"I scanned it, so now I own the copyright"?...

[Cousin Hepcat]

I've noticed a growing trend: People seem to believe that if they scan or photograph an exact replica JPG image of a pre-existing artwork, which they had no hand in making - whether that artwork is Public Domain, or whether it's under copyright to the original artist - people seem to think that if they scanned it, they now own the copyright to that image.

You're all familiar no doubt with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) started in 1935, "employing millions to carry out public works projects". One such line of projects was a series of 1930s-40s posters, "For The People, By The People".

I am becoming increasingly interested in Graphic Arts and Typography of that era, and that's led to some purchases of vintage art, typography, & poster-layout books of that period (many of which use WPA posters as exmaples), and, I've started saving & re-printing in miniature (4 to a page), many of these WPA posters saved from various websites.

[EDIT: My purpose in re-printing these in miniature, is to for Single Copies go into a binder for my own personal use, as Classic Examples to study & dissect, in conjunction with the above-mentioned books discussing graphic arts & poster layout. I am NOT printing these to re-sell the prints.]

Examples:

.

.

.

.

Obviously, these were from websites which were upholding the original "For The People, By The People" intent of these posters, and the websites did NOT put any kind of "copyright" watermark, or image-download-blocker scripts, on their site. (One such site is the Library Of Congress' WPA Posters site: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/wpaposters/wpahome.html )

However, I've noticed, a LOT of sites seem to be watermarking these and other vintage 1930s-40s commercial graphics such as movie posters and sheet music covers, with "Copyright <website name>", and/or attempting to block the downloads.

In the case of movie posters and sheet music covers, perhaps it can be said that, since some May still be under copyright by the ORIGINAL ARTIST or company which produced them, I shouldn't be able to download them; fair enough.

But, what on earth posesses the people posting these images to their sites to claim that THEY, the website owners, own the copyrights??

How about YOU? Do you think that if you scan an image which is public domain, and post it on your website, that this means that the work is No Longer Public Domain, and now You "own the copyright"? How about something previously copyrighted by someone else, whether still under copyright, or expired?

Can someone "argue the other side"?... Because I can't fathom the thought process... But, perhaps I am severely deficient in my understanding of some area of copyright law, and someone can bring me Up To Speed, and I'll "eat crow"...

 

[MariantheLibrarian]

I am not a lawyer, but I do handle a lot of copyright issues for my job, and I believe that the phenomena you're noting is what's often referred to as "copyfraud". Specifically, people are asserting a claim to materials to which they have no legal claim. Copyright's such a dense and murky field-- particularly for the layperson-- that most people who commit copyfraud can easily get away with it. I'll also note that I've seen a disturbing trend of people believing that anything on the Web is public domain; just check out the kerfuffle involving Cook's Source Magazine this year as an example.

To the best of my understanding, one cannot copyright a public domain work; however, I freely admit I have no idea if there may be exceptions under the "derivative works" clause that might apply.

I can't argue the other side because I personally wouldn't do it. I do have a website that contains art images (presented for educational purposes, not for profit) and I'm always scrupulously careful to cite and link my sources. I don't consider something mine unless I created it-- image, object, or writing.

 

[HungaryTom]

VERY interesting topic. I am no lawyer. I can only cite my history teacher on law being the will of the respective ruling class (or élite if you like) put into writing.

I post on different forums and I handle it the following way. Everything on internet is de facto public domain – there is no way to prevent it from copying. Print Screen + CtrlC + CtrlV namely can not be blocked.

The whole issue reminds me of obtaining ownership rights of the sun than claiming fees for the light and heat from everybody - Let’s property tax claimants back with 1000 dollar/sqm…
See:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-02e.html
http://veracitystew.com/2010/12/03/wtf-spanish-woman-claims-ownership-of-the-sun/

Whatever I post are others articles, others pictures and I give the source. My input is the translation, transcript of parts, adding the own opinion, drawing conclusions etc. - for which I don't claim anyone either.

Re the artworks – the intellectual proprietor is the artist. It jumped out of the own brains and was realized by own talents. All the rest; the impresario, the gallery just market the given artwork but intrinsically it is not theirs. Same goes for the artist’s grandmother, lover, wife, husband, concubines, gigolos, dear neighbors, kids, grandkids etc. They just happened to be around, facilitating the environment (the soil for the artist's happiness or misery from which the artwork originated) but that’s all – it is not theirs.

Than come the museums: the artworks they possess are entrusted to them for DISPLAYING the artifacts and no director or curator has the rights to hide'em. They are merely bureaucrats and administrators of something they never own. Whether they manage some private collection or state museum. So in this context I really don’t see why museums still have the iceberg concept i.e. 10% of their works is displayed on the walls and the rest is hidden in the cellars, where only researchers can see those. I don’t think ANY of the artists had the intention to work for the writing desk.

In the age of digital cameras and internet and servers it wouldn't be really difficult to digitalize all those fruits of human intellect for the public. If the costs are to be returned, do it in the marketable form - whatever is displayed on the web, is no more safe vs. copying.

In my opinion same should go for registered patents: it shouldn’t be possible to buy those without realizing them within a reasonable timeframe with the inventor’s consultancy. Otherwise we would still sit around like ape-men from space odyssey without tools and fire.

 

[anon`]

In American law, at least, you can't "re-copyright" something. The copyright of an original creation belongs to the creator, and only the creator, but I believe that it is an assignable right for all practical purposes. It can also be abrogated by the owner, by simply not enforcing it. In the US, it is not necessary for the owner of a copyright to register it for the copyright to be created. Simply bringing the work into existence is sufficient.

I believe also that once a copyright (again, in the US) expires, the work becomes part of the public domain and is ceases to be subject to ownership (except in the case of chattels) or copyright. Simply slapping a copyright symbol and your name on something doesn't change anything, but does make you look like a fool.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Copyright has different meaning for different types of work. A printed work falls under different laws than a sound recording, for example, which falls under different laws than a film. In the case of WPA art, it was made for hire -- the person creating it received a weekly wage from the Works Progress Administration and the U. S. Government therefore took title to the work they created. They would control the rights to that work today, for whatever rights might still be valid.

Copyright in the United States cannot be abandoned by failure to enforce it -- it exists from the moment of creation, regardless of what the creator does or doesn't do, and exists for the full term provided for by law. Renewals are no longer required. *Trademarks* can be abandoned, which is a whole different issue.

As far as the internet goes, I've had my own work stolen and redistributed by so-called "Old Time Radio researchers" with my name and copyright notice stripped away, so I'm pretty hard-boiled on this issue. Taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own is theft, pure and simple, as is distributing another person's original work without permission or compensation to them -- and I have nothing but contempt for the people who stoop to it. I learned my lesson the hard way, and no longer post original research on the web.

 

[Zemke Fan]

ANOTHER non-lawyer chiming in on a very convoluted subject. As I understand it, works produced before 1923 are considered in the public domain even though CURRENT copyright law in the United States provides for a longer term. Also in the public domain are items created by/for the federal government. Items in the public domain CANNOT be re-copyrighted, unless they become "derivative" works which "must display some originality of its own." Wikipedia has a pretty good treatment of all of these subjects.

BUT to get back to the OP, the commercial works that you referenced are likely still under copyright protection unless they are dated before 1923. (For works published between 1923 and 1963, the term for copyright was 28 years, or up to 95 years if specifically extended.)

 

[Zemke Fan]

In the case of WPA art, it was made for hire -- the person creating it received a weekly wage from the Works Progress Administration and the U. S. Government therefore took title to the work they created. They would control the rights to that work today, for whatever rights might still be valid.

As I understand it, Lizzie, U.S. government works are always considered to be in the "public domain" and cannot be copyrighted.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

The law:

"Compilations" of "public domain" art are protected by copyright. That is US copyright law. See Form VA for details about registering this kind of work (visual arts).

Once an image has entered the public domain it is there forever. What is public domain and how is that determined? That is very complex and involves more than determining simply how long ago something was created.

No one can claim a right to the original source once it's public domain, but they can claim rights to their collections and "derivative works" made from that image as long as the original source was rightfully obtained.

Copyright is only one kind of right; there are rights of publicity and trademark issues. An image could be public domain but still covered the other two rights and your usage would constitute infringement.

The definitive guides are the actual laws. Visit on copyright.gov and uspto.gov. It's not light reading but it's all there.

Laws aside, how would you feel if you spent thousands of dollars to obtain original art sources, went through great trouble to digitize them so you could display them online only to have people simply right click and profit from that. If not a copyright violation it's still theft, in my opinion.

 

[John in Covina]

"For The People, By The People".

However, I've noticed, a LOT of sites seem to be watermarking these and other vintage 1930s-40s commercial graphics such as movie posters and sheet music covers, with "Copyright <website name>", and/or attempting to block the downloads.

I haven't seen people putting copyrights on such works but have seen watermarks used. Here is the deal on that- people that have invested time, effort and expense to bring these works to web sites or may actually be selling prints such as on Ebay would much prefer that others don't simply take these images that the poster has worked on to put up on the web. If people are selling prints of the work it makes no sense for them to post an image another can click and save then print on their own.

