Author Topic: Is a photo of a map legal? (Read 19292 times)

gunnar3000 · « **on:** January 22, 2009, 12:53 »

hi,

as a cartographer I know for sure that maps are protected by a copyright. but sometimes you can find images which are showing parts of a map.
this is an example:
http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/11/54/49/400_F_11544969_Hh7LyZuSrpGZFqEZZu9d8s7Z1ri6eq8l.jpg

I dont know whether the photographer created the map or not, but if not I think such images could possible contain a copyright infringment.

I just want to know your opinion: is it legal if the main subject of an image is protected by a copyright?

gunnar

goldenangel · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:25 »

In this case, the photo is showing a small piece of the map. I see it as an equivalent to showing a detail of an old car, for example. I think I read in some guidelines that it was OK to have stock photos of those details as long as not more than 20% of a car is showing.

Also, when copying something from a book, it is not considered a copyright infringement if one photocopies one page only. I'm not sure if this makes sense but would be interested to see what other people think...

anton9 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:52 »

No I dont find it copyright. If it was of a whole globe of page then maybe but as a tiny section then no I wouldnt. You look at the thousands of maps on stock. I agree with what the last guy said with a tiny section of a car or anything else. I think a lot of it depends of the particular image but to this one id say no

Dreamframer · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:08 »

I guess it's not copyright because it's really just a tiny bit of a map. I don't think even creator of this map could say if he made this map. I used to draw maps of Europe before, and you could kill me, but I couldn't say if this is a part of some of my maps.
On this image you can see my eye. The image is big and sharp enough, but everyone asked me "who's eye is this?", and most of them are seeing my eyes every day for years

Anyway, maybe somebody else will tell us something more precise about this case.

KB · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:11 »

Songs are protected by copyright, but you can legally use, like, 6 notes of a song under "fair use". (But please note, IANAA!)

I think in general the answer is that use of a map as the main subject would be subject to copyright. But some uses, on a case by case basis, should be allowable. IMO, the image shown above would fall under "fair use". Such a small portion, with almost no details, IMO does not harm the creator.

But maybe I'd feel differently if I were a cartographer?

Dreamframer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:28 »

As a musician, I know well things about copyright in music. You can be sued for copyright even for 6 notes, but only if those six notes represent some very recognizable phrase. Also, no one can sue you even if you copy entire harmony of a song, if this harmony is often used in similar songs. Country music, for example, have basically several harmonies, and if you record something with another type of harmony, it will not sound like country music. So, you have to use one of those several harmonies (maybe sometimes with slight variations) to make a country song and no one can sue you.
But, if you use something like these 6 notes in the beginning of Beethoven's 5th symphony:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo[/youtube]

Someone could sue you for sure...well Beethoven won't...that's for sure also

But I think this is NOT the case with this map.

araminta · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:59 »

You have to consider that stock agencies prefer to be too restrictive rather than too loose.

Copyrights laws are so complex that everybody seems to have a different opinion on what is copyrighted or not: as soon as there is a doubt, I would say that most agencies may decide to reject the photo.

gunnar3000 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 22, 2009, 15:00 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 14:08

I guess it's not copyright because it's really just a tiny bit of a map. I don't think even creator of this map could say if he made this map. I used to draw maps of Europe before, and you could kill me, but I couldn't say if this is a part of some of my maps.
On this image you can see my eye. The image is big and sharp enough, but everyone asked me "who's eye is this?", and most of them are seeing my eyes every day for years

Anyway, maybe somebody else will tell us something more precise about this case.

I am just curious: how did you shoot the image of your owen eye?

avava · « **Reply #8 on:** January 22, 2009, 16:12 »

Maps are protected if you can identify the map in question you have to do some post production to change the map and make it your own. That is one way around it.

Best,
AVAVA

yingyang0 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 22, 2009, 16:16 »

Quote from: gunnar3000 on January 22, 2009, 12:53

hi, as a cartographer I know for sure that maps are protected by a copyright.

