book on copyright protection on coin photographs

kevinj

I have been working on a book titled
Coin Photography, Artistic Judgment & Copyright Protection

Objective is to dive into photography, coin photography, copyright law, case law, AI, how to protect your photographs,
how the copyright laws pertain to your coin photographs, copyright infringement and so on.
I have taken the current laws and case laws regarding copyrights and expanded into many different scenarios

I should be done the first draft around xmas
Objective is to offer it online for free and also to print if there is a demand
Plan to send copies to all of the federal courts......

I am looking for people who have expertise in law, copyright law, photography, coin photography, numismatic authors, and such who can content edit and also correct if necessary.

Should be ready with the first draft after xmas, right now it is 8-1/2*11 and 110 pages with no photos.

Thanks
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com

Cameonut

Kevin,
This is a worthwhile endeavor. My experience is more along the lines of patent coverage with little on the copyright side of things.

I am looking forward to seeing this work. I hope it answers many of the common questions that come up.

I am willing to look over the copy if you wish. More from a lay persons' standpoint.

fastfreddie

Interesting. You are driven! Looking forward to the read.

MattTheRiley

So...a book on Photography without pictures?

kevinj

@MattTheRiley said:
So...a book on Photography without pictures?

LOL, have draft in word, no photos, easy small to transmit
when I get closer will load into PageMaker/Indesign, add photos
Plus learning about post process editing, my oldest is teaching me on the latest technology

kevinj

@Cameonut said:
Kevin,
This is a worthwhile endeavor. My experience is more along the lines of patent coverage with little on the copyright side of things.

I am looking forward to seeing this work. I hope it answers many of the common questions that come up.

I am willing to look over the copy if you wish. More from a lay persons' standpoint.

Looking for as many perspectives as possible, thanks

ricko

That is an interesting topic, and clearly will provide some insight into an area that is rife with transgressions. Cheers, RickO

kevinj

Rick,
Yeah, it has drive me nuts over the years reading copyright discussions on forums such as this. Words such as
slavish copies are heard and everyone believes no coin photo is copyrightable, when almost the exact opposite is true
Kevin

ctf_error_coins

Copyright Law is fairly simple.

Many choose not to follow the law.

The Law is on the Photographers side.

airplanenut

A guy on eBay once used a photo of mine (a nice, NT merc) to peddle his AT chemical kit. I sent him a few strongly worded emails and stopped when he agreed to pay a $50 fee for the use of the image, which he could then no longer use. That's no necessarily helpful for the book, but the story makes me smile.

....Also, consider that before you use any of my photos uncredited and without permission in your book

coinsarefun

Ha! This is the very problem I'm going through now. I'm a general contractor in the Los aAngeles area.
We are building 6 townhome units. A draftsman did the drawings not an architect. I wanted to change some of the appearance of the units with different materials. I prepared some elevations to show what it will look like and brought them into the city. Zoning approved it and the boss in building said absolutely not because the draftsman has
a copywriter on the drawings.......What, the heck!! Never heard of such a thing, a draftsman having as much protection over his drawing as an architect provided he copywriter each and every drawing.

This is bullcrap. If the drawings are paid for and he is not a license AIA he should not be able to copy write.
So I look it up and sure enough, the state protects him as long as he filed.

WaterSport

You da man Kevin..You need to talk to Ray Parkhurst who goes on these forums as (rmpsrpms). Or you can reach him over at the Lincoln Cent Resource site...he is a Coin photographer extraordinaire.

WS

kevinj

@airplanenut said:
A guy on eBay once used a photo of mine (a nice, NT merc) to peddle his AT chemical kit. I sent him a few strongly worded emails and stopped when he agreed to pay a $50 fee for the use of the image, which he could then no longer use. That's no necessarily helpful for the book, but the story makes me smile.
....Also, consider that before you use any of my photos uncredited and without permission in your book

was your photo on ebay where they copied it from?
was the photo copyrighted somewhere where it was first used by you?
If you use a photo on a public forum, and it was not specifically copyrighted or not specifically stated therein with the
photograph that it is copyrighted, then it is more likely fair use and open game.

If a photograph has the CMI information with the photo and taken, then the CMI is removed, then it is a violation
The Copyright Management Information CMI is that information that identifies the owner of the photograph and is
on, or around the body of the photograph.

Uncredited is not the key, unless there is a CMI present, key on infringement is use without permission

People have copied photos from my book and used on ebay, I just wrote to them and stated to remove the photo
or ask permission and provide proper credit near the photo.

Kevin

kevinj

@coinsarefun said:
Ha! This is the very problem I'm going through now. I'm a general contractor in the Los aAngeles area.
We are building 6 townhome units. A draftsman did the drawings not an architect. I wanted to change some of the appearance of the units with different materials. I prepared some elevations to show what it will look like and brought them into the city. Zoning approved it and the boss in building said absolutely not because the draftsman has
a copywriter on the drawings.......What, the heck!! Never heard of such a thing, a draftsman having as much protection over his drawing as an architect provided he copywriter each and every drawing.
This is bullcrap. If the drawings are paid for and he is not a license AIA he should not be able to copy write.
So I look it up and sure enough, the state protects him as long as he filed.

