100's of man hours showing PCGS coins in all their glory!
Super Nice Job WingedLiberty1957!
This truly helped collectors and also helped promote the PCGS brand,
then Don, in all his wisdom?
dumped it all in the toilet.
Hey Don,
why not work out a solution?
There have been many dark day's for PCGS, and their collector base since Don took over. Oh to be a PCGS Coin Dealer.
Enjoy Your Coins!!!! >>
Just a little harsh BG?
Not sure that Mr. Willis is the "big bad Guy" you are trying to make him out to be. Mr. Willis is answerable to the companies Board of Directors and ultimately to the shareholders of Collectors Universe. Mr. Willis has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the best interest of the shareholders in general, even to protect the intellectual property of the company from unauthorized use.
Was it a nice web site that Winged Liberty1957 created? Yes
Do I wish this could have ended differently? Yes
Should you vilify Mr. Willis for doing his job? Absolutely not
I'll preface this by saying that this is meant as a legitimate question:
Is PCGS maintaining that they own all the rights associated with True View images? If so, then what is the point of even having digital images or the photographs? If the photos cannot be posted on the original poster's site, then how can collectors post them in threads and other sites? Does this mean that if I post True View images of my coins on say - the NGC Forums - is PCGS opining that it can demand that they be removed at will?
If this is the position of PCGS, and if PCGS does indeed own the intellectual property rights to the photographs, then collectors should be made aware of this before they post these images anywhere.
I didn't see this before I made my original post. It would seem that PCGS already authorized the use of the photographs for the original poster's purpose and even for limited commercial purposes:
"This service represents a huge advantage for customers because the high-quality digital images are made prior to encapsulation, or outside the holder, resulting in crystal clear illustrations of the certified coins. Plus, we have designed a special background and imbedded security devices into the image so that any user will have confidence that the coin in the picture matches the PCGS-certified coin. The service is perfect for auction catalogs, fixed price lists, online postings and for collectors who want superb images of their coins."
I didn't see this before I made my original post. It would seem that PCGS already authorized the use of the photographs for the original poster's purpose and even for limited commercial purposes:
"This service represents a huge advantage for customers because the high-quality digital images are made prior to encapsulation, or outside the holder, resulting in crystal clear illustrations of the certified coins. Plus, we have designed a special background and imbedded security devices into the image so that any user will have confidence that the coin in the picture matches the PCGS-certified coin. The service is perfect for auction catalogs, fixed price lists, online postings and for collectors who want superb images of their coins." >>
It does not say anything being used for content for a website. Plus the website producer is not the original purchaser of the TruView images.
I have had a few people ask me if I understood exactly what is legal in the posting of TrueView photos; and I spent some time today trying to get clarification from PCGS on what is legal and what is illegal in terms of posting TrueView images on websites.
I totally get (understand) now that you CANNOT post TrueView images from others on an educational, non-profit, numismatic related website, even if you have permission from the coin owner (and the buyer of the TrueView photo). Actually I think that you ultimately don't need the coin owners permission at all. You can completely bypass the coin owner. All you need is permission from PCGS.
I also found out that PCGS typically will approve the use of one or two TrueView photos for non-profit use and even commercial (for profit) use, but they object to a large number of TrueView images being posted on a non-profit educational numismatic related website.
Ultimately I am fine with deleting all the photos from the 100Greatest websites as clearly that is in violation of how PCGS allows usage of TrueView photos. I am fine with that and have already moved on so to speak!
Today I was trying to find out if it was OK to post a large number of TrueView images of COINS THAT YOU YOURSELF OWN, on a personal website. Sort of a "HERE IS MY COIN COLLECTION" website. I personally have bought roughly 150 TrueView photos of coins in my personal collection -- and I wanted to know if it was OK if I posted the TrueView images of coins that I own and the associated TrueView images that I bought and paid for (150 images x $20 per image = $3000) on a personal "here is my coin collection" website.
So I asked Don Willis ...
Can we as Collectors show a myriad of TrueView photos of coins that we ourselves own and TrueView photos that we paid for on a personal "here is my collection" website?
At first Don appeared to say Yes -- Then later when I tried to find out more details on fine points of that yes reply -- he basically said No.
The issue seems to be around building a website "around" TrueView photos, even if you own the coins. (At least I think that is the fine point of law that Don was trying to convey).