Now if people are copyrighting materials that are owned by others that's an infraction of some sort a type of theft of intellectual property. I do know that copyright owners can sell their rights to others and in some instances copyrights can be renewed possibly by others picking up those rights. BUT I am not sure how that works. However, just as a lot of music and films on digital continues to be pirated via the internet, many people do not understand the idea that a piece of music is owned by someone. Did you know that the tune and words to the song Happy Birthday (to you) is owned by someone so a video of a birthday party published even on you-tube is suppose to pay a royalty for the use of that song. People making films not steeped in the tradition of the legal aspects often get stung by the writers of music that was commissioned for the film's music over copyrights and royalties.

 

[CharlieB]

Than come the museums: the artworks they possess are entrusted to them for DISPLAYING the artifacts and no director or curator has the rights to hide'em.

I can tell you, from volunteering at our local historical society in both the archives and museum that every artifact and document, when donated, has a "deed of grant" created so that the donar clearly gives the rights to the object to the society. The claim is the same as you owning a book or DVD. you own the object, the producer owns the copyright of intellectual property.

This is one reason many museums do not allow photographs of their exhibits - in case the thing you want to take a picture of is under someone else's copyright (or sometimes even ownership, if the object is on loan). Any documents that we hold full rights to (both physical and copyright) can be photocopied, but they get stamped with a copyright notice.

Hope this gives a little clearer perspective on museums.

 

[Cousin Hepcat]

THANKS ALL for the posts; very interesting.

...believe that the phenomena you're noting is what's often referred to as "copyfraud".

Fascinating article, and chain of reference links at the bottom there - went and read most of them - thanks for that.

Taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own is theft, pure and simple, as is distributing another person's original work without permission or compensation to them -- and I have nothing but contempt for the people who stoop to it.

Sorry to hear that happened to you.

I think you & some folks mistook my intentions; I should clarify: My intention is to thoroughly learn & absorb the "Look, Feel, and Methodology" of vintage 1930s-40s posters, for the purpose of being able to create new, original works, which DO NOT use any directly-copied portions of older works. That's why I stated in my original post, that I am also buying vintage 30s-40s books on poster layout techniques & typography / lettering styles. I have absolutely no interest what-so-ever in selling bootleg copies of vintage 30s-40s posters; only in Learning Techniques To Create New Works, true to the vintage styles. (Edited my original post also, marked "[EDIT]".)

I don't believe this represents any kind of "theft"; unless someone were to argue that it's fundamentally contemptuous for people to be influenced by the STYLES of other artists, which IMHO would be Just Silly.... No one can expect people to be ashamed to create any works which are influenced by anything they've ever seen (or heard) before in their lives; nothing would ever develop; "the swing era" would've never happened; no "impressionist school" of painters; yadda yadda...

As I understand it, Lizzie, U.S. government works are always considered to be in the "public domain" and cannot be copyrighted.

My understanding too, regarding the WPA posters.

PrettySquareGal, I have "West's Business Law" (1000+ pages); slowwwwly reading... I'll get to the copyright law chapters, Eventually; until then...

Laws aside, how would you feel if you spent thousands of dollars to obtain original art sources, went through great trouble to digitize them so you could display them online only to have people simply right click and profit from that. If not a copyright violation it's still theft, in my opinion.

Again, clarification: My purpose is not to reprint or distribute these in any other way, than to view them myself as "supplemental reference material" to the original vintage 30s-40s books I've purchased discussing poster layout methodology & balance, for the purpose of learning the style.

How would I feel if I spent thousands of dollars to obtain original public-domain art sources, and then, someone else came along, saw my image on the web where I was selling reprints of this art, and Didn't buy my reprints, but was influenced by a certain technique used in the original artwork, and absorbed & incorporated that bit of technique into their own general style? Would I feel that that person is guilty of Theft? Personally, NO; I consider that to be, simply, "how the artistic world works". If that person started selling reprints taken from my photos? YES, I would consider that theft.

BUT, with the examples to which I'm speaking - namely, 1930s-40s WPA posters: every time I saw one that looked to me like a perfect example of "form and balance", but I couldn't access a clean image from one site, I could easily do a Google Images search on the text of the poster, and find other copies posted to the web without such false copyright claims, from Many Different Sources. So, while you make a valid point for priceless artwork rarities, I don't believe that applies to the majority of things people are claiming false copyrights to, nor to the works I'm specifically talking about here: Mass-produced (on a limited scale of course) posters advertising various things, events (free or paid), and health information.


Thanks again, all, for commenting; And, Agreed, "The Law Is The Law: Just Read It"... but, still looking forward to hearing more people's *thoughts*...

