Re: A mere photograph

On 4/27/97, Lesley Ellen Harris <copyrtlaw[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 97-04-25, Larry Urbanski <larryu[_at_]moviecraft.com> wrote:
> >
> > To my knowledge the photograph would have automatic copyright
> > protection. If, of course, you feel "your" photograph did not
> > contain "skill and labour" you need not enforce your copyright.
> >
> > Since most photographers feel "creation is copyright" they would
> > enforce their automatic copyright protection.
>
> But how does this work in the "real" world? Are most photographs
> protected by copyright? Are schools and libraries for instance
> clearing the rights in "mere" photographs of items?
 

This is the "real" copyright world. First, let me qualify I am not a professional photographer. However, photographer asociations state "creation is copyright" and even have T-shirts saying this. Under current US copyright law, if a studio or individual takes picture of your family, or year book photos, or a picture of a tree, that photograph is automatically protected by US copyright. If someone uses that picture, or duplicates that picture for any reason, the photographer would first register the photo with the copyright office, and then sue the infringer for damages.

So to answer your question

> Are most photographs protected by copyright?"

this is the case will all photos created today.

To address your second question

> Are schools and libraries for instance clearing the rights in
> "mere" photographs of items?"

you would have to ask the schools and libraries. If you are talking about current photographs under US law the photographer owns the photograph. If the photographer wishes to enforce his copyrights, he can do so under US law. I'm sure there are cases where the photographer decides not to enforce his copyright. However, the liability lies with school or library if they do not obtain clearances.

Photographs made in the US prior to 1963 are a different story. The bulk of published and copyrighted photographs made prior to this year were not renewed in the USA, and are in the public domain. Still, searches would be required to verify this.

And, I believe you were referring to "mere" photographs anyway.

Larry Urbanski
American Film Heritage Association
<larryu[_at_]moviecraft.com> Received on Wed Apr 30 1997 - 00:16:48 GMT