I have to admit that I didn't know of the "rules" myself, previously. And I have to admit that I still am not 100% sure that I know and understand all the "rules" now, even after asking the question about 5 times in various threads and on the phone with PCGS. What I would absolutely LOVE is a page somewhere on the PCGS website that completely and clearly spells out what is allowed and what is not allowed around the posting of TrueView photos on a website -- especially on personal collection websites on coins that you own.
I am still a bit confused and perplexed by the response I am getting from PCGS on this point (asking the question of can we build "here is my collection" websites showing TrueView photos of coins that we own and are there any further (additional) restrictions on that).
Ultimately I would just like to know what is legal and what is not legal for my own knowledge base and to know what is allowed and what is not allowed. I am hoping this information is useful to others that would like to post TrueView photos of coins that you yourself own on "here is my collection" websites.
I think the fine point of law on TrueView photos is in "publishing a website". I think that is key point of law. We cannot "publish a website" (basically "post a website") of TrueView photos, even if we own all the coins shown.
If someone from PCGS could clarify any of this, that would be fantastic!! All I want to know are the specific rules so I can stay in compliance. THANK YOU!
I had a page on my personal coin website which included the TrueView images that I have purchased. The website was linked here on multiple occasions, and no one ever bothered me about posting the images on my website.
It is pretty clear that you cannot simply post images of coins that you do not own, images that you did not commission, for public display.
It seems if you own a coin with a TrueView, you can publish it on certain websites but not others.
It seems acceptable to publish a TrueView on any site where they are used one or two at a time (eBay, Photobucket, etc.), but it would be unacceptable to publish it on a website like the one in question which seeks to aggregate TrueViews.
I had a page on my personal coin website which included the TrueView images that I have purchased. The website was linked here on multiple occasions, and no one ever bothered me about posting the images on my website.
It is pretty clear that you cannot simply post images of coins that you do not own, images that you did not commission, for public display.
>>
I also posted these 100 Greatest websites on this board (numerous times) and also was never "bothered" (your words!) by anyone from PCGS about posting TrueView images on my websites. Just because you posted the website here, doesnt mean PCGS doesn't think your useage is legal. I was never told no, until I specifically asked PCGS.
I had a page on my personal coin website which included the TrueView images that I have purchased. The website was linked here on multiple occasions, and no one ever bothered me about posting the images on my website.
It is pretty clear that you cannot simply post images of coins that you do not own, images that you did not commission, for public display.
>>
I also posted these 100 Greatest websites on this board (numerous times) and also was never "bothered" (your words!) by anyone from PCGS about posting TrueView images on my websites. Just because you posted the website here, doesnt mean PCGS doesn't think your useage is legal. I was never told no, until I asked. >>
Well, jaywalking is also not legal, but I have done it many times and will likely do it again.
I think perhaps if you do post TrueViews of coins that you own on a "here is my collection" website ... PCGS might not actually "bother you" about it ... but perhaps you should not directly ask them if it's ok?
I think that perhaps PCGS doesn't want to give a blanket OK, which might be why PCGS would rather not post the explicit rules, but they want to be able to retain the right to deny you that usage at some point down the road at their discretion.
It might relate to how you actually present the TrueView photos on your site and things that you say? Perhaps? I am guessing.
Clearly what I did (posting TrueView from others with the owners permission only) was wrong, and I apologized to PCGS for doing that. I thought the owners permission was all I needed (especially since I was NOT trying to profit but doing it only for educational purposes and my love and passion of numismatics and to ultimately promote PCGS which I did a great job of ... sending numerous new customers to PCGS! I even taught a few folks how to fill out the paper submission forms on ordering TrueView photos (many people don't know you check "OTHER" on the form and write in True View Photo). Also I know of a bunch of people that were buying tons of coins and submitting them to PCGS for grading and TrueView photos in an attempt to get "listed" ... so certainly I put money in PCGS's pocket (and clearly not mine!).
But what is allowed in terms of building a "personal collection" website using TrueView photos of coins that you own falls in somewhat of a gray area (at least that is the impression I am getting).
I do know for a fact that there are TWO absolutely legal uses of TrueView photos. First, it's perfectly legal to post TrueView photos of coins that you own on coin forums (like this one). Second, you can clearly show a TrueView photo on auction websites when selling the coin. Those two uses are golden.
