In a message dated 12/11/2005 6:26:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes: X-Message: #1 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:37:03 EST From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Paul - It's my understanding that no actual legal action has to take place for a copyright to be in effect, so any photograph taken is the property of the photographer at the instant it's taken. Same with writings - they are copyrighted to the writer when words are put to paper. If this is true, Olin Mills pictures are in fact copyrighted to them. I've had several places refuse to make copies of 'church' photos taken of my parents because they are copyrighted to those photographers. Now where did I go wrong in my understanding? Bev My brother is a photographer, a restorationist.. He always gives the negative to the person who engages (and pays for) his services.. He says he has never understood how a photographer can copyright someone's face which doesn't belong to the photographer... (He knows what the copyright law says) but he doesn't agree ... that is HIS personal opinion.. !!! Ellie

Hi, I can't help but throw my two cents in here. As a photographer, I maintain copyright on all images I take, regardless of whether you "hired" me to take them or not. You see, I am not your employee, and therefore you cannot own the results of my work. You did not purchase my equipment for me. You did not train me to do my job. I receive no benefits from you outside of the fee I charge for my services. That said, I am very liberal with the permission to use clause, and only ask that if you publish my work, you give me credit for the images. Personally, I see my photo in your published work as free advertisement for my business, and as long as you make sure my name stays attached, I'm happy. :-) However, I do draw the line at you giving my work to someone else to publish. For instance, you give my photo to a cousin, and she then publishes it or makes unlimited copies for other people, say as a giveaway on rootsweb. That hurts my business. :-( I would prefer you refer her to me, and let her make the same deal you did, or pay a small fee for publishing rights. And, as a final note, I have serious problems with a photographer who refuses to allow anyone to share the photos she took at a family reunion, especially given the fact that she herself does not safeguard the negatives. I cannot promise that the originals I keep will never be lost or damaged (bad things happen), but I keep those images as safe as possible, and that is one of the perks to hiring someone like me to take your photos. You can rest assured there will always be a back-up copy if you need one. Hope this helps, Lee Anders

Thanks Tim, An online friend whom is a photographer did fix a few for me as you mentioned, he removed someone out of a photo and had to fill in background, looked great, removed a large discoloration on a person, and fixed some rips in a few photos on people. I have a pic or two with rips in the face that I cant fix and I tried using my photo LE program , old program to fix it , did not work so well. I cant always call on him so would like to get a better program and experiment myself. cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: "cristy" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > Don't mind them at all. Overexposed can often be fixed, especially if you > have a negative to work from. Out of focus would require quite an > artistic talent to fix as you would literally have to draw in the > sharpness, unless it is only slightly out of focus, which I can often do > something with. The hardest things are things like removing someone from > the picture and drawing in the missing part of the background so it > doesn't show that anything is missing, filling in torn out or damaged > sections of a person, particularly a face, etc. > > cristy wrote: > >>Hi Tim, >> >>Hope you dont mind the photo questions, just a quick one, what are the >>most common things that cannot be fixed, i.e. out of focus pictures, >>overexposed etc? >> >>cia, cristy >> > >

Hi Tim, Hope you dont mind the photo questions, just a quick one, what are the most common things that cannot be fixed, i.e. out of focus pictures, overexposed etc? cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Kemp To: cristy Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy You can pay that much for Adobe Photoshop, but I have it and don't like or use it, I use Corel's JASC Paintshop Pro when I am on my Windows computer (which I use less and less). Paintshop Pro sells for around $100. Actually a much better program, which is more powerful than either of those, is "the Gimp". the Gimp is available only for Linux, but like most all programs written for Linux, it is better than anything written for Windows and also like most all programs written for Linux, it is FREE!! FREE!! FREE!! With any of them you use it takes much practice and a bit of talent. It's not a case where the program does it for you. You must tell the program what to do along the way. Tim cristy wrote: Hi Tim, I was going to ask you about that. Actually, about what a really good digital enhancing program to fix/restore old photos or photos that were not photographed well would cost as I have a large ongoing project with my family tree regarding that. A photographer I spoke to online before had told me the one he used cost about 600 bucks or so, very expensive! Thanks, christy cia, cristy

