| Author |
 Replies: 35 / Views: 7,826 |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
383 Posts |
Here is a tutorial on e-Bay's intellectual property policies. http://pages.ebay.com/help/tutorial...l/intro.htmlThis is a cut/paste from one of the questions.
Always use your own pictures in your ebay listings. If you copy someone else's picture, this is called "picture theft". Picture theft is against ebay policy and may also be in violation of copyright laws.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23537 Posts |
I am still working on a coin book for Children
I wrote a letter to the Us and Australian Mints asking about using photos of coins.
The responses I received went like this
U.S. Mint: there is no copyright on coins if I take the pictures myself. If I use another persons pictures, I should obtain that persons permission to use their pictures.
Australian / Perth Mints:
Although there is no copyright on using pictures of coins in publications, the mint would request that I submit to them the coins I wished to use and they would see what stock photos were available for use. However they would not have a problem with me using my own photographs.
rggoodie
aka Richard
"catch em doing something right"
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24170 Posts |
Wikipedia has been using others' (Coin Facts, Heritage, Superior just to name a few) coin photos for years without repercussion. They have this notice under each coin photo... The image above depicts a unit of currency issued by the United States of America. The design is ineligible for copyright, and is therefore in the public domain. Click here for an example. Wikipedia has lawyers on staff and would be seriously slacking in their duties to allow this to go on for so long (or even at all) if it was a problem. quote:
Always use your own pictures in your ebay listings. If you copy someone else's picture, this is called "picture theft". Picture theft is against ebay policy and may also be in violation of copyright laws.
Notice is says "may". What ebay says is really irrelevant to what we're talking about here. |
|
Valued Member
United States
421 Posts |
I notice how they say the 'design is ineligible for copyright' which is true, as I understand it, as it is a work of the government. The design of a blade of grass is ineligible for copyright but a photo of it can certainly be copyrighted if it has artistic merit. It all falls down to artistic merit and originality, as I understand it. A rote copy of something is not able to be copyrighted but if it has even limited artistic merit, it is another story.
It is all speculation, though, until there is some legal precedent which, AFAIK, there hasn't been directly at least that I have heard of. But, I am not sure I would want to try to convince a jury that one of AuldFartte's or Adrian Crane's toned coin images has no artistic merit or originality or required no special skill to create and is just a rote copy. Might be a hard sell. ;)
(Wikipedia is also a Non-Profit, IIRC, and that probably works in their favor as well as their (sometimes over-used) claims of fair use and the fact that they are an 800 lb gorilla with a lawyer on staff. :D)
Edited by Stujoe
09/24/2006 8:05 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
421 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Stujoe
I notice how they say the 'design is ineligible for copyright' which is true, as I understand it, as it is a work of the government.
After doing a little reading on the mint site, apparently Wikipedia is wrong even with that blanket statement in regards to the rote copy of US coins. The Sacagawea dollar design is copyrighted and some State Quarter designs are copyrighted and only licensed by the mint. quote:
Certain coin designs are also covered by copyright (for example, the design of the new "Sacagawea" Dollar Coin is owned by the United States Mint, and designs for certain 50 State Quarter coins are also covered by copyright and licensed to the United States Mint).
http://www.usmint.gov/kids/index.cf...pyRights.cfmEdited by Stujoe
09/24/2006 8:20 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
23537 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Stujoe
quote:
Originally posted by Stujoe
I notice how they say the 'design is ineligible for copyright' which is true, as I understand it, as it is a work of the government.
After doing a little reading on the mint site, apparently Wikipedia is wrong even with that blanket statement in regards to the rote copy of US coins. The Sacagawea dollar design is copyrighted and some State Quarter designs are copyrighted and only licensed by the mint.
quote:
Certain coin designs are also covered by copyright (for example, the design of the new "Sacagawea" Dollar Coin is owned by the United States Mint, and designs for certain 50 State Quarter coins are also covered by copyright and licensed to the United States Mint).
