Re: A mere photograph

Larry Urbanski <larryu[_at_]moviecraft.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

   From whence comes the prior to 1963 date for photographs that you mention below? I thought public domain is 75 years prior, hence 1922.

   This discussion has not mentioned fair use. Under fair use, permissions do not automatically have to be obtained before a copy of a copyrighted photograph is made. Schools and libraries are the major beneficiaries of the fair use provisions of the fair use provisions of the copyright law.

Maryly Snow
slides[_at_]ced.berkeley.edu Received on Wed Apr 30 1997 - 18:48:05 GMT