Copyright 2007 or 2008???

a-baird-photograph · January 6, 2008

jdryan3 · January 6, 2008

a-baird-photograph wrote:

I took some pictures the week before New Years, but I edited them today, do I copyright 2007, 2008, or both?

rdlugosz · January 6, 2008

I believe it would be a 2007-2008 kind of deal. Your original work (the photograph) was created in 2007 & this current work that you're about to upload is the results of your postprocessing in 2008.

...Not that I think this really matters a whole lot!

~Jan~ · January 6, 2008

I don't think it makes a ton of difference, to be honest! I would probably put the date it was taken on there.

JDub · January 6, 2008

I put the date it was taken, even if it was 12/31/07 @ 11:59. Just my .02.

claudermilk · January 7, 2008

I always just put the date taken on my images.

rdlugosz · January 7, 2008

Hi folks -

this has turned into an interesting discussion! Consider this:

When signing and dating prints, it is typical to apply the date that the *print* was made - not when the photograph was taken.

This is due (i believe) to the fact that every run of prints will have thier own unique characteristics to them; two prints made years apart will almost certainly be different unless the equipment setup is exactly the same.

This is why I would consider a new date for an image that I've re-processed... the new processing makes it a different animal than it was the first time it was posted.

thenimirra · January 7, 2008

dang...it is a new year isn't it....I didn't even think about that regarding making changes to my website. Thanks for reminding me!

bham · January 7, 2008

So by logic of redating the copyright to the year of the last post processing, then if you had a 20 year old negative and you digitize it and then edit it, does the life of the copyright start over?

I think I would and will stick with the date created, the photograph, even if slight adjustments are made and photos are reprocessed.

Signing and dating a print, is much different than a copyright year.

RogersDA · January 7, 2008

bham wrote:

So by logic of redating the copyright to the year of the last post processing, then if you had a 20 year old negative and you digitize it and then edit it, does the life of the copyright start over?

I think I would and will stick with the date created, the photograph, even if slight adjustments are made and photos are reprocessed.

Signing and dating a print, is much different than a copyright year.

Current copyright law:

How Long Copyright Protection Endures

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

jdryan3 · January 10, 2008

rdlugosz wrote:

When signing and dating prints, it is typical to apply the date that the *print* was made - not when the photograph was taken.

This is due (i believe) to the fact that every run of prints will have thier own unique characteristics to them; two prints made years apart will almost certainly be different unless the equipment setup is exactly the same.

Not a copyright issue, but I do know that when a piece is shown in a gallery, they will always (almost always?) have the year the image was taken and the year the print was made. The André Kertész show at The Getty, did that. In his case he often cropped the images differently in the 1960s vs. when he printed them in the 1930s. Of course Ansel Adams was well known to do prints over years of the same image. It is interesting though to see the differences - especially in the prices.

rdlugosz · January 10, 2008

Yea - I think that's the right thing to do, especially if the photograph has some "documentary" value to it... I.e., a photo of a place downtown would likely get a "so-and-so square - some city, ST - c. 2004" kind of title, but I'll still date the signature according to when I actually printed it.

Mr. 2H2O · January 10, 2008

I went through the same "what year to put on copyright" when going from 2006 to 2007. I decided to copyright the production of the final image when the copyright logo is applied.

To answer a possible follow-on question, if I process an image in 2007 which was taken in 2006, I would copyright 2007. If I take that original 2006 image, then use a different algorithm to process it during 2008, I would use 2008 for the new image.

- Mike

Tandem · January 10, 2008

Since I photograph sports it makes more sense to copyright the image based on the date it was taken. Having different copyright dates from the same game would be confusing.

xris · January 10, 2008

My humble opinion?
I generally agree with the rest of the thread. The original and any separate representations of that original are each separate, copyrightable, pieces of work, so any 'print' should likely carry both dates -- one for the original and one for the 'print'.

Here's another twist to illustrate the point:

If I make a print from a 1955 A Adams negative, I think I should give Ansel the 1955 copyright and me the 2008 copyright on that print. His photo, my print.

.i.e Copyright (c) 2007, Joe Photo Guy, from an orginal photograph Copyright (c) 1955 A. Adams.

Make sense?

Icebear · January 11, 2008

xris wrote:

I generally agree with the rest of the thread. The original and any separate representations of that original are each separate, copyrightable, pieces of work, so any 'print' should likely carry both dates -- one for the original and one for the 'print'.

Here's another twist to illustrate the point:

If I make a print from a 1955 A Adams negative, I think I should give Ansel the 1955 copyright and me the 2008 copyright on that print. His photo, my print.

.i.e Copyright (c) 2007, Joe Photo Guy, from an orginal photograph Copyright (c) 1955 A. Adams.

Make sense?

