Copyright and the internet

[Alan Lloyd]

Friends
I noticed Mr Jaeger's reference to possible copyright infringement on an earlier post. I am unclear about the implications of copyright law when posting pictures on the internet.

Is there a problem with posting scans from copyrighted publications when it is for educational purposes? ( no profit being made)

If so, is it enough to credit the source along with the photo, or does it require written permission of the copyright holder?

Thanks to anyone that can clarify this for me

Alan Lloyd
4th US Cav/5th TMV
www.coloradocavalry.org

[Rob]

I would get in touch with the publication in question and ask them directly what their guidelines are.

[Dignann]

Alan,

I'm not a lawyer and others can speak to the legality of copyright and the Internet, however, I have thought about this issue for some time and will simply offer my opinions.

If someone owns a particular photograph, then in my view they own the rights to it. They can allow an author to use it as an illustration in a publication, but even once it's published they still own the rights to the image. If I scan an image from a book and post it on the Internet, in my view I have in a sense "stolen" the image. Once on the Internet, it is just too easy for anyone who views the image to click and save, perhaps posting it themselves elsewhere or sending it out as an e-mail attachment, Within minutes, the provenance of that image can be lost. When dealing with history, whether it be photos, artifacts, or manuscript material, provenance is everything, so it's always better to get permission from the owner.

Many repositories now charge a use fee for any photograph from their collection that is used on the Internet. The Library of Congress is a government repository, so their images are in the public domain.

Perhaps my views on the subject are too conservative, but as a collector I am sensitive to ownership privileges. Most folks don't mind and are pleased to allow the use of their photos, but others are very possessive. I always believe it's better to ask up front for the use of someone else's property, rather than assuming it's OK with them.

Eric

[Beaner]

I believe the rule is if the photo is held in public domain and is over 100 years old it can be published for its historical and scholastic value. If said photo is part of an individual's private collection it is protected under all copyright laws and cannot be published without the consent of the individual who owns it. I feel that you should always ask even if it is in the public domain. Remember someone spent alot of hours finding those photos so we can view them.

Sam Billingsley
4th Texas Co. E

[ElizabethClark]

Speaking as one of the moderating team: you must have written permission from the author/publisher to post scans of images from books here, please.

[billwatson]

http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

They ARE lawyers.

Keep in mind, though, that things are changing every day, in terms of both laws and court decisions and people pushing at envelopes.

What's being protected by copyright is the literal "right" to retain the power to decide when, where and under what conditions something you create is copied. "under what conditions" usually means "in return for payment," but as we all know, all some folks want is recognition of their creativity: You credit them and they're happy. But that's not the same as saying that all you have to do to avoid a copyright infringement is say where the material came from.

Something frequently overlooked is that copyright itself can be sold or, sort of, leased. If I write a book and a publisher wants to print it and sell it to make a profit for both of us, often the publisher insists that I sell him the copyright itself, sometimes forever, sometimes for a set period of time. That's especially true in the world of magazines.

It's easy to understand if you think of a photo not as a photo but as a car I own. Just because I left the car in a parking lot doesn't mean you can, upon finding it, take it and use it for awhile to haul leaves or take a joyride. That car is still my property and I have the right to say how it's used. If you took it and used it but told everyone "This is Bill's car," it really wouldn't keep you out of hot water, in fact it sounds pretty silly when you actually say it, doesn't it? Just like my car, my photo or an article I write is my property and I get to decide how other people may use it, especially but not just if money is being made. Intellectual property. Copyright protects the ability of a content producer to make money from their labor. If it didn't exist, an important incentive for assembling information, ideas and images would vanish.

[ElizabethClark]

Bill, that car analogy is brilliant! Many thanks!

Folks, do keep in mind that the "Don't Post Copyrighted Material" rule isn't there just to be a pain in the tuckus... it's a protection for the site itself. If copyrighted materials are posted without permission, the site may be open to litigation from the owner. And that would not be a happy thing. :)

[JimKindred]

...........may be open to litigation from the owner.

That was how I put it to the CCG for using a photo of mine in their June 2005 issue without my permission. That photo was one where someone had removed my part number and copyright information in order to publish it.

[PalmettoGuard]

The use of copyrighted material is permitted under certain circumstances without payment to the owner. It may be used for such things as criticism, comment, news reporting,teaching, scholarship and RESEARCH.

Big picture - if you aren't making money on the material and you are not impacting the value of the material to the author, you can use it. You should of course properly cite the source.

[neocelt]

The use of copyrighted material is permitted under certain circumstances without payment to the owner. It may be used for such things as criticism, comment, news reporting,teaching, scholarship and RESEARCH.

Big picture - if you aren't making money on the material and you are not impacting the value of the material to the author, you can use it. You should of course properly cite the source.