Beyond that I think there starts to be more restrictions applied to how you can "use" and/or "display" TrueView photos of coins that you personally own. Building (publishing) a website of TrueView photos of coins that you own I think is (at least somewhat) frowned upon by PCGS and could have some restrictions applied. And you could be denied at some point at PCGS's discretion (perhaps?) depending on the site content, how it's displayed, or what you are trying to show/convey. However I am guessing at this last point.
I think perhaps if you do post TrueViews of coins that you own on a "here is my collection" website ... PCGS might not actually "bother you" about it ... but perhaps you should not directly ask them if it's ok?
I think that perhaps PCGS doesn't want to give a blanket OK, which might be why PCGS would rather not post the explicit rules, but they want to be able to retain the right to deny you that usage at some point down the road at their discretion.
It might relate to how you actually present the TrueView photos on your site and things that you say? Perhaps? I am guessing.
Clearly what I did (posting TrueView from others with the owners permission only) was wrong, and I apologized to PCGS for doing that. I thought the owners permission was all I needed (especially since I was NOT trying to profit but doing it only for educational purposes and my love and passion of numismatics and to ultimately promote PCGS which I did a great job of ... sending numerous new customers to them!)
But what is allowed in terms of building a "personal collection" website using TrueView photos of coins that you own falls in somewhat of a gray area (at least that is the impression I am getting).
I do know for a fact that it's perfectly legal to post TrueView photos of coins that you own on coin forums (like this one) and you can clearly show TrueView photos on auction websites when selling coins. Those two uses are golden.
Beyond that I think there starts to be more restrictions applied to how you can "use" TrueView photos of coins that you personally own. Building (Publishing) a website of TrueView photos of coins that you own I think is frowned upon by PCGS and could have some restrictions applied. And you could be denied at some point at PCGS's discretion (perhaps?) depending on the site content, how it's displayed, or what you are trying to show/convey. However I am guessing at this last point. >>
WingedLiberty1957,
Did you violate the Copyright Laws?
Or were you in compliance with the “Fair Use Doctrine” exemption for teaching?
I am no lawyer ... just a small time amateur coin collector. But I do love the hobby! Clearly my passion is visible to all.
Ultimately I learned SO MUCH on doing those websites, my knowledge based expanded exponentially, so it wasn't a lost cause. The websites were a blast to do, I haven't had that much fun in ages!
I love learning about things and to be honest with you, in the scheme of life, these little websites are "small potatoes" when measured against truly important things ... like life, death, love, health, sickness, and family. So no big deal. Right?
What was that conversation in the Ferris Bueller movie ...
Cameron: "My father loves this car more than life itself"
Ferris: "A man with values that out of whack, doesn't deserve such a fine automobile"
Let's hear it for keeping things in perspective!!!
Tell someone important to you that you love them ... that's what really matters.
This whole topic really gives me a sickening feeling. How petty have we become? He simply wanted to create a website that shows off some beautiful coins, and got permission from the owners of the coins. He's not trying to sell someone else's coins or run any sort of scam. He's just attempting to spread the fun of the hobby.
The "hobby" just lost a bit of fun (and respect) here.
<< <i>That the issue seems to be around building a website "around" TrueView photos, even if you own the coins. (At least I think that is the fine point of law that Don was trying to convey). >>
Since PCGS is the copyright holder for these images, they could help you out of this gray area by granting you a license for such a website if they wanted. In the long term, though, as more coins become TrueViewed, more collectors will start wanting to build websites showcasing their coins, and this gray area will be revisited. It'll be in everyone's best interest for PCGS to have rules that are easily understood without having to contact an attorney, while not scaring people away from wanting to use the TrueView service.
If the issue is that all the pictures on the site are TrueView pictures, there are also ways to fix that.
At any rate, it's good to see that you're getting some actual feedback from them, and you weren't just given a "no soup for you!" response.
Many of us already display our collection of TrueView photos of coins that we own via the PCGS Set Registry. Surely PCGS doesn't have a problem with that as they automatically upload the TrueView photos when a TrueView is done for a coin in our sets.