Hi Richard, Thanks for the ideas. I think the one the person I mentioned used was photoshop or something like that maybe adobe photoshop? but was very expensive, a bit over my budget. :) cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard B. Anderson, Jr." <[email protected]> To: "'cristy'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:25 PM Subject: RE: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy Hello, Christy, from Danville, Virginia, I can't give you any real particulars without digging around for my discs and manuals, but I can name at least 2 good programs for fixing/restoring old photos [I've actually used both myself]. The one with which I'm most familiar is Microsoft's Digital Image Pro, that most stores that carry a wide variety of software will probably have [I think I bought mine from OfficeMax, of all places]. I believe I paid around $100 for version 7. If I'm not mistaken, you have to repair one problem at a time but the results are normally pretty good with just a few mouse clicks. The other one I like is PhotoPlus by Serif Software. I think it sells for $100 or less. I'm not aware of any retail stores where you can buy it [unless you live in England, where I think it originated]. The company has some kind of offices and/or factory in New Hampshire, if I remember correctly. Try doing a Google search for it. The best part about it is that it's possible to make most/all major adjustments to photos with just ONE mouse click. Hope this helps! Happy holidays [Merry Christmas/Happy New Year]! Richard B. Anderson, Jr., Danville, Virginia -----Original Message----- From: cristy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy Hi Tim, I was going to ask you about that. Actually, about what a really good digital enhancing program to fix/restore old photos or photos that were not photographed well would cost as I have a large ongoing project with my family tree regarding that. A photographer I spoke to online before had told me the one he used cost about 600 bucks or so, very expensive! Thanks, christy cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > This depends, Bob. If this photographer simply copied it, then they > have > no right to claim copyright on it. If, however, he enhanced, altered, or > restored it to any appreciable amount then he has created an "artistic" or > "creative" work which can be copyrighted. > Since becoming disabled I have stopped doing photography, but have picked > up doing digital photo restoration of antique family photos. While I have > never retained a copyright and always sign it over to the owner of the > original, I also charge a pretty penny as it is MAJOR time consuming work. > > Tim > > Bob Juch wrote: > >>Bev, >> >>I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was >>it "work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the >>original, you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies >>for sale. >> >>Bob Juch >>http://www.Juch.org >> > > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. New > content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > > ============================== Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. New content added every business day. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx

In a message dated 12/11/2005 8:54:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I think we are a long way from VA genealogy, though who owns our photos and writings surely is important. Actually I think it's very much on point. A lot of us have some plan to publish something from our research someday and we'd better know what we can legally use and what we cannot. Bev

Hi Tim, I was going to ask you about that. Actually, about what a really good digital enhancing program to fix/restore old photos or photos that were not photographed well would cost as I have a large ongoing project with my family tree regarding that. A photographer I spoke to online before had told me the one he used cost about 600 bucks or so, very expensive! Thanks, christy cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > This depends, Bob. If this photographer simply copied it, then they have > no right to claim copyright on it. If, however, he enhanced, altered, or > restored it to any appreciable amount then he has created an "artistic" or > "creative" work which can be copyrighted. > Since becoming disabled I have stopped doing photography, but have picked > up doing digital photo restoration of antique family photos. While I have > never retained a copyright and always sign it over to the owner of the > original, I also charge a pretty penny as it is MAJOR time consuming work. > > Tim > > Bob Juch wrote: > >>Bev, >> >>I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was it >>"work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the >>original, >>you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies for sale. >> >>Bob Juch >>http://www.Juch.org >> > > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >

Hi Paul, Part of the problem with the Fair Use Clause is that folks look at that word "research" and they tend to broaden that to include a lot of instances....<g>. At least that has been my experience at the college where I work. I think the same thing sometimes happens with genealogy. Fair Use doesn't mean making multiple copies for your family because they are doing "genealogy research"....<g>. Take care - Emma In a message dated 12/11/2005 8:34:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: No matter who owns, created or has copyrighted what, so long as any user abides by the rules of "Fair Use" he/she may work with that photo, memento, writing or whatever. Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129

