09:14:52 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
There is copyright and there is copyright and there is fair use under copyright. You are falling under fair use:
From the copyright office:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of fair use. The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the authors observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Reviewed November 2009
From the copyright office:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of fair use. The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the authors observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Reviewed November 2009
Feb 19, 2012 09:14:56 #
Feb 19, 2012 09:27:02 #
CaptainC wrote:
Wow. It took seconds to find this information on Google.
Lots better than all the supposition and mis-information going on.
Here is the link:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html
The quick and dirty: Prior to 1978, the (c) lasts 28 years. The 1969 date would appear to make this in the clear under any circumstance unless the copyright was renewed. Since there is not information as to who did it - scan away.
Lots better than all the supposition and mis-information going on.
Here is the link:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html
The quick and dirty: Prior to 1978, the (c) lasts 28 years. The 1969 date would appear to make this in the clear under any circumstance unless the copyright was renewed. Since there is not information as to who did it - scan away.
Geeeez CaptainC .... looks like everyone seems to have blown right past this! (or didn't do the math) 1969 + 28 = 1997!
Feb 19, 2012 09:35:03 #
MisterWilson wrote:
Now that all the opinions have been expressed, let's answer the original question that was asked by pigpen.
".... I know scanning an image is illegal, but I wouldn't think what I've done is. Does anyone know for sure?"
The simple answer to that simple question is "No!"
However, the sentence preceding the question is widely open to debate. So carry on.
:roll:
".... I know scanning an image is illegal, but I wouldn't think what I've done is. Does anyone know for sure?"
The simple answer to that simple question is "No!"
However, the sentence preceding the question is widely open to debate. So carry on.
:roll:
Mister Wilson,
If scanning is illegal then why are there so many companies that do it. The legal issue is whether you are claiming it as your own work and selling it.
George
Feb 19, 2012 09:40:44 #
Roger Hicks wrote:
Not entirely true. If you use one of my pictures, even without my copyright mark on it, and I can prove I took it (for example by showing the original negative or digital file), I can still come after you if I think it worth my while.
Cheers,
R.
heyjoe wrote:
if no name or copyright, there is no proof who took the shot,
Not entirely true. If you use one of my pictures, even without my copyright mark on it, and I can prove I took it (for example by showing the original negative or digital file), I can still come after you if I think it worth my while.
Cheers,
R.
Roger,
Can you explain HOW you would be able to prove YOU created a digital file rather than procuring it in some other way? Is there a way that a digital file RECORDS the camera's serial number that created it within its "data" make-up?
Feb 19, 2012 09:43:54 #
I've never said scanning was illegal. That quote was from the original poster.
Feb 19, 2012 09:45:54 #
MisterWilson wrote:
I've never said scanning was illegal. That quote was from the original poster.
Mister Wilson,
You are correct sir you never did say that.
George
Feb 19, 2012 09:46:49 #
richnash46 wrote:
quote=Roger Hicks quote=heyjoe if no name or cop... (show quote)
Rich,
Every photo digital that is has exif data, that is how you prove ownership.
George
Feb 19, 2012 09:50:23 #
kaerophil
Loc: Oxford, CT
It makes no difference whether you scan, photocopy or take a photo of it. However, as you can't determine which company took it, I would not worry about making copies of it, as long as you aren't selling them.
Feb 19, 2012 09:57:27 #
gonate
Loc: sacramento,calif
kaerophil wrote:
It makes no difference whether you scan, photocopy or take a photo of it. However, as you can't determine which company took it, I would not worry about making copies of it, as long as you aren't selling them.
You may be looking at a reproduction law rather than a copyrite law .And thats just a guess .
gonate
Feb 19, 2012 09:58:44 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
pigpen wrote:
My family has a 11x14 b&w image of an aerial v... (show quote)
hmmm lets see 1969 and it is now.....2012....thats over 40 yrs. Gosh I wouldn't worry one bit about any legal repercussions......
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.