Don't be so sure about what you know. I can only speak about copyright in the U.S., but here the mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected. Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright; accordingly, copyright protection extends only to those components of a work that are original to the author. In this case you have only a small portion of the map so it would be extremely difficult to prove what map was use to create the photo, let alone that there is some original element embodied in the portion of the map used.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2009, 16:49 »

my opinion only. if it's not public domain , it is protected. but araminta is right, most sites would ask for a PR to be safe. or reject it. why not draw the map yourself? merely symbolic for demo purposes, this would be not IP.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2009, 17:27 »

Quote from: gunnar3000 on January 22, 2009, 15:00

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 14:08
I guess it's not copyright because it's really just a tiny bit of a map. I don't think even creator of this map could say if he made this map. I used to draw maps of Europe before, and you could kill me, but I couldn't say if this is a part of some of my maps.
On this image you can see my eye. The image is big and sharp enough, but everyone asked me "who's eye is this?", and most of them are seeing my eyes every day for years

Anyway, maybe somebody else will tell us something more precise about this case.

I am just curious: how did you shoot the image of your owen eye?

I took small camera (Samsung NV3). It's point and shot camera, and it can take close ups from distance of about 1cm. I took it in my hand, and put it close to my eye, and tried many times until I was satisfied. Even this image of a butterfly was taken with this camera from some 5cm distance

RT · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2009, 17:50 »

It's an extremely easy one to answer, can the work be identified as belonging to a certain copyright holder from the image, and depending on what country you're in depends on by whom it can be identified, so for instance in some countries the copyright holder may know it's his but unless an independant third party could identify the difference betweeen his and a very similar one then it wouldn't matter a jot.

In the case of the image in question I'd say not, but not being a map nerd the pink square thingy maybe should have been removed.

Whitechild - Re your eye, an eye is like a fingerprint and if someone really wanted to they could identify you by it. Out of interest did you supply a model release, if not they should have asked for one.
I must say though I'm hardly surprised nobody knew it was your eye.

cathyslife · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2009, 18:01 »

I have seen MANY images of maps on all the stock sites, and yet I had a photo rejected because it had a map in it. In my photo, the map was NOT the main subject at all, there were other objects in the photo, the map was out of focus and a secondary element. When I asked the reviewer why my image was rejected and tons of others are on their site, the reply was "get over it and move on, the image probably wouldn't have sold well anyway". That's a whole nuther rant, but my point is you might be able to get away with it if it's not the main element. By the way, it was istock that rejected it but it has gotten accepted on other sites.

I have a Rand McNally map book and it clearly states that no part of the maps can be reproduced as they are copyrighted. And yet maps continue to show up on the sites, and you know darn well they are NOT user generated. Some maps, like Rand McNallys, just have a specific look to them, to me anyway.

I don't think there is going to be a clear answer, because you have the human factor involved...there will always be a reviewer that will pass it through, and you will always have the reviewer that rejects it.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2009, 18:12 »

@RT
I know that iris of an eye is like a fingerprint. But, it should be taken perpendicular to the iris to be valid. Well, to be honest, I was proud of this image, and I started to show it to people around me

And first reaction was "Oh, cool image....and who's eye is that?" Of course they recognized it when I said it's mine...but not on the first sight.
Not one agency asked me to upload model release for this image.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 22, 2009, 18:23 »

I thought there was a thread on IS about this recently and the conclusion, from what I remember, was that there are public domain maps available that are ok but you should provide the info to the reviewer about where it came from.

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2009, 18:26 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 18:12

Not one agency asked me to upload model release for this image.

Doesn't surprise me, you should put in the keywords Barack Obama now! or thinking about it maybe not

Dreamframer · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2009, 18:41 »

@RT

Honestly, I don't think I need model release for his image because it's not really recognizable who's eye is this. If that was half of the face including eyes...it would be another story. Otherwise, we should submit MR for every ear and lips, hands, every birthmark, and I won't go further.

RT · « **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2009, 18:51 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 18:41

Honestly, I don't think I need model release for his image because it's not really recognizable who's eye is this. If that was half of the face including eyes...it would be another story

Legally speaking no you don't, it's your eye and you're selling it so I doubt that you will ever take legal action against yourself, but technically speaking the agencies don't know it's you (unless you mentioned it in the upload process) and the person with the eye (you) in that photo could be identified if they really had too by the unique features of the iris irrelevent whether it's perpendicular.
However what I meant was that some agencies even require a release for a silhouette or the back of a hand, I'm surprised you didn't get asked.

leszek · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2009, 19:12 »

The maps should not be created anyway - God owns the copyright for Earth. Therefore, reproducing Earth's unique design on any media is illegal.