I agree that it sounds like a work for hire and should be owned by the person who paid him to draw them.
The question is whether he entered a contract/agreement to retain the rights of the drawings

No matter if he copyrighted, you could have hired another draftsman or architect to make new drawings, he does not
own the building, which is the subject matter, and you can make new drawings, especially with additions.....
So long as you do not copy his drawings.

Whether he is an draftsman or architect should be irrelevant, the owner is normally the person who created them.

If a person wrongfully files for a copyright, you can contest if you believe he is not the owner, for example if the person
who hired him might claim ownership in part..... Actually if you read the copyright laws if you mislead on the application,
you can be is serious trouble.

Kevin

kevinj

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
Copyright Law is fairly simple.
Many choose not to follow the law.
The Law is on the Photographers side.

Your right, copyright law is simple
Interpretation of the law through case law and attempting to apply to different scenarios can be challenging
There are no absolute rules regarding the criteria for a photo being eligible for copyright protection, it is on a case by case basis. There are examples and general guidelines that are used. The Supreme Court's ruling in Feist lays out the core.
AI and machine generated works cannot be copyrighted in US, but in Great Britian the programmer can be listed as the owner of a copyright for an AI generated work.
Automated photography is a grey area, depending on the level of user interaction and choices and artistic judgment used

Kevin

kevinj

@WaterSport said:
Tou da man Kevin..You need to talk to Ray Parkhurst who goes on these forums as (rmpsrpms). Or you can reach him over at the Lincoln Cent Resource site...he is a Coin photographer extraordinaire.

WS

yeah, Ray does know what he is doing

Davideo

@kevinj said:
...
was your photo on ebay where they copied it from?
was the photo copyrighted somewhere where it was first used by you?
If you use a photo on a public forum, and it was not specifically copyrighted or not specifically stated therein with the
photograph that it is copyrighted, then it is more likely fair use and open game.

...

You sure about that? As someone who works in the photography industry, I have some familiarity with copyrights.

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, under all normal circumstances a photo's creator is automatically granted a copyright and posting it on a public forum does not relinquish these rights. The creator needs to explicitly relinquish their rights to have the photo become public domain.

Getting any sort of damages or legal penalties is greatly aided by explicitly copyrighting the image, noting a copyright on the image, etc. But lack of these actions doesn't mean the image enters the public domain just because it was shared publicly.

kevinj

@coinsarefun said:
Ha! This is the very problem I'm going through now. I'm a general contractor in the Los aAngeles area.
We are building 6 townhome units. A draftsman did the drawings not an architect. I wanted to change some of the appearance of the units with different materials. I prepared some elevations to show what it will look like and brought them into the city. Zoning approved it and the boss in building said absolutely not because the draftsman has
a copywriter on the drawings.......What, the heck!! Never heard of such a thing, a draftsman having as much protection over his drawing as an architect provided he copywriter each and every drawing.

This is bullcrap. If the drawings are paid for and he is not a license AIA he should not be able to copy write.
So I look it up and sure enough, the state protects him as long as he filed.

17 U.S.C. § 201 Ownership of copyright
(b) Works Made for Hire.—
In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

coinsarefun

Thanks @kevinj . I’ll look into this but when I was googling California copyrights it appears he can do this.

kevinj

You sure about that? As someone who works in the photography industry, I have some familiarity with copyrights.
Unless I'm terribly mistaken, under all normal circumstances a photo's creator is automatically granted a copyright and posting it on a public forum does not relinquish these rights. The creator needs to explicitly relinquish their rights to have the photo become public domain.
Getting any sort of damages or legal penalties is greatly aided by explicitly copyrighting the image, noting a copyright on the image, etc. But lack of these actions doesn't mean the image enters the public domain just because it was shared publicly.

I thought I had read case law on this subject, but could not find it just now, need to go back and check and do more research
thanks for the note
Kevin

kevinj

You sure about that? As someone who works in the photography industry, I have some familiarity with copyrights.
Unless I'm terribly mistaken, under all normal circumstances a photo's creator is automatically granted a copyright and posting it on a public forum does not relinquish these rights. The creator needs to explicitly relinquish their rights to have the photo become public domain.
Getting any sort of damages or legal penalties is greatly aided by explicitly copyrighting the image, noting a copyright on the image, etc. But lack of these actions doesn't mean the image enters the public domain just because it was shared publicly.

my bad on this, you are correct, see AFP v Morel for example

Kevin

kevinj

@coinsarefun said:
Thanks @kevinj . I’ll look into this but when I was googling California copyrights it appears he can do this.