Tim, Even then it was "work for hire". Bob Juch http://www.Juch.org -----Original Message----- From: Tim Kemp [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy This depends, Bob. If this photographer simply copied it, then they have no right to claim copyright on it. If, however, he enhanced, altered, or restored it to any appreciable amount then he has created an "artistic" or "creative" work which can be copyrighted. Since becoming disabled I have stopped doing photography, but have picked up doing digital photo restoration of antique family photos. While I have never retained a copyright and always sign it over to the owner of the original, I also charge a pretty penny as it is MAJOR time consuming work. Tim Bob Juch wrote: >Bev, > >I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was >it "work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the >original, you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies >for sale. > >Bob Juch >http://www.Juch.org

This depends, Bob. If this photographer simply copied it, then they have no right to claim copyright on it. If, however, he enhanced, altered, or restored it to any appreciable amount then he has created an "artistic" or "creative" work which can be copyrighted. Since becoming disabled I have stopped doing photography, but have picked up doing digital photo restoration of antique family photos. While I have never retained a copyright and always sign it over to the owner of the original, I also charge a pretty penny as it is MAJOR time consuming work. Tim Bob Juch wrote: >Bev, > >I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was it >"work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the original, >you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies for sale. > >Bob Juch >http://www.Juch.org >

I don't have it at hand, Paul. It is based on knowledge of years in the business, both behind the camera as a photographer and running the copying equipment. You should be able to find it easily though by looking through the US Copyright code at www.copyright.org You are however correct. We are getting way off topic here for a VA list. There is a Rootsweb list, to which I belong, called COPYRIGHT. This would be a much better place for the discussion, plus there are generally some copyright lawyers throwing in their 2 cents worth there. Subscribe address is [email protected] with only the word SUBSCRIBE in the body of the message Paul Drake wrote: >I sure would like to read that Code section if you have it at hand, Tim. Thanks. > >I think we are a long way from VA genealogy, though who owns our photos and writings surely is important. > >Paul >

You surely are correct, Emma; the Fair Use rules are VERY restrictive, though they appear deceptively easy !! Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fair Use Hi Paul, Part of the problem with the Fair Use Clause is that folks look at that word "research" and they tend to broaden that to include a lot of instances....<g>. At least that has been my experience at the college where I work. I think the same thing sometimes happens with genealogy. Fair Use doesn't mean making multiple copies for your family because they are doing "genealogy research"....<g>. Take care - Emma

Bev, I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was it "work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the original, you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies for sale. Bob Juch http://www.Juch.org -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:38:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures for me who owns the pictures? She does. You paid her to get one copy or multiple copies from her only. You did not buy the right to copy her 'artistic' works. I have an even sillier example - I have in my possession a picture of an overturned logging train in Cass, WVa. taken in the very early 1900s. I took it to a professional photographer to have copies made for the rest of the family. I asked for the resulting negative and he claimed the negative was copyrighted as his work. Be careful when hiring anyone for this kind of thing - you may not be buying what you think you are. Bev

It probably says on the back of them "Professional Paper - Copyright - Do not copy" or some such thing. This is a common method used by studios. It does not physically keep you from being able to copy them . It just warns you it is not legal. Walmart, Kmart, Target, and camera stores are very strict about this since they are as legally liable as you if they allow you to copy copyrighted materials. cristy wrote: > Someone told me that some places like walmart etc.. have their photos > on certain kind of paper so they can not be scanned and copied after > you have them taken there. > > cia, > cristy

You may give away, display, loan or sell the originals you purchased, but you may not legally make any copies of them of any type. While I have never heard of it being enforced, even scanning them and putting them in a screensaver on your computer is not legal in the eyes of the law. With that in mind I'd be in big trouble, as my screensaver is full of portraits of my family. Paul Drake wrote: >Tim, Bev, whoever: I think the question that needs an answer is, "Under the 1988 Act, as revised, if I pay to have a photo taken by a professional, while he/she may own the negative, have I the right to make copies from, display, sell, loan or give away the finished photos that were done for me?" > >(PS: Notice that this discussion of ownership of the negative has almost no bearing on what may be "Fair Use" under the US Code.") > > Paul Drake JD > Genealogist & Author ><www.DrakesBooks.com> > 931-484-9129 >

All should remember that my article and the original question from Pat had to do with the limitations of "Fair Use". No matter who owns, created or has copyrighted what, so long as any user abides by the rules of "Fair Use" he/she may work with that photo, memento, writing or whatever. Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129

