MicrostockGroup

Hi All

Could I please have some views on reproducing old images and placing them as stock for sale.

I have access to some very old images (>150 years old) which I don't believe have any copywrite issues concerning the original artist.  The images need considerable work to make them suitable for reproduction, such as tonal corrections, spotting, repairs etc.

My question is: Does the work I do to the image constitute adding enough artistic or technical effort to the resulting image to claim copyright over the "changes" such that the image can be added to a stock portfolio.  What about attaching a property release which notes that the property being released is the (considerable) work on the image and that the resulting image is a derivative of an original image that is copywrite free.

I note that there are countless examples of such images available as RF and RM on various sites (many it appears are straight scans without any additional work).

My first thought is that I can do this, provided of course that the agency accepts the image.  But I expect that the answer could be "maybe, maybe not", depending on the image and the personal work done.   However, a range of other/alternate views would be appreciated.

Regards

I think because the images are that old it's ok for you to use them however you like, even without putting any work into them.  They should be in the public domain.

You can get by with a property release at shutterstock showing you are the owner of these images. Same thing goes with Big Stock. Now iStock and Dreamstime can be butts about it. I had some go through at iStock with just a property release and other ones that they wanted property release and a model release from two living descendants...lol All these were from the same batch and era. Dreamstime requires the same except they only require one heir...lol Mine sell on Shutterstock and the few that got through on iStock sell every now and then. None of the ones on Big Stock have ever sold and I didn't mess with Dreamstime over it.

Absolutely right, but please, in the Description have "Photography from So and So, 186X"  . .   give due respect for the artist.

And what if there's an unknown, deceased model too?
Who can sign a model release? Not even an heir if model is unknown
Editorial?

I remember the old NASA saga at Istock.

People had downloaded photos from NASA, done a bit of clean up and were selling them (some of them quite successfully)

After much discussion Istock removed quite alot of them. I think using the photos as components in changed work is still allowed.

That's fascinating, because when iStock included the Bridgeman library in its collection it maintained it could do so because Bridgeman owned the material the copies had been made on, therefore it had copyright on the images. Furthermore, it claimed that nobody could submit identical works because they might be infringing Bridgeman copyright, even if they had been copied from another source (e.g. scans from an old book). So it seems that Getty, Bridgeman and iStock do not accept the authority of that court ruling.

Technically, the ruling would seem to mean that you can't click the "I own the copyright" boxes on any of the sites. And that would also seem to apply to all the rip-off NASA public domain space images unless they have undergone considerable additional work.

Interesting because now I'll have to do some research. If you take a photo of something, you own that photo. (simple point, leading to) If you scan a photo that you own, you own the rights to that scan and the photo. So if someone owns a photo from 1898 for example and they reproduce it - scan or photo- , they own the rights to the reproduction of that image!

Someone else can get the identical image, from another source and make copies and sell them, because it's PD. But they can't just copy yours or mine.

The point is, creating the copy, and editing it, cropping, adjusting, whatever else... makes that copy, individual new property and the owner would hold the rights to that image.

Same reason why you can't take a DVD of some out of copyright movie, buy it for a dollar and make copies yourself and sell them. The creation of the DVD in the first place makes it theirs, not PD for anyone to steal. The word "copyright" started with books long ago and the right to print copies, when the printing press with movable type was invented. Start there...



No flames please. If Corel won a case, for the identical materials and situation, it was because they had better lawyers.

I think you sum it up pretty well.

The case is a US authority which technically is binding in New York, but seems to have been followed in other states. Its influential for the UK as well because it comments on UK copyright law without determining the case on that basis. Being a US case it isn't of course binding in the UK.

I think one of the reasons a similar case hasn't been brought in the UK is that museums or archives like Bridgeman stand to loose far more than any potential gain if they don't win.

For practical purposes, the case doesn't mean you can't sell scans or whatever of public domain material, just that if someone decided to copy those images rather than buying them, theres not much you can do about it.

OK here's part one:

At the outset, it is worth noting that the post-judgment flurry was occasioned chiefly by the fact that the plaintiff failed competently to address most of the issues raised by this interesting case prior to the entry of final judgment.

Have a better lawyer, doesn't mean it's not a case of the plaintiff having a worse lawyer. It's all relative. Also getting one judge's opinion in New York, when the case cited UK law is an odd way to attack the question.

I do agree that if someone just scans something that's PD and claims to own the copyright, it's a stretch to say it's original when the case says, it is uncontested that Bridgeman's images are substantially exact reproductions of public domain works, albeit in a different medium.

So when you buy a movie on DVD that someone else copied directly from a film, and they claim copyright to the creation, it may be a bluff?

Consider this. You can't copyright a recipe (or a joke). Simple enough. But you can copyright a collection of recipes, as a cookbook, or collection of jokes as a joke book. But wait, if it's nothing but copying verbatim, a group of recipes why? And if the same holds for collections... then Bridgeman's argument should have been that they own the copyright for the collection! I suppose Corel could have said, theirs was a different collect of the identical images. 

This covers it well enough: "where a photograph of a photograph or other printed matter is made that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying". So a copy of something PD, identical copy, can't be protected according to that opinion. All those DVDs of old movies are not protected! Go buy one for $5 and make a thousand copies and sell them for $2 each, this ruling would seem to support that they are not protected.

My other stumbling point and it's bothered me, but we're just observers, not lawyers and not in the system. You can take a bunch of photos and re-arrange them and call it a collage and according to recent cases, they are a new work, so not infringing (I think it was some shoe ads and feet that was a big case?) But someone can't sample a bit of music, alter it, and put it into another work, because that's stealing. What's the difference? The courts say there's a difference? I think music sampling is much more creative than stealing Marlboro ads and painting some blobs of yellow or splashing color on them, and calling that original. And the artist won that case for derivative. (what a sack...) Nice that he lost the next case for stealing photographs again and trying to do the same thing to someones private works.

So that brings up point two: what state, what judge. You might take the same case to California and present the same details and get the opposite ruling.

Of course I'm forced to agree that case law, seems to point at, scanning of old images, does not create a new work, which can be copyrighted. At least not this month! 

As the decision of a federal district court, Bridgeman is not binding precedent on other federal or state courts...

I noticed today while uploading an image to SS that it says clearly that they do not want copies, photos or scans of PD images, unless the person submitting it OWNS the physical work themselves. I think that clears up the question that started this. Does someone want to go to the library and grab a bunch of old PD images and upload them. I'd say, the answer is no and it could get interesting if someone licenses that image, because the person paying for the download apparently can use it all they want for anything they want. No protection. Can I say NASA images? Remember that whole fiasco? Yes, you can use them as an element of some new creation, they are PD.

I'm not sure I'd go along with your contention that putting a copyright on something PD would be cause for action against the party selling it. If it is, can we get rich filing suits against all the PD dvds of crummy old TV shows and old movies? There you go, how to make money with microstock. Sue for misrepresentation. LOL

Back to the original question. It looks like the agencies don't want old PD images and just copying or re-creating them on a different medium (digital) doesn't give you the right to protection. But I don't think that stops anyone from licensing them for profit either.

When I was looking at selling on the web with K-tools or something else, I found one where the paper people had scanned old postcards (all PD and unprotected because of age) and were selling those scans for $1 a download. That ended the thought of doing something similar for a better price. Really, $1 downloads? Didn't someone get shouted down a few years ago for proposing a Micro site that did that?

This is the best thread from forum . Found really interesting & helpful . Thanks to bizair

Great fact & figures  Racephoto