 

[Mojito]

Than come the museums: the artworks they possess are entrusted to them for DISPLAYING the artifacts and no director or curator has the rights to hide'em. They are merely bureaucrats and administrators of something they never own. Whether they manage some private collection or state museum. So in this context I really don’t see why museums still have the iceberg concept i.e. 10% of their works is displayed on the walls and the rest is hidden in the cellars, where only researchers can see those. I don’t think ANY of the artists had the intention to work for the writing desk.

I work for a museum, Tom, so perhaps I can shed some light here. We're often accused of squirrelling away works, as at any given time only a fairly small percentage of our collection is on display. I can understand why, if you've donated your priceless family heirloom to a collecting institution, you might feel rather put out when you take your grandchildren to see it and find that it's not on display, nor has it been on display the previous two times you visited (part of my job has been facilitating displays of donated items to family members who want to see what great-grandpa bequethed us!).

I suspect, though, you're taking a rhetorical position here, as I know you'd be familiar with why most museums can only display a small portion of their collections. We can only physically display so much - and we're a comparatively small (albeit national institution)...I can't imagine the physical space that would be required to properly display even 25 - 50% of the artifacts in, say, the Louvre or the Cairo museum (indeed, Egypt is currently trying to erect more museums to house, conserve and display greater portions of their immese collection).

We try to tell a story in our "permanent" galleries, grouped around themes pertinent to our collecting areas. These "permanent" displays are regularly cycled - some items go into storage, some items come out. The reasons for this are several...often, for conservation purposes, we want to limit their exposure. Also, we want to show as much of our collection as we can, balancing the needs of the narrative and those of practical display issues. Then there are our temporary exhibitions...a piece might not go on display for years until it fits into the story we're trying to tell through a particular exhibition, at which time we bring it out of object store and offer it in an interpretative context.

In terms of copyright...museums struggle with this as much as any person, company or institution. I've seen exhibitions scuttled or hampered because a copyright holder denied us the permission to use particular images that were important for providing context, or asked for such exorbitant fees we couldn't meet them. We do our level best to respect intellectual property rights, however much that burdens our staff with research and sometimes fees.

Our museum, like many of the major museums in the world, does not prevent photography. We are perfectly happy for visitors to photograph within our galleries - all we ask is that they do not use tripods without prior permission as these can obstruct the flow of visitor traffic, or that in some instances that they do not use flash photography because those light levels can be harmful to textiles, paper and some other exhibits. I do know that some museums ban photography - in instances when this is not because of conservation concerns, I've found it is usually a small, privately owned museum where the proprieters are concerned about maintaining control over the items they have spent a good deal of their personal investment on. While I might not agree with this attititude, I can understand where it's coming from.

But from the perspective of a national institution - we're not trying to restrict people from having access to the material for which we are the caretakers. Indeed, our efforts are directed at sharing them with as many people as possible, all over the world. I don't think it's too much to ask, however, if we arrange for a high-quality photograph to be taken of, say, one of the paintings in our collection to ask for - at a minimum - acknowledgement, or possibly a reasonable fee. After all, it costs us to conserve/store/photograph these objects. If it's for not-for-profit purposes, we don't seek to recoup our expenses and usually just ask for an acknowledgement. However, if you are going to, say, publish it in a magazine that will sell for profit, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to ask for a user fee. That money feeds right back into the collection - it's not going towards lining the pockets of the curators or director (except inasmuch as they are salaried individuals, and their salaries are paid regardless) - it's going towards acquiring, conserving, recording and interpreting these objects for the nation and the world.

 

[HungaryTom]

Dear CharlieB, Mojito,

Thanks for the clarifications and the explanations – much appreciated.
Surely I took the rhetoric position.
I never worked in a museum but I am a frequent museum visitor.
All I wanted to say is that those exhibits, museum lots can be digitalized and should be made available for the public. I know it takes a large effort but if you involve volunteers production time can be shortened.
The output should be done in a CD ROM series for instance -a copyright product where the author is the museum and only the museum- since nobody would buy it in with all the color reproductions in a coffee table book quality.
The price should be set by the producer.
That way the fragile oil paintings or rare mounted animals etc. wouldn’t be exposed to light for too long and fade still they would be there in a visual form.
I know this is difficult but yet feasible.

I can relate to the pain when dealing with people donating lets say mid range artifacts wanting to see it “on the wall” or in the showcase instead of top range or fist class artifacts just because it is theirs. For instance 15-19th century had thousands of European painters but the future can only remember lets say a few from each “ism” or century. The rest are also in the Museum but can not be exhibited – this is the reason of my suggestion.