http://www.usmint.gov/kids/index.cf...pyRights.cfm
I believe you are correct the designs are protected under copyright law but not pictures of the coins. I can post a coin picture but I can not take the design off of a coin and use it with out permission such as a picture of Sacagawea from the dollar to be used in for example my company logo. does that make sense? |
|
Valued Member
United States
421 Posts |
There are really 2 issues at work here as I understand it. One is the copyright of the design and the second is the copyright of a photo of that design. Speaking of US...as I understand it, the work of a government employee while in the performance of his official duties is generally not eligible for copyright. Many US coin designs would fit into that definition. Although apparently not all as I imagine some designs are based on copyrighted work or possibly created outside the mint. But I can see where the design would generally not be eligible for copyright with some exceptions. Now, the way I understand it, a photo of a coin and whether that is eligible for copyright is quite different and has nothing to do with the design being eligible for copyright or not. Just as my US flag is not copyrighted, I can take a photo of it and if it meets a minimum of artistic merit, originality, etc then that photo of my flag can be copyrighted. I fail to see how that would not also apply to a coin photo. If it is a photo that has originality, artistic merit, etc then I have a hard time seeing how it would not be eligible for copyright in the US. I would have a hard time looking at a photo like this:  and saying that it is not a work of art or there is no originality to it. It is obvious that skill went into choosing the proper lighting, etc to make that photo look like that. It is not a rote copy of the design. You could change the lighting or angle or other variable and get a very different picture. In a very real sense, it is as artistic as a photographer taking a picture of a sunset in just the right way to bring out the true beauty of it...and that photo of a sunset would absolutely be elligible for copyright. Edited by Stujoe
09/24/2006 11:34 pm
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24170 Posts |
quote:
It is obvious that skill went into choosing the proper lighting, etc to make that photo look like that. It is not a rote copy of the design.
I disagree, the artistic value is the the picture itself, not the making of the picture. No matter how you take the picture, it's still a straight on picture of a coin. Now take that picture above and merge it with a flattering background or make some type of collage, now the picture itself has artistic value. I think a seller of coins would be stuck in a catch 22 in court. If the dealer would prove in court that his photos have artistic or creative merit, then in essence he would also be admitting to fraud on some level. If the photo is not just a photo of the coin he's selling, but a photo with his or her creative or artistic value added, then it's misrepresented. Now let me ask you this. I can take an identical closeup picture with my camera and loupe as 99% of people can with a fancy microscope and special camera. Now because they have the skill to set up a $500 microscope and a $1000 camera with the proper lighting, does that mean that their picture (identical to mine) has more right to a copyright than mine? |
|
Valued Member
United States
421 Posts |
I am pretty sure whether the closeup would be copyrighted is dependant upon whether it is a rote copy of the, say mint mark, or whether there is a minimal amount of creativity that went into the picture. That might be a hard sell to claim copyright with a photo like that under most circumstances. Now, light that photo a certain way, take it at a chosen angle to make it look a certain way, crop that photo, place it on a special background, etc and you may be getting into creativity.
As far as a seller being in a catch 22. I don't see it unless there is some kind of an intent to defraud. A coin can look a hundred different ways depending upon how a photo is taken. A seller might set the photo up to show luster better or toning better or surfaces better or whatever. As long as there is no intentional deception involved (like photo-shopping to make the coin look like something it never could be) , he is probably safe.
I would say that not all coin photos are eligible for copyright as some are rote copies of the design. And I think that is where the big difference is. A scan is pretty much a rote copy as are some pictures. In some cases, there is nothing extra in terms of artistry or creativity that goes into it. It is just a copy of the design.
Many coin photos are different, in my eyes. I know when I take a picture, I am going for a certain look. There are decisions I make with lighting and angles and setup and post processing (such as placing it on a digital background, adjusting color), etc that are every bit as artistic or creative as someone framing and lighting any other photo of anything else.
I think that is why Wikipedia words the notice the way they do. They are right, in most cases, that the design is ineligible for copyright and therefore a rote copy of it is not eligible either. But, I think that is way different from saying AF's Frankie above is just a rote copy of the design.
Another thing about copyright is that I can step up to the grand canyon and take a picture. When I walk away, you can stand in the exact same spot with better skill and better equipment and take the same picture. The way I understand copyright, they are both eligible for copyright protection regardless of how alike they are.