Copyrights are federal, not state laws,
California might have laws that have dependencies on copyrights, would be interested in learning what you found

coinsarefun

@kevinj said:

@coinsarefun said:
Thanks @kevinj . I’ll look into this but when I was googling California copyrights it appears he can do this.

Copyrights are federal, not state laws,
California might have laws that have dependencies on copyrights, would be interested in learning what you found

.
.
I find the info and pm you a link.
That’s what I thought that copyright laws are federal, so how can the state protect him

airplanenut

@kevinj said:

@airplanenut said:
A guy on eBay once used a photo of mine (a nice, NT merc) to peddle his AT chemical kit. I sent him a few strongly worded emails and stopped when he agreed to pay a $50 fee for the use of the image, which he could then no longer use. That's no necessarily helpful for the book, but the story makes me smile.
....Also, consider that before you use any of my photos uncredited and without permission in your book

was your photo on ebay where they copied it from?
was the photo copyrighted somewhere where it was first used by you?
If you use a photo on a public forum, and it was not specifically copyrighted or not specifically stated therein with the
photograph that it is copyrighted, then it is more likely fair use and open game.

This was a long time ago (12-13 years, I think), but if I recall, the photo was on my website, which has always contained a copyright notice on each page. Regardless, I'm curious how my posting my photo opens it to fair use, particularly in a commercial advertisement where clearly the product wasn't used. It may be easier for someone to lift the image, but that doesn't allow them to.

cameonut2011

17 U.S.C. 301(a) provides that federal law preempts all state-law claims regarding rights that are equivalent to the exclusive rights protected by the Copyright Act. As a general matter, there are some very rare circumstances and areas where a common law or state law claim may not fall within the purview of the statute. I can't think of any off of the top of my head that would apply here, but IP cases are often fact intensive and rife with potential circuit conflicts. Unless you are an attorney, my opinion is that you are opening a can of worms.

cameonut2011

@kevinj said:

@coinsarefun said:
Ha! This is the very problem I'm going through now. I'm a general contractor in the Los aAngeles area.
We are building 6 townhome units. A draftsman did the drawings not an architect. I wanted to change some of the appearance of the units with different materials. I prepared some elevations to show what it will look like and brought them into the city. Zoning approved it and the boss in building said absolutely not because the draftsman has
a copywriter on the drawings.......What, the heck!! Never heard of such a thing, a draftsman having as much protection over his drawing as an architect provided he copywriter each and every drawing.
This is bullcrap. If the drawings are paid for and he is not a license AIA he should not be able to copy write.
So I look it up and sure enough, the state protects him as long as he filed.

I agree that it sounds like a work for hire and should be owned by the person who paid him to draw them.
The question is whether he entered a contract/agreement to retain the rights of the drawings

No matter if he copyrighted, you could have hired another draftsman or architect to make new drawings, he does not
own the building, which is the subject matter, and you can make new drawings, especially with additions.....
So long as you do not copy his drawings.

Whether he is an draftsman or architect should be irrelevant, the owner is normally the person who created them.

If a person wrongfully files for a copyright, you can contest if you believe he is not the owner, for example if the person
who hired him might claim ownership in part..... Actually if you read the copyright laws if you mislead on the application,
you can be is serious trouble.

Kevin

"Work for hire" has a very specific definition that is set forth within 17 U.S.C. 101. It does not mean what you all interpret it to mean which is, in my opinion, why this project is potentially problematic. A book of that nature should be written by a practitioner in the field - no offense intended.

cameonut2011

For more on the "work for hire" doctrine:

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

cameonut2011

.

kevinj

This was a long time ago (12-13 years, I think), but if I recall, the photo was on my website, which has always contained a copyright notice on each page. Regardless, I'm curious how my posting my photo opens it to fair use, particularly in a commercial advertisement where clearly the product wasn't used. It may be easier for someone to lift the image, but that doesn't allow them to.

I was wrong on this, if you post your photo on a public forum, it is still under your protection, on your website even more so
Kevin

kevinj

"Work for hire" has a very specific definition that is set forth within 17 U.S.C. 101. It does not mean what you all interpret it to mean which is, in my opinion, why this project is potentially problematic. A book of that nature should be written by a practitioner in the field - no offense intended.

No offense taken, you are right, there can be issues and problems how laws are interpreted,
but that is the fun of research, understand the problem, issues, figure them out, research case law, and also show others who have experience to make sure the issue was properly presented
Having written 53 books to date, it was important for me to understand copyright laws so I have studied this subject for years, love reading case law.
Having seen many threads on different forums that misinterpret laws, it needs to be addressed.
If you wish to see a draft, please write me at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Thanks
Kevin

PS, when someone shows me I am wrong, I enjoy it, as then I have learned something,
when we have an open discussion here on a subject, we all learn

Davideo

@Elemint said:

Once you buy the coin(s), you're free to post the photo if it has the same cert# unless there's a copyright label on it.

Are you are referring to PCGS policy for true views? Or just in general?