Storing anything on internet is de facto giving away copyrights since it can be copied and it will be copied whoever finds the site unless it is password protected. I can only give my own example – I spent the price of a car on original art books, natural history books, lexica, novels, DVDs, CDs, I always pay entry fees in the museum visits and buy in museum stores - but I always PrintScreen and copy paste internet information for myself and store it on my hard drive without a second thought. Whether this is a theft or not. Therefore I can reiterate it for the last time, whoever wants to prevent others from copying own private things shouldn’t store them in the public. Internet is namely public - it is world wide. There are private places (electronic and physical) for that. This is like putting my private photos in the street expecting others not to look at them.

Cousin Hepcat, if you are intending to work in the style of a favorite period it is all natural that you collect all information available, than emulate it and produce your own work inspired by those, and you are also helped in terms of period accuracy. What you are doing is not a plagiate but your own way of developing. Just like every poet and writer studies literature, any painter course contains in-depth art history, copying artworks of others, musicians learning music history inside out, performing others works – No artist with a formal training was ‘original’ in this sense, everybody learns, gets trained by some master and has role models whom s/he follows. There are only those who don’t admit.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Storing anything on internet is de facto giving away copyrights since it can be copied and it will be copied whoever finds the site unless it is password protected.

False. It may be giving away access but that is not the same as giving away the rights.

 

[Spitfire]

Not to sidetrack this very interesting discussion, but I also find it very strange when a designer chooses a picture for a cover for a book - and the picture has nothing and no relation to the book what so ever. In this example the top picture shows Pilotofficer Albert G Lewis (A person I happen to know quite a bit about) - Lewis had nothing to do with the character in the book, they did not fly together in the smae squadron and Lewis is in no way mentioned in the book. Still the designer - who probably never read the script - just finds a picture of a pilot and thinks _ wow - cool picture, I'll stick that on the cover.
Has he asked permission?
Has he got the copyright for the use of that picture?
And what about Lewis family - have they been asked?
I bet it's a no to all three questions.

 

[HungaryTom]

PrettySquareGal,

You are the lawyer.
Uploading something to internet is a decision which the proprietor takes - privacy is gone.
It is like going to a TV show - my privacy stops there, others will watch.
It is like reading newspapers/magazines on airplanes which I never paid for, correct or false?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Not to sidetrack this very interesting discussion, but I also find it very strange when a designer chooses a picture for a cover for a book - and the picture has nothing and no relation to the book what so ever. In this example the top picture shows Pilotofficer Albert G Lewis (A person I happen to know quite a bit about) - Lewis had nothing to do with the character in the book, they did not fly together in the smae squadron and Lewis is in no way mentioned in the book. Still the designer - who probably never read the script - just finds a picture of a pilot and thinks _ wow - cool picture, I'll stick that on the cover.
Has he asked permission?
Has he got the copyright for the use of that picture?
And what about Lewis family - have they been asked?
I bet it's a no to all three questions.

Reputable publishers have rights clearinghouses to take care of legal licensing requirements.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

PrettySquareGal,

You are the lawyer.
Uploading something to inernet is a decision which the proprietor takes - privacy is gone.
It is like going to a TV show - my privacy stops there, others will watch.
It is like reading newspapers/magazines on airplanes which I never paid for, correct or false?

I'm not a lawyer, but I am familiar with intellectual property law.

Again: Putting a work of art of literature on display does not give away the copyright. That means the public can view it, but that doesn't give you/them the right to redistribute it and all of the other rights assigned only to the rightful copyright holder. In other words making it easy to steal something doesn't make it rightful borrowing because of the ease to grab it.

In the example of a magazine, reading it is not the same as reposting the article, for example, other than portions for "fair use."

 

[Lady Day]

You find reprints of public domain material all over the internet for sale. Doesn't the whole 're-copywriting' farce, or claiming its their own only come into play when they are either suing or being sued over said materials?

Reading the copyfraud article and its reference cases makes me think that public domain materials are co-opted by people all the time, its when someone takes someone to court to claim that free material is there's that there is a problem.

There is also a difference in claiming the image is theirs, over claiming the reproduction of the image is theirs. If someone printed the image of a free domain cow on a t-shirt, that t-shirt is theirs with the cow on it. That gets into copyrighting an image, not the idea of an image.

I researched a lot of this when I started reproducing patterns. Its just messy and really pointless to say an original free domain image is yours, but the t-shirt version, or the reprinted version...now there is an argument.

LD

 

[Spitfire]

Reputable publishers have rights clearinghouses to take care of legal licensing requirements.

I am sure they have - but I still find it very stupid to use a picture of a known and specific person, if that person has nothing what so ever to do with the book. (I know it's another discussion. Sorry)