Someone told me that some places like walmart etc.. have their photos on certain kind of paper so they can not be scanned and copied after you have them taken there. cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > By law, you hired her to do the picture, which she did. You paid her for > the copies. However, unless you arrainged it beforehand, she owns the > copyright and the negatives. Most photographers would never agree to do > it any other way. Federal law recognizes the photos as a creative work > and therefore copyrighted to the photographer. I can assure you, after > many years of shooting weddings and model portfolios, that their is MUCH > more to it than being there and pressing a button. > If that was all there was to it then why even pay someone to do it? Why > not just let someone in the group who doesn't want to be in the picture > take them. > Of course you must remember.... They won't be using $1000-$5000 worth of > state of the art camera that will do things your family camera could not > think of doing. They won't have at least one more just like it in their > camera bag for backup. They will not have several thousand more dollars > tied up in lenses, flashes, umbrella reflectors to fill in shadows on > peoples faces, and a multitude of other expensive equipment. They will > not have years of training and experience. They'll probably off-center > most pictures with heads cut off in many. The composition will be > terrible with a tree growing out of one person's head and a telephone pole > growing out of another. You'll have half the people's faces washed out > with overpowering sunlight while the other half are invisible in deep > shadow. > > I could go on for another page or two, but I think you see the message. > They are not simply showing up and pressing a button. > > Bottom line, unless you pay them quite a bit extra for it the photographer > owns all copyrights on the photos, and has earned them. > > That being said, I normally gave my subjects the negatives and a signed > copyright release, but ONLY after they had purchased a large amount of > prints through me. Don't expect, though, to find many photographers who > are willing to do this. > > Rex Kirby wrote: > >>I guess my quandary is since I hired her and paid her to take the pictures >>for me who owns the pictures? Since she is also a family member it is my >>intention this next year to find a photographer well in advance of the >>reunion who will agree before hand not to claim a copyright on the >>pictures. >> >>Just for grins I had another person call her and request a copy of the >>group >>shot for 2004 and she said she no longer had the pictures and couldn't >>make >>a copy. She suggested they call me. Which of course leaves me even more >>confused. I just don't have a clear understanding regarding copyright of >>photographs that are not unique and do not represent any work on the part >>of >>the photographer other than being there and punching a button on their >>camera and then dropping them off somewhere to have them developed. >>Rex > > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > >

Can that really be proved? I mean even if someone had it copywrited, how does one know they really wrote it then? cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:18:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I always heard as a former songwriter want a bee, that if I wrote a song and then mailed it to myself and kept it sealed, that would be proof of my copywrite? It's proof of the day you wrote it - so if someone else copied it and claimed it as their own, you can prove your original date. It, of course, does not prove that you were the one and only originator - someone else could have written it before you. Bev

Thanks. Paul Drake JD Genealogist & Author <www.DrakesBooks.com> 931-484-9129 ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Kemp To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy I don't have it at hand, Paul. It is based on knowledge of years in the business, both behind the camera as a photographer and running the copying equipment. You should be able to find it easily though by looking through the US Copyright code at www.copyright.org You are however correct. We are getting way off topic here for a VA list. There is a Rootsweb list, to which I belong, called COPYRIGHT. This would be a much better place for the discussion, plus there are generally some copyright lawyers throwing in their 2 cents worth there. Subscribe address is [email protected] with only the word SUBSCRIBE in the body of the message Paul Drake wrote: >I sure would like to read that Code section if you have it at hand, Tim. Thanks. > >I think we are a long way from VA genealogy, though who owns our photos and writings surely is important. > >Paul > ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005

Well, if its something I really like, I better go and pay the copywrite fee and register it then ;) cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: "cristy" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > The "mail to yourself" rule applies in some countries (ie: Britian) but it > does not do anything for you in the US. It is covered by copyright the > moment you write it, HOWEVER... If you haven't registered it you might > have a hard time proving ownership. Mailing it to yourself does not prove > legal ownership in the US. > > And it's copyright, as in the right to copy > > Tim > > cristy wrote: > >> I always heard as a former songwriter want a bee, that if I wrote a song >> and then mailed it to myself and kept it sealed, that would be proof of >> my copywrite? > > >