I think this is really incorrect.
The copyright begins at the initial creation of the work and belongs to the initial creator, unless sold. Copies are copies, not new creations. Ignoring the fact that copying Ansel Adams' work today violates his copyright, what on earth would make you think that your copy should have copyright protection for YOUR life plus 70 years???

You can put whatever date you want on a print, but it has no effect on the copyright of the work.

xris · January 11, 2008

Icebear wrote:

I think this is really incorrect. The copyright begins at the initial creation of the work and belongs to the initial creator, unless sold. Copies are copies, not new creations. Ignoring the fact that copying Ansel Adams' work today violates his copyright, what on earth would make you think that your copy should have copyright protection for YOUR life plus 70 years???

Because the print is, as I understand it, a new 'work.' (First, I should explain, I'm assuming I have authorization from the copyright holder to make the print.) It's not simply a copy (as in photocopy, for instance) because printing (in this use of the term) is a creative process. The exposure, dodging, burning, development process etc. are are all applied by me using my know how and my creative decisions.

Yes, I'll still be obliged to identify the copyright holder of the creative work I started with, but the print itself becomes my creative work. (Assuming it's not just a simply copy.)

That's why every time someone reproduces your work with permission you must make sure they are properly assigning copyright. If you do not, as I understand it, the image can be said to have entered the public domain.

You can put whatever date you want on a print, but it has no effect on the copyright of the work.

That should be right.

But keep in mind. The copyright (in this case) is on a negative image. Each new expression of that (print) becomes a new work.

Icebear · January 12, 2008

xris wrote:

But keep in mind. The copyright (in this case) is on a negative image. Each new expression of that (print) becomes a new work.

This assertion is what I believe to be totally incorrect. It is just a copy of a work.

The copyright applies to the intellectual property, not the physical "stuff" of the negative or print. Are you suggesting that if I sit down and hand copy Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, that I can register a copyright???

RogersDA · January 12, 2008

Icebear wrote:

This assertion is what I believe to be totally incorrect. It is just a copy of a work.

The copyright applies to the intellectual property, not the physical "stuff" of the negative or print. Are you suggesting that if I sit down and hand copy Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, that I can register a copyright???

Several mistakes/misunderstandings/not-so accurate statements in this thread.

1. A copyright is for an original expression, which can be in numerous forms; e.g., a photograph, a book, etc.

17 U.S.C. 102
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

2. A copyright is also for derivative works, which are different from the original work.
17 U.S.C. 103
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

Merely copying another's original work does not in any way entitle one to a new copyright.

RogersDA · January 12, 2008

17 U.S.C. 401

(a) General Provisions. — Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

(b) Form of Notice. — If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:

(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and

(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and

(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

(c) Position of Notice. — The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive.

(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).

xris · January 12, 2008

More Opinion and Repetition

Icebear wrote:

Are you suggesting that if I sit down and hand copy Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, that I can register a copyright???

You are not reading my posts before going off on a tangent.

As I said, straight copying does not necessarily apply.

But if you sit down and do an original edit or translation of War and Peace, yes, Copyright (as I understand it) does apply. The same way that my creating a new print of an old negative applies -- if it is substantially different from what others have created.

I AM NOT SAYING THE ORIGINAL CREATOR'S COPYRIGHT IS EFFECTED IN ANY WAY!

And if you create a photograph of a copy of War and Peace sitting on a table, that photograph is also copyrightable. Think about it. What's the difference?

And I repeat again. You still must maintain the copyright of the original creator.

One more point that should be considered here. I'm seeing folks quote U.S. law here. Which is fine in the U.S.. But media is international these days and copyright is handled quite differently both by other sovereign states and by Geneva/Bern conventions and others.

If you're playing in the Web world, you need to familiarize yourself with international convention.

Icebear · January 12, 2008

xris wrote:

You are not reading my posts before going off on a tangent.

And if you create a photograph of a copy of War and Peace sitting on a table, that photograph is also copyrightable. Think about it. What's the difference?

1. I did read your posts, several times. I did not go off on any kind of tangent.
2. You (more than) imply that copying a book, and taking a photograph of the cover of the book, are the same thing. Surely you jest.?.?.?

Angelo · January 12, 2008

xris:

I've also read your posts beginning with #15 and I believe your reasoning is fundamentally incorrect.

xris · January 12, 2008

Icebear wrote:

1. I did read your posts, several times. I did not go off on any kind of tangent.
2. You (more than) imply that copying a book, and taking a photograph of the cover of the book, are the same thing. Surely you jest.?.?.?

Then why are you still talking about "copying?"

xris · January 12, 2008

Angelo wrote:

xris: I've also read your posts beginning with #15 and I believe your reasoning is fundamentally incorrect.

Okay. That's cool. But it would help me if you would, 1) explain your understanding of my reasoning and 2) explain where you feel I am wrong.

Note, PLEASE, that I am not talking about "copying". I'm talking about what I'm given to understand are called 'derivative works.'

Copyright 2007 or 2008???

Comments