What's more, copyright protection is only applicable for a specified period of time (which is renewable only ONCE) from its original date of creation or publication--after which said intellectual or creative property devolves into the public domain. Any photograph taken during the Civil War has long since moved into the public domain and is not protected by copyright. Having said that, it is both courteous and sensible to request permission of the current owner of a period image (and add accreditation per the owner's wishes) prior to publishing it in any form, electronic or otherwise. In this day and age of "fast and loose" electronic publishing, the relevant statutes are constantly undergoing review and revision, but good taste and common decency never go out of style!

Cheers,

[ElizabethClark]

Even if an original photo is "public domain" based on age, it may still be owned by a collection or private individual. Then, we're not dealing so much with copyright law, but with private property statutes, and licensing law. A museum or private collector may stipulate how and when items in their possession may be used.

Short summary, repeating the rules here: don't post copyrighted material. Short quotes to make a research point or illustrate a question, plus the book citation or collection citation for others to look up and then comment--that's okay. But don't scan pages from modern books and post them here. The end. :)

[CWDfifteen]

If someone owns a particular photograph, then in my view they own the rights to it.

Fortunately, that is not true. Unless the creator of the work sells his rights to you, you own no rights, you just own a copy of the photo. What you can do with it in terms of copying is restricted by law, and it gets pretty complicated.

[ElizabethClark]

Mr. Mink's example, I believe, supports your statement--he was pointing out that a person who owns an original photograph owns rights to it, and can specify how it is used (and what rights transfer upon sale, etc--you're right, it can get very complex.)

[Alan Lloyd]

Friends
Thank all of you for your learned replies. I have to admit, however, that I am still not entirely clear on the subject.
I certainly understand Ms. Clark's responses...as a moderator, she is obliged to protect this website from any possible litigation. Thus, she must take a very conservative approach. Rest assured; I would never dream of posting a scanned image on this site. I also understand the Collector's viewpoint.
However, we are really talking about purely educational use of these images. The only difference between posting an image on this site and showing it to a classroom in a slide show...is the size of the classroom.
I am sure that we all have attended classes in which images were shown without written permission. (The Louvre would be inundated with requests to use the image of the Mona Lisa)
Is this practice illegal, and only continued because it never comes to the attention of the images owners? Or are there exclusions in the law for educational use as Mr Gilk asserted?

[ElizabethClark]

Quick note: don't forget to click on the USER CP link in the top navigation bar and configure your automatic-signature file... then you won't have to listen to me nagging you about signing your name to each post. :)

On topic:

There are educational use exceptions, but it's still good manners to ask the owner before sharing, even for educational use (and, the owner *can* limit or charge for such use, even then.) There have been court decisions that do limit what's considered "educational use"--professors can't photocopy "course packs" that include entire or substantial portions of copyrighted materials and claim it's for educational use, for instance.

And yes, a heck of a lot of copyright violations go on, some in very public venues, with the violators just hoping no one calls them on it. I'm the copyright-smackdown lady on my church's women's auxiliary board, and there have been some pretty blatant violations from that bunch of very nice church ladies, who figure it's alright because "it's for church." Pleasant fiction for them, big headache for the rest of us.

One way to go, if you want discussion opened regarding a particular image in a published book, is to share the book and page details, let folks look at their own copies, and discuss from there. Or, if it's found on-line, share a link to the text or image, and discuss from there. These are ways to open educational discussion without violating copyright.

[Alan Lloyd]

Friends,
I was sent these links by a friend. They may be of interest.

Exclusions to Copyright
http://www.ucop.edu/ott/faculty/crprimr.html

Definition of Public Domain
http://www.benedict.com/Info/PublicDomain/PublicDomain.aspx

Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

Sincerely,

Alan Lloyd
coloradocavalry.org

[ephraim_zook]

"However, we are really talking about purely educational use of these images. The only difference between posting an image on this site and showing it to a classroom in a slide show...is the size of the classroom."

Not so. Not so at all. By and large, fair use of materials in the classroom must be used in a face to face teaching situation. Ie: The teacher must be present in the classroom with the students. Hanging the images on the wall (or posting them on the web for all to see) and directing students to view them is not fair use.

How do we post material on the web appropriately for sharing among students? Only students currently registered for the course can access the material -- by password or other security measure.

Ron Myzie

[markmason]

I regress :cool:

[DaveGink]

Lots of misinformation here. As someone who deals with copyrights on a daily basis (I own an advertising and graphic design studio) I can tell you that posting a photo here from a book or other source falls under "fair use" (see section 107 of the U.S. Copyright code). "Fair use" provides for the use of copyrighted images (without it being infringement) for things such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Which these clearly do. I would ALWAYS credit the source when posting a photo for these purposes though.

Edit: Even though these photos clearly fall under the parameters of fair use - I want to add however, that 'fair use' is a defense used in court if a copyright owner were to actually sue for infringement. And does not mean that using a photo here for research automatically guarantees that no problems from that use can occur or that a copyright holder would not sue. And I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice. ;)