Copyrights on 100-year-old pix
p2pnet news view | Off Topic:- “Has anyone else run into this?” – wonders Tstamps on Flickr.
Run into what?
Copyrights on 100-year-old pix.
The post was picked up on Boing Boing and although it refers to an elderly Flickr post, it still shows just how farcical the copyright, well, farce has become.
“Several times I have heard of people attempting to get (family) photos copied at Wal-Mart and refused because they were ‘copyrighted’ – because they were made by a photograph studio,” Tstamps says, going on »»»
A cousin just informed me that a one-of-a-kind rare photo of my grandfather and grandparents was in his collection, and is over 100 years old. Unfortunately he only had time to stop at Wal-Mart and will be on vacation for the next two or three weeks.He was informed by the Wal-Mart “genius” that since the photo was taken by a studio, it was “copyrighted” which “meant it was not allowed to be copied” by anyone, at any time, period. (Again, what the genius Wal-Mart manager is referring to is “copywrong” which has never been a law in this country.)
The photo is of our family. There is, of course, no way to obtain permission from the elusive copyright owner because anyone who could have been the owner (other than the actual living owner standing there at Wal-Mart) are all dead. All the people in the photo are dead. The photographer is dead. The studio is long out of business and all negatives lost or destroyed. The studio’s management is dead, and could care less. So………is a photo studio manager who died 50 years ago going to rise from the grave and harrass Wal-Mart for copying a photo that is the only surviving one in existence? [Well, I certainly *wish* a zombie would attack Wal-Mart management - although, of course, not for copying but for refusing to copy.]
Wal-Mart – protecting the public interest.
(We lifted the pic from Joe Twyman over at eyepi. Thanks, Joe.)
.
.Stumble It!
Flickr -Wal-Mart claims *all* studio photos are against the law to copy, June 1 5, 2006
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
August 13th, 2008 at 8:38 am
sounds like bullshit to me.
these photo studios still do this today.
School pictures and other professional photographers works are copyrighted and yes it is illegal to make copies of your kids school pics but no one seems to be enforcing it since it is all private use(no one sells these things) but Walmart is making money leaving them vulnerable.
Photographs are considered works of art just like paintings. That is why they have crazy Copyrights that last forever
August 13th, 2008 at 8:41 am
No , the usual twisting of the facts again on this site , the fact is that he ran into an jobsworth idiot in Walmart . The other facts that people in the picture are dead , photographer is dead etc etc etc are just deflections from the fact you ran into an idiot , you meet them everywhere .
August 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Statutory damages in the USA for copyright infringement can be between $70 and $150,000. For intentional infringement the damags is supposed to be on the high side but for arguments sake, lets assume these facts:
- The photo is under copyright, owned by the publisher who last week got an assignment of rights from an alleged great-great-great grandson of the alleged photographer (anyone can sign that kind of document, as anything goes at the copyright office and is commonly done with music).
- Viewing the picture here is copying and downloading and infringement.
- 1000 persons entered this post.
- A judge will make me and all other viewers here responsible for $5,000 in damages to the photo’s owner.
- The total amount of damages is $5million.
- The owner gets a RIAA type order to force P2PNET to identify all page visitors.
Jon, watch out.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
That’s why you ALWAYS(!!) make clear with the photographer that takes family pictures that what he does is a work for hire and that you, the guy that hires him to make the photos, be the copyrightowner and he will get only a one time paymant for that “work for hire”.
If I understood the trick that evil4 is doing to the musicians to steal them theri copyright, that is the way to go; “work for hire”
disclaimer IANAL but I play a smartass knowing about US copyrighlaw on RI vs TP
August 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Which is why most people with any brains no longer shop at WalMart. Why in the world would you take a 100 year old photograph to WalMart? This is just another ridiculous story.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Hmm, @9:10 poster.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if it’s more than 100 years old, that would place it at 1908 at the latest. Assuming my creaky old mind is still good, hasn’t the copyright epired on everything before 1922 9leading to Eldred V Ashcroft) thus this photo isn’t copyrighted any more.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
” hasn’t the copyright epired on everything before 1922 9leading to Eldred V Ashcroft) thus this photo isn’t copyrighted any more. ”
Try to explain that to a wal-mart idiot.
” No , the usual twisting of the facts again on this site , ”
Please explain, with citations, how ‘this site’ twisted any facts.
Our local walmart has those self serve photo Kiosks, that refuse to print anything that has
an obvious studio watermark .. like most school pictures. This is fact.
This means, a paid for photo that has been scanned to digital can be prevented from being
copied at a wal-mart.
I use photoshop on such scans to remove the watermark.
No more problem. Copy at will.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The young Walmart clerk was just doing what he has been told to do
You pretty much have to have a law degree or spend quite a few very painful hours reading up on Copyright Law to know whether or not you are permitted to make a copy.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Yeah, and next time I want legal advice, I’ll head down to my local Wal-Mart.