joerookery
Well-known member
To make a change from former US President Clinton's comment.
Yesterday I spent much of the morning with a copyright attorney firm in downtown San Antonio. I had a number of issues concerning some upcoming publishing things and while they stood by and backed up everything I had originally thought about copyrights; I was completely surprised by several items they brought up. Perhaps you know this from your experience and perhaps others do, but I didn't know.
It's the picture and not the item. I always thought some rights accrued to the owner of an item or an artifact. Not true. Here is the example. Remember that picture of Max’s helmet?
Max owns a helmet. Max takes a picture of the helmet. Max gives me permission to publish it on my web site. Some unknown eBay seller copies the picture and uses it in his advertisement. I had always thought that there were some rights that accrued to the owner of the helmet. In reality, the rights accrued to the owner of the picture. If the eBay seller or anyone else had snuck into Max's home and took a picture of the helmet and published it, he would be dead right in the copyright world. He does not need Max's permission. On the other hand, the eBay seller who stole the picture taken by Max, is dead wrong, because the picture is the copyrighted property that belongs to Max. Under US law, Max has to issue a cease and desist order to the eBay seller. If the seller complies the issue is dead. If the seller refuses Max can determine if it is actionable or not, as he can only recover the amount earned by the seller based on the use of the picture. There are many caveats, and this is US law. I looked in some detail at German copyright laws and international conventions. There are a lot of interesting items that happen when pictures are published in books. This is a real headache...
Yesterday I spent much of the morning with a copyright attorney firm in downtown San Antonio. I had a number of issues concerning some upcoming publishing things and while they stood by and backed up everything I had originally thought about copyrights; I was completely surprised by several items they brought up. Perhaps you know this from your experience and perhaps others do, but I didn't know.
It's the picture and not the item. I always thought some rights accrued to the owner of an item or an artifact. Not true. Here is the example. Remember that picture of Max’s helmet?
Max owns a helmet. Max takes a picture of the helmet. Max gives me permission to publish it on my web site. Some unknown eBay seller copies the picture and uses it in his advertisement. I had always thought that there were some rights that accrued to the owner of the helmet. In reality, the rights accrued to the owner of the picture. If the eBay seller or anyone else had snuck into Max's home and took a picture of the helmet and published it, he would be dead right in the copyright world. He does not need Max's permission. On the other hand, the eBay seller who stole the picture taken by Max, is dead wrong, because the picture is the copyrighted property that belongs to Max. Under US law, Max has to issue a cease and desist order to the eBay seller. If the seller complies the issue is dead. If the seller refuses Max can determine if it is actionable or not, as he can only recover the amount earned by the seller based on the use of the picture. There are many caveats, and this is US law. I looked in some detail at German copyright laws and international conventions. There are a lot of interesting items that happen when pictures are published in books. This is a real headache...