Oops...you think that the above is idiotic ? Well, in that case reproducing a map (or at least a portion of it) should be legal.

Oh - but it isn't ? Copyright still applies ?

Well, didn't I just say that the whole thing is idiotic ?

tan510jomast · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2009, 20:50 »

Quote from: leszek on January 22, 2009, 19:12

The maps should not be created anyway - God owns the copyright for Earth. ...

Ya but god does not like subs, heh!heh! (just joking).
seriously, this is interesting. I would think that like nursery rhymes and hymns in music, maps are probably (note probably, i repeat) in public domain since they've been out so long and the author is PROBABLY unknown.

basti · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2009, 01:59 »

Outside the * US rules which usually mess with general worldwide rules its obvious copyright problem. Any car design, postal stamp, coin, map etc. HAS ITS CERTAIN author who is the copyright holder regardless if he/she paid some bureau for it or not. That means even shooting small part of a car (eg. front light) is a copyright violation, because it was designed and it can be recognized, logo or not. Same with all those pics of cars with typical porsche or BMW design - cloning out the logo isnt the solution. Whole car including every little detail is copyrighted. Post stamps, coins and maps has also author/designer.
Copying one page from the book is bad example. Copying part (20% mentioned on example above) of a book and selling it is ok then? In every book is written "no copies in any form under any circumstancies", isnt it? Same is usually on maps. Even small portion of map is still copyrighted.

RT · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2009, 04:21 »

Quote from: basti on January 23, 2009, 01:59

Outside the US rules which usually mess with general worldwide rules its obvious copyright problem. Any car design, postal stamp, coin, map etc. HAS ITS CERTAIN author who is the copyright holder regardless if he/she paid some bureau for it or not. That means even shooting small part of a car (eg. front light) is a copyright violation, because it was designed and it can be recognized, logo or not. Same with all those pics of cars with typical porsche or BMW design - cloning out the logo isnt the solution. Whole car including every little detail is copyrighted. Post stamps, coins and maps has also author/designer.
Copying one page from the book is bad example. Copying part (20% mentioned on example above) of a book and selling it is ok then? In every book is written "no copies in any form under any circumstancies", isnt it? Same is usually on maps. Even small portion of map is still copyrighted.

Not on Dreamstime, I've just had an exchange on Dreamstime about (another) blatent infringement on their site, their response - Achilles edited the thread removing my post and sent me a personal message asking me to watch my attitude!
I gave him a clear explanation of the infringement and even gave him an example of where BMW had taken another company to court over a lesser example of IP infringement, and yet rather than act or do what I suggested and contact an IP lawyer or BMW themselves he chooses to ignore it.
It saddens me to see an agency such as Dreamstime being ignorant to the law and not protecting it's contributors for whom some don't know any better.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2009, 09:50 »

RT, msybe it was EDITORIAL, as DT has a section for Editorial images.

RT · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2009, 10:34 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on January 23, 2009, 09:50

RT, msybe it was EDITORIAL, as DT has a section for Editorial images.

No it was Royalty Free and there's lots of them, including many which feature the BMW grill which is one of the most well known protected symbols in property law, but according to the expert on Dreamstime that's OK, the sad thing is that the poor contributor will suffer the consequences far worse than the agency.

Ha...I just checked the thread and one contributor has mentioned how they put their trust in the DT reviewers, geez that's even worse than putting your trust in the agency itself.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

what do you think? are images of a map legal???

Author Topic: Is a photo of a map legal? (Read 19292 times)

gunnar3000

goldenangel

anton9

Dreamframer

KB

Dreamframer

araminta

gunnar3000

avava

yingyang0

tan510jomast

Dreamframer

RT

cathyslife

Dreamframer

traveler1116

RT

Dreamframer

RT

leszek

tan510jomast

basti

RT

tan510jomast

RT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors