MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: snapper on August 20, 2007, 13:13
-
Hi Guys - I wonder if anyone can help me on this - Is the Concorde aircraft one of these items (like the Eiffel Tower) a copyrighted item???
Many thanks in advance to those who answer.
-
It's copyrighted and trademarked up the ying-yang, but most sites will accept a Concorde image. The noteable exception is, of course, iStock.
The easiest way to check if a site will accept accept a particular image is to do a search for it on that particular site. In the case of the Concorde you'll probably find a few images that are nearly identical to yours.
-
If I am correct you can sell only day pictures of the eiffel tower but not the ones took during the night!
-
Correct Idambies... the French government in a bid to "protect" the Eiffel tower, erected the new flashing light system which is the copyrighted bit also the reason you can sell daytime or older images of the tower as the laws aren't retrospective.
But in Australia... just for fun the gov "gave" the local aboriginals a place called Ayers rock (Ularu) a large monolith in the middle of the desert then years later the aboriginals decided it was a religious place and therefore you can't sell images of it.. and the government made the laws retro. go figure.
-
But in Australia... just for fun the gov "gave" the local aboriginals a place called Ayers rock (Ularu) a large monolith in the middle of the desert then years later the aboriginals decided it was a religious place and therefore you can't sell images of it.. and the government made the laws retro. go figure.
Wow, do you ever sound bitter. Some may find what you wrote offensive, and you may want to watch out for that.
-
Wow, do you ever sound bitter. Some may find what you wrote offensive, and you may want to watch out for that.
watch out for what???? Boogie - Man Bush going to come and get him???? I think he was simply making a point which is technically correct if not politically...go shoot some photos : )
-
But who can actually sell photos of Ayers Rock then? It's quite well known and I've seen posters, postcards etc. of it.
-
JC,
In fact you might say the government returned Ayers Rock to the aborigines, who had been here thousands of years before the white man came and took the land from them.
Not that this explains forbidding to sell images of it retroactively.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Explosion of political correctness...
Are we to fix all historical wrongs? Then I'd expect Russia to bomb Mongolia any day now, after all Mongols kept Russians in slavery on their own land for what, 300 years?
On second thought... I'll better shut up, this topic cannot end well.
-
Sharply_done.. you're right, I've been accused of my writting sounding negative! :o but, I can assure you its far from the truth. In fact, I'm laughing at most of the things I read here and have a great big smile on my face as I write... so I sincerely apologise to anyone that might have taken offence at anything I said... though I am slightly confused. :-\
Madelaide... sorry, you're right. They returned it. (now for the ironic part ...said with a smile)
They gov returned "ownership" back to people who believe in the the earth and that nobody owns it! we respect it and we are only caretakers... a 40,000 old lesson we are yet to learn!
Pixart... It's one I'd be careful selling. We worked on a project for the Sydney Olympics and the Aus Government made postcards. The Northern Territory government persued the NSW Government and in the end they came after us! Great use of tax payers $$ ... after an amazing amount of time.. ( and someone else writting for me ...truly!) we got through it, but not worth the hassles.
My point in the beginning that not just man made structures have restrictions on them and it's not easy to find out what's the right thing to do. and now this.. all my Mongolian friends are in hiding! all's well that ends well.
cheers for now.
-
One thing that I've not seen on ANY microstock sight is a property release form, and yet I've had rejections that say I must supply one. To cap it off, this usually happens when the site already has (unreleased) images of the same thing in their catalog.
-
Actually there is. I should really keep one of these with my gear as well.
Does anyone have a preference over any of the following?
These would apply to both personal artwork (a painting), personal property (an old car) and real estate (a home), right?
Also: what are the rules again for real estate? Is it something like you can take a photo from the road as long as you don't step foot on the property, but once you do (step foot on) you need a release?
None found on SS or DT.
Istock: http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/propertyrelease.pdf (http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/propertyrelease.pdf)
Bigstock: http://www.bigstockphoto.com/property-release.pdf (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/property-release.pdf)
Fotolia: http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Releases (http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Releases)
StockXpert: http://www.stockxpert.com/txt/property_release.pdf (http://www.stockxpert.com/txt/property_release.pdf)
-
Thanks for the links, pixart!
