Comments on: Copyrights on 100-year-old pix

By: Gr33n3gg

Gr33n3gg — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:04:11 +0000

Yeah, and next time I want legal advice, I’ll head down to my local Wal-Mart.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:14:12 +0000

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.

By: Hippie

Hippie — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:54:26 +0000

” 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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:16:56 +0000

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.

By: ninjadude

ninjadude — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:52:16 +0000

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.

By: Alter_Fritz

Alter_Fritz — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:30:32 +0000

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

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:10:55 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:41:16 +0000

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 .

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:38:00 +0000

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