I think what would save most people in real life is that it would be expensive for someone to defend their copyright and, in most cases, difficult to prove damages. But that is true when using most photos. There is nothing special about coins in that regard.
Edited by Stujoe
09/25/2006 09:00 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
830 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by bobby131313
No matter how you take the picture, it's still a straight on picture of a coin.
Bobby, that particular shot that Stujoe used in his example is mine, and it is in no way a "straight on picture". The method used to shoot that involves lighting and angles and straightening the image to make it "round" again. There's a lot more to it than just hitting the shutter release. Stu, thanks for the compliment  |
|
Forum Dad
United States
24170 Posts |
quote:
Bobby, that particular shot that Stujoe used in his example is mine, and it is in no way a "straight on picture". The method used to shoot that involves lighting and angles and straightening the image to make it "round" again. There's a lot more to it than just hitting the shutter release.
I understand there's more to it than hitting the shutter release. I take photos of coins about 30 hours a week. While your image is definitely beautiful, to a layman, your photo looks like nothing more than a very good image of a toned coin on a plain black background. Sorry. Click to enlarge The image I took above also involves "lighting and angles". Do I think it could be copyrighted. No. So why can yours? Because it's toned? Because it's a prettier coin? |
|
Valued Member
United States
421 Posts |
I would say that picture definitely is more than just a rote copy of the design. There is light detail in the luster that was captured that renders it creative in my book.
I can go outside right now and take a picture of my house and to the layman, it would be just a good picture of a house. But I am pretty positive the photo would be eligible for copyright. I can't see how it would be different just because the object I am photographing is a coin.
It almost sounds like to me that your definition would lend very few photos of any object to being eligible for copyright and I just don't think that is the case. Most every definition I have seen of image copyright is "Original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression" and that is almost always expanded on by "Requires only a minimum amount of creativity". Most coin photos qualify the way I understand those statements.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
830 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by bobby131313
[quote]Do I think it could be copyrighted. No. So why can yours? Because it's toned? Because it's a prettier coin?
Bobby, I apologize if I gave that impression. No, my coin is no more "worthy" of being copyrighted than anyone else's. The fact of the matter is that I own the copyright as soon as I take the photo - NOT for the design of the coin, or the color, but for taking a photograph of it. You own the copyright on your photo as well, whether you want it or not. If you take a photograph of a tree, you own the copyright for that particular photo, but certainly not for the tree. That's the only point I was trying to make. |
|
Valued Member
United States
421 Posts |
After looking at a number of law sites and some cases (mostly dealing with copies of public domain artwork), the only exemption to a copyright on something I can find is if it is a 'slavish reproduction'. That means that there is no creativity or originality added to it at all. I can see a scan of a banknote meeting that criteria. Maybe a scan of a coin too in some cases.
But the majority of coin photos like what are shown here? I can't see it. The mere fact that you achieve a certain look through adjusting light, angles, post processing, etc adds the minimum amount of creativity and originality needed to qualify for copyright in my mind. I wouldn't want to argue slavish reproduction in court on the 2 photos posted here.
Now, is anyone likely to get hauled into court over using pics like that without permission? The odds are seriously against it. There are about 10 bazillion pictures on the Internet and probably 9 bazillion of them have been swiped from somewhere else and violate someones copyright. It ends up probably being more of a moral issue in all practicality since one's odds of someone actually spending their money to defend their copyright in court is pretty slim.
Edited by Stujoe
09/26/2006 11:46 am
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24170 Posts |
Well, I think we could argue about this for a while and not agree. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. As far as a court battle, in my opinion it would depend hugely on the jury. If you had a jury full of photographers or people that know people that make a living at photography or collectors that have ever tried to take a picture of a coin, you may be in trouble. If you had jury of people that are disconnected from photography and coins, I think you'd cruise right through with no problems. These people would look at the photos posted in this thread and say "Big deal, it's a picture of a coin". We know different but they don't. |
| |
Replies: 35 / Views: 7,826 |
First Page
Posted 09/24/2006 6:48 pm