-
well not sure about the real estate about being on the property and such.. it seems all rather confusing. What about when someone sells their house and a new family has the 'copyright' to that house. Would the release still be valid.
and most houses shoudln't need a release as they are built en mass anyhow and it would be impossible to tell where it was taken - unless it was a special architecture project....
just guessing though.
-
I read on one of the sites that if you have a property release signed by the person owning the property at the time the photo was taken then it would stay valid even if the property was sold
-
I read on one of the sites that if you have a property release signed by the person owning the property at the time the photo was taken then it would stay valid even if the property was sold
Correct.
@pixart, also correct. If you're on the street then you don't need a property release. If you are on private property, then you do. (Only applies in the US, I don't know about the crazy rules in other countries).
-
I wrote a little bit about PACA's PowerPoint presentation which provides a ton of very valuable information regarding copyright law in the US and how it applies to the use of imagery in advertising, the news media and fine art. You can take a look here http://cutcaster.blogspot.com/2007/08/creators-of-content-listen-up-for.html.
What did others think about this Powerpoint Presentation?
-
I wrote a little bit about PACA's PowerPoint presentation which provides a ton of very valuable information regarding copyright law in the US and how it applies to the use of imagery in advertising, the news media and fine art. You can take a look here [url]http://cutcaster.blogspot.com/2007/08/creators-of-content-listen-up-for.html.[/url]
What did others think about this Powerpoint Presentation?
It was good. It was geared toward an audience of end-users rather than the people here, but still informative. I did like the use of case law photos to show how subjective the subject is.
-
It would have been interesting to have the photos discussed - as it is all we can do is look and compare.
-
Guilty of bringing a dead topic back to life, but here's some material which someone may want in the future. No it doesn't have to do with property copyrights, but general information.
I have an original wire photo of Lindberg after his 1927 solo flight and wanted to know when I could duplicate it. If the copyright was renewed 2022. If not, I can blow it up into a poster and sell it. ;D
Copyright Primer
http://editorialphoto.com/copyright/primer.asp
In 1976 congress passed a comprehensive copyright act that went into effect in 1978. That act is what we are governed by, for the most part, today. The law prevents the publishing, distribution and even photocopying of a copyrighted work without the creators permission (known as a license).
Copyright Expiration Dates
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
Definition: A public domain work is a creative work that is not protected by copyright and which may be freely used by everyone. The reasons that the work is not protected include:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired;
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright or
(3) the work is a work of the U.S. Government.
If published before 1923, it is now public domain.
Published from 1923 - 63, 28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain.
(If renewed the total is 95 years)
Copyright Term and Public Domain
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
All terms of copyright run through the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire, so a work enters the public domain on the first of the year following the expiration of its copyright term. For example, a book published on 15 March 1923 will enter the public domain on 1 January 2019, not 16 March 2018 (1923+95=2018).
1923 through 1963, Published with notice but copyright was not renewed, now in public domain.
(A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%.)
Copyright Flowchart
http://www.bromsun.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.htm
Although copyright notice has not been required since March 1, 1989, notice does provide certain benefits and should be used.
-
Definition: A public domain work is a creative work that is not protected by copyright and which may be freely used by everyone. The reasons that the work is not protected include:
(...)
(3) the work is a work of the U.S. Government.
This is something that sounds very confusing to me. I am not a US citizen, nor live in the USA, so would I benefit from this too? Sounds odd...
Another point: I've seen NASA images used and being sold. Not only used to create a new image, but simply sold. Satellite images, Hubble images, all this stuff. People download from NASA websites and sell them either as digital images or prints. I even emailed NASA and asked about this, but never got a reply. It sounds at least ethically wrong to do this. One thing is NASA letting taxpayers who indirectly supported all that research have access to the images, print them and hang them on the wall. Another is to have taxpayers making money out of this. And even worse, non-taxpayers like me (as I pay taxes in Brazil).
Regards,
Adelaide