Author Topic: Copyright iStock 1884 or before (Read 2968 times)

RacePhoto · « **on:** March 06, 2013, 11:29 »

I found it! Finally figured out why IS says PD images must be from before 1885 (and yes I know they are in Canada, I looked at the Canadian laws too and they are less restrictive on old works than the US laws, but they make their own rules?)

Type of Work - Copyright Term - What was in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2013

Unpublished works Never Published, Never Registered Works

1) Life of the author + 70 years
2) Works from authors who died before 1943

3) Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship) = 120 years from date of creation
or
4) Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known = 120 years from date of creation

Works created before 1893

Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.

Date of Publication - Before 1923 = None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration

1923 through 1977 - Published without a copyright notice = None

1923 through 1963 - Published with notice but copyright was not renewed = None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration

1923 through 1963 - Published with notice and the copyright was renewed - 95 years after publication date

-=-=-

In other words, 1924 works will first move into the public domain in 2019. 1923 works had already passed into public domain when the law was written, so they remained with that status. You can't go back and copyright something, once it's public domain. Which applies to all dates and works. Once they go into the public domain, they are ALWAYS and forever in the public domain.

There are traps and complications, say a book is Copyright 1922 and the printing is 1933, it's protected from the later date, as a new version.

But the whole point of all of this was to discover why iStock had refused a work from 1899, they assume the author of the artwork is unknown, until I can provide facts to show otherwise. If a drawing has no provenance, they assume it's anonymous.

"==> Engravings and illustrated reproduction scans must be dated from 1884 or older in order to be acceptable.

This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file."

OK then, I'm happy to have discovered some law and reasoning. While the dates aren't a perfect match, at least I understand the cut-off point and have a reasonable reason why it is the way it is. (unlike the response that I got which said, "contact Scout") No reason to bug Scout review when the problem is something from legal.

Some day maybe I'll meet a Canadian lawyer who can explain the fine points.

Caz · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2013, 15:28 »

IStock have been using 1900 as their required cut off period for copyright for quite some time.

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php
Nov 5/12 - Artwork
The creator of any piece of art owns copyright to the work. Any capture or scan of artwork requires a property release signed by the rights holder to the work(s).

If the works of another artist is to be incorporated into a new content, then a property release should be obtained from the owner of the incorporated work. A property release would not be required if the work being incorporated has been so fundamentally altered that it is no longer the original work of the author.

Some additional and useful guidelines are as follows:

Acceptable
- art that was created before 1900, by an artist who died before 1900
- art located in public space (created by an artist who died before 1900)
- artwork from a pre-1900 publication, or publication out of copyright, that has been scanned
- historical statues (i.e. war heroes, politicians) are acceptable provided they are in a public space.

Unacceptable
- art created after 1900 and/or created by an artist who died after 1900
- art (regardless of age) that is located in a museum, private location (inside or out), or exhibition (temporary or permanent)
- art as main focus in editorial (created after 1900)
- art (regardless of age) that has been pulled from a website, CD, DVD, or any other digital media

tickstock · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2013, 15:54 »

modviz · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2013, 17:06 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 06, 2013, 11:29

Unpublished works Never Published, Never Registered Works

1) Life of the author + 70 years
2) Works from authors who died before 1943

3) Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship) = 120 years from date of creation
or
4) Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known = 120 years from date of creation

And does this include photographs and film?

Caz · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2013, 03:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 06, 2013, 15:54

I don't remember 1900 ever being used. It's been 1884 for as long as I can remember, the wiki is wrong about a lot of things so I wouldn't put too much weight on it and that's the old wiki. http://wiki.gettyimages.com/

You'll have to trust me when I tell you that 1900 is what inspectors are currently instructed to work to. It was changed from 1884, and added to iStock's wiki, back in November 2012. The new Getty wiki isn't fully populated yet.

tickstock · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2013, 11:20 »

Sadstock · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2013, 14:01 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 07, 2013, 11:20

Quote from: Caz on March 07, 2013, 03:38
Quote from: tickstock on March 06, 2013, 15:54
I don't remember 1900 ever being used. It's been 1884 for as long as I can remember, the wiki is wrong about a lot of things so I wouldn't put too much weight on it and that's the old wiki. http://wiki.gettyimages.com/

You'll have to trust me when I tell you that 1900 is what inspectors are currently instructed to work to. It was changed from 1884, and added to iStock's wiki, back in November 2012. The new Getty wiki isn't fully populated yet.

Two different admins said 1884 two weeks ago. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351753&page=1

I'm shocked that people who work for Istock are giving conflicting messages.