Other Peoples Pictures

^lol

Smiling babies........they make me ticked off sometimes.

This subject came up on another forum. Here is a post I made there, which may help here. The discussion applies specifically to my books, but the same concepts hold for the internet.



I hope this helps the discussion. Copyright law is a simple concept that, in my opinion, the governments have made complicated. In general if you don't publish others' intellectual property (writings, photographs, die numbers, etc.) without permission for a statuatory period of time, then you are fine.

In my books, my use of materials fall into several different categories.

Public Domain - For example, I used information from the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1853. I cited the material source in my books, but needed no permission to use it because the copyrights had expired and it was now in the public domain. Even when it is off copyright, it is important to cite the source (to not do so probably is plagiarism). In the U. S., I think anything published before 1923 is now in the public domain.


Fair Use (called Fair Dealing in Canada) - I used short exerpts of other people's works for either criticism, comment, scholarship, or research. This is allowable without permission of the author under Fair Use. Here is a better definition of Fair Use:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107


I obtained permission - In several areas of my books, I sought out and received written permission to use other's intellectual property. In several instances I had to pay for the permission. In some cases they gave it freely.


Crown Copyright - The U. K. and some commonwealth governmental information is under Crown Copyright. Usually you can get permission to use material under Crown Copyright, but you almost always have to pay for it. For example in my Volume I, the photograph of Thomas Graham and the Provincial cent die records are both under Crown Copyright. I paid to use images of both. It was not inexpensive. It is my understanding that Crown Copyright does not expire, unless the Crown decides to take it off copyright. In the U.S., there is no Crown Copyright, or equivalent. U. S. government records are in the public domain as soon as they are created.


All three of my books are registered with U. S. copyright office. For some reason Volume II hasn't made it into their data base yet, but I have the returned copyright certificate from them. For example, if you paste the link below into your browser, then type Dies & Diadems in as the title, you will see the Copyright Office database information for Dies & Diadems. You will see that the text, the pictures, and the die numbering system are under the copyright.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov

If you deal with the U. S. Copyright Office, you will find that it takes up to two years after submission to receive written confirmation of your copyright. Your copyright legally begins as soon as you put your work on paper (that is to say, even before you submit it to them).


The basics of U. S. copyright law can be found here:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

The answer to Roger's question is probably that it is work for hire, as discussed on page 2 of the link above.


Length of copyright is a tricky subject because the laws have changed over the years. Specific information on U. S. duration of copyright can be found here:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

My copyrights should be valid until 70 years after I die.

Here are a list of the countries that have signed on to the international treaties to enforce foreign copyrights:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf

Have you thought of using a watermark twoplustwo?

I've come across a few situations about pictures...

1) Others using my pictures to sell their coins on ebay...

*Really not concerned about the use of my pictures in this case ... as such listings are not my responsibility, as I am not the seller...

2) Someone using my picture to present-their-point-of-view to fellow hobbyists in a bi-weekly coin publication...

*Really not concerned about the use of my pictures in this case ... as such things are done to further the hobby, in my opinion...

3) Pierre Charest utilizing my pictures within the pages of his publication...

* Really not concerned about the use of my pictures in this case ... as he has my written permission to do so...

4) I did utilize pictures of the Pittman-type 10¢ dot that were posted on the internet, to present my observations to fellow hobbyists...

* The exercise was done on a coin-chat-forum and the results from such were as I believed they would be ... I ask others to spot the differences, showed the obverse of the coins first and participation was brisk ... then I showed the reverse of the coins and the participation dropped-off...

There are occasions when we cannot provide our own pictures of a given subject ... don't have an example of the coin, don't have the means to take a picture, picture taking skills need improving, etc...

I know I am unable to own an example of every-coin that exists...

I know I've blown-up more than one electronic usb microscope with my only-to-great-special-modifications : ) and worn-out more than one scanner along-the-way, which leaves me without, until I can replace same...

And I certainly remember well, all the poking-of-fun that others enjoyed at my expense over my picture taking skills ... when I was just beginning to learn about such things : )...

These coin-chat-forums are a good example of occasion to utilize the pictures of others, in my opinion ... as they are specifically for the purpose to further the hobby as a whole...

The very act of providing a "link" to somewhere today is helpful for the short-term, but the "link" may not always be there tomorrow ( ebay especially), which does not always make it helpful for the long-term ...

I for one to be counted ... would much prefer that my fellow hobbyists utilize my actual pictures, to assist them in presenting-their-views to be made...

dts...

"Don't judge me by my past, I don't live there anymore"-cds

change-1 >> Line spacing correction...

Phew!! => luckily most of my photos really suck, so I don't have to worry about getting mad ...


=> but smiling babies ... oh man, they really do look a bit too smug in their little smiley-faces, don't they!!




... thanks for that chuckle

You have to be careful with this, especially if you are photographing coins that the Royal Canadian Mint holds the copyright to.

http://www.mint.ca/store/mint/about...erty-1800010

That said, what we are creating is classified as "derivative works". We are, in essence, copying what the engravers and the Royal Canadian Mint hold the copyright to. We can take all the photos you want, of their "art" but we cannot claim copyright or gain financially from images of their coins. You could claim copyright, for example from groups of coins that follow a theme (e.g., animals, or ships from all over world), or creating art using coins, by arranging Loon dollars in the shape of a loon, or digitally adding colour to coins.

Should you want to claim copyright, using a coin from the Royal Canadian Mint, you have to use this form:

http://www.mint.ca/store/dyn/PDFs/R...ation_v1.pdf

The image on our modern coins dates from 1937, when it was created by one George Kruger Gray who died in 1943. In any event, s. 12 of the Copyright Act would put the image into the public domain no later than 50 years from creation, namely in 1987, assuming that the Mint, in 1937, was an emanation of the Crown under the direction and control of His Majesty, as Her Majesty then was. And even if that isn't right for whatever reason, any possible copyright that Mr. Gray could have had would have expired and gone into the public domain no later than 1993, fifty years after he expired. Those images are now in the public domain. Even so, the Royal Canadian Mint claims ownership of all images of those coins. Here is a recent example...

http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/566...l-government

I am sure there is a legal agreement in place with the RCNA and Trajan Publishing (Canadian Coin News) and the RCM regarding images used in the CN Journal. I know that the Charlton Press also has such an agreement. The mint turns a blind eye on most other published likeness of their images, but I would not try to flex copyright muscle with something you do not own.

"Although I understand the sentiment, in many cases I think this runs afoul of copyright. << >> I think many people just do not think about intellectual property rights when they are posting something."-bosox

Agreed and this does present a "shackle & chain" twist to the furtherance of the hobby through discussion...

So, if I give permission for others to use my pictures for discussion purposes on this chat-site (which I do) and others follow in kind.......

As for the "ethics-bar-set" by respectable numismatic publications ... all I can say is...

If I were "charging" for my publication and taking in "advertising dollars" ... I would like-to-believe that I would pay-closer attention to such-things ... but, only by being in the actual situation, would I know for certain...

dts...