Copyright Bookshelf

I’ve also started a Library Shelf of free e-books discussing copyright on Google Books.  These books mainly date before 1900, thus giving an interesting perspective, very removed from the philosophy of many today.

Copyright – Free E-Books

Let me know if you’ve found an interesting tome that is missing from these lists, or if you have found another listing of copyright books that we could share a link to.

On May 13, Judy delved into the topic of online sharing in a blog entitled FamilySearch: Sharing is Forever. For all those who share your genealogical research online I highly recommend you check out the post. It is up to you to know and understand what you are agreeing to when you put your information online.  Today she posted another blog Copyright and the Quilt that is also a must read.  While there, subscribe, you’ll never regret the few minutes you spend reading her posts each day.

If you read a good blog on copyright, send an email to projects@csga.com so we can share!

What does the constitution say about intellectual property?  In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (the Copyright Clause)  the constitution empowers the United States Congress to “..promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

The book, which notes there is no precedent in “common law” for copyright protection, states that “What follows in this book is not a moral case for or against copyright; it is a pragmatic look at the excesses of the present copyright regime and of proposals to further expand it.”  You can read the entire first chapter of the book on website of the Mercatus Center.  

On the website you will find a link to purchase which sends you to Amazon.com.  You can order a Kindle version or a paperback.  The Kindle version which can be read in any web browser if you don’t have a Kindle is just $3.99.  If you haven’t tried out the Kindle Cloud Reader it’s possible to download the book so you can read off line. 

I am interested in comments  from researchers, clients, and potential clients on the issue of works for hire.  I would also like to post copies of contracts that deal with the copyright issue up front (we can leave out any names and specific details.  If you are willing to share, please send to projects@csga.com)

Results of Last Poll— 55.5% of respondents thought the picture taker owned copyright of the picture.  44.5% thought the camera owner owned the copyright, no one was still confused.  Take the new poll, who owns the copyright when a genealogist is paid to do research for a client?

My initial response ……. Wow interesting question! I think you are probably safe assuming he won’t push for copyright. I think I’d call it a verbal contract giving you ownership when he agreed to take it with your equipment. But a lawyer could argue the other side.  I think I’ll throw this up on the copyright blog after new years and see what the feedback is. Do you mind if I quote from your email?

Genealogy Lady commented “That sounds like a really tough issue especially since the photographer is unknown and honestly probably wouldn’t even remember that he took the picture in the first place.”  and others sending comments privately echoed the same sentiment, with a few adding in my thought that “lawyers” might argue diffenently.

A now for Gary’s thoughts…………More from Las Vegas. I must admit that my copyright question has me pondering more each day. Here are 2 additional thoughts on my question.

1 – This past holiday season I used the photo in question on my Christmas cards. Like my others, I used an on-line photo processing service. Part of their ordering process is to affirm that “…I acknowledge that I own the copyright to the images in my order… . I clicked “Yes”. In total, 3 of the 5 photos I used on the card were taken by someone else, using my camera. If the mere act of snapping someone’s photo on their camera constitutes owning the copyright, then hundreds of thousands of Americans violated copyright law this year.

2 – I propose that I own the copyright for my photo because of the following facts: my wife decided where the photographer would stand, and where the subjects would stand; she adjusted the camera’s zoom lens to the desired setting, and adjusted other settings within the camera. The “unknown” photographer, simply held the camera at eye level, framed the photo as previously set up, and pressed the shutter button. In fact, the first photo he took was unacceptable to us, and we asked him to take a second photo. In my mind, my wife contributed 90% of the creativity of the photo, while the “button presser” contributed only 10%. If we had had a tripod with us, we could have taken the same photo without his assistance!

Gary has sold me.  I vote that he owns his pictures.  Did he convince you?  Take the poll on the right hand side of this blog.

So the question is….

I have a real life question on copyright as it applies to photographs.

During a recent vacation, I handed my camera to a random gentleman whom I asked to take my photo. The photo he took with my camera is SUPERB!!! The question is…Who owns the copyright? I have the only .jpg file of the photo, yet someone (whom I cannot identify) took the photo. If he is the copyright owner, I cannot enter the photo in any contest or publish it in a book of my photos.  (G. Shull)

Watch the blog next week for the conclusion Gary reached.  Will it agree with yours?

Cath Madden Trindle – 17 Dec 2012

I offer no opinions here, just some links to blogs and articles on the intellectual property portion of the agreement for your perusal.  Feel free to leave comments!

• Electronic Frontier Education 
• Public Knowledge  
• The Economic Impact of Copyright: A Presentation to TPP Negotiators
• New American TPP Copyright Provisions Threaten Internet Freedom, U.S. Sovereignty  
• Vancouver Sun – Digital Life 
• the Guardian – The Pacific free trade deal that’s anything but free
• Global Research Malaysia and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)  
• Zero Paid Trans-Pacific Partnership Leaks Again – Copyright Limitations and Exceptions 
• Law and Disorder Exporting copyright: Inside the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership
• IFLA Library statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations
• TechCentral.ie Critics concerned trade agreement will include SOPA languageTrans-Pacific Partnership has echoes of failed copyright reform measures 
• infojustice.org Joint Statement on U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Proposal on Exceptions and Limitations  
• techdirt –  Hollywood Wines & Dines Kiwi Politicians To Get Them To Support Hollywood’s Copyright Insanity In TPP  
• Washburn, Taylor, Yale Journal Getting Copyright Right  in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
• USTR Introduces New Copyright Exceptions and Limitations Provision at San Diego TPP Talks

Another controversial copyright case that has come to a conclusion is that of  Shepard Fairey, the creator of the Obama campaign poster in 2008.  Mr. Fairey was sued by AP for violation of copyright when he used a picture taken by an AP Photographer as the basis for his poster.  In this case he argued FAIR USE saying the original picture had been transformed into a work of art.

There are many on both sides of that issue. Perhaps less controversial is the fact the in trying to prove his point he lied about the picture he used.  The second picture included President Clinton and therefore only half would have been used.  But back to the issue at hand.  In using the picture Mr. Fairey made a great deal of money, so definitely not a non-profit use.  He might rightly argue, however, that the worth of the picture increased when he used it for the poster, so perhaps could have won his case on that fact…..IF….and this is a big IF.

IF he had credited AP and the photographer when he released his work.  He did not!!!!

This is a huge issue.  As genealogists, much of what we gather and use might be considered a fair use, but only if you give credit where credit is due.   Even when the material is no longer subject to copyright, use without crediting the source is unethical at best.

Mr. Fairey not only had to pay 1.6 million to AP (over 1 million of that out of his pocket) but he also has to do 300 hours of community service and is on probation for 2 years for tampering with evidence when destroyed information on his computer that showed which picture he actually used.  This large a settlement isn’t likely to happen in the genealogical world, but as we gather information online we are sometimes dealing with ……….