After paying $20 for each TrueView photo, I'd be a bit shocked and upset if PCGS objected to my use of one or more of the photos of coins I own, for whatever purpose I wanted to use them for... whether it's selling the coin on eBay or showing them off on my own website or Facebook or a coin forum or whatever.
But I can understand the objections to someone building a website that goes beyond using photos of coins that are owned by the website owner as that starts to step on the toes of what CoinFacts has been doing. In any event, it was a fun site to look at while it was up.
Another thought is that the website could be duplicated if you just did your own photos (or had another professional take the photos and you obtain the necessary permissions in advance). You seem to have good relationships with many of the owners of these coins and at least some may be willing to send you the coins for imaging or send them to a photo pro. I thought the ranking of the coins solely based on a single TrueView photo was a bit problematic anyways as matte proofs are very dynamic and have different looks depending on lighting and how you tilt them. You really must see these coins in hand to know them and to be able to more fairly rank them. Accordingly, doing your own photos would maybe allow you to more accurately rank the coins. Just a thought on a way the site might be able to survive...
<< <i>He's not trying to sell someone else's coins or run any sort of scam. He's just attempting to spread the fun of the hobby. >>
If PCGS lets one person use the images as they wish, what happens when the next person (and the next and the next after that) want to do the same? >>
Well, I guess the world as we know it will end.
Lots of people showing off images of beautiful coins for the enjoyment of others. We certainly can't have that.
Silly me. I thought this was just a fun hobby/pastime. I didn't realize it was only about who can profit, and how we can stop others from getting any pleasure from anything we may have been remotely involved with, according to the legal clauses in the fine print.
I had better stop now before I breach some legal code of which I was unaware.
It's their work, therefore they own the rights to the photograph, pretty elementary. Is it because of the pics Trueview border and background being removed, and not representing the product fully? If the pics retained the background and border would there be an issue? I thought the site was tastefully done, sad to see the pics removed.
It's their work, therefore they own the rights to the photograph, pretty elementary. Is it because of the pics Trueview border and background being removed, and not representing the product fully? If the pics retained the background and border would there be an issue? I thought the site was tastefully done, sad to see the pics removed.
>>
As far as I could find out from PCGS, the background going to black was not an issue. When I specifically asked Don Willis about that very issue in a PM, I did not get a response to that. So based on that, I don't think that was the key issue.
One PCGS representative posted that they DO NOT MIND people turning the TV background to black. One forum member even gave a step by step tutorial on how do do that and posted it here. So I think that is considered ok.
I think the key point of the violation was that a website cannot be "built around" more than 1 or 2 TrueView photos.
You simply cannot do that. Even in the case where you own all the coins in question and paid for the photos yourself, which was the exact point I was asking Don Willis about in a PM yesterday, where he replied no.
So I think that is the crux of the ruling -- and the ultimate limitation of customer usage of the TrueView photos we buy.
Yes, Illini, you are exactly right, Don did point me to the PCGS Set Registry site and the CoinFacts site, I think PCGS really wants those to sites to be the primary storage points (and web display) of TrueView Photos. I think CoinFacts costs $12.95 a month, and the PCGS Registry is free. My only complaint with the PCGS Registry, is there are way too many coins listed (inventoried) with no photos of any kind (TrueViews or other) posted; but I do like the concept of the registry.
PCGS created, defined and executed the "TruView" system of digital imaging. As the creator, they are the sole definer and enforcer of usage. As the user (and just like purchasing software), when you buy a TruView image, you enjoy personal usage and other rights as granted by PCGS. They alone have all rights to determine how and where. Some uses are expressly defined, others are not; that's why we have attorneys.
As has been mentioned, PCGS COULD offer additional uses not granted by the general EULA, but may not be inclined to do so especially in this case as the usage could be considered to infringe on current or future company-based usage of the TruView system.
Ownership of the coins is not an issue; efforts expended to create the TruView image/data is what is being protected. People are free to create and use their own images of their coins as they see fit; users of TruView images are not.
This isn't a new position by PCGS; most mass-usage systems carry very similar EULA's.
<< <i>Yes, Illini, you are exactly right, Don did point me to the PCGS Set Registry site and the CoinFacts site, I think PCGS really wants those to sites to be the primary storage points (and web display) of TrueView Photos. I think CoinFacts costs $12.95 a month, and the PCGS Registry is free (I think to members of PCGS, which there is an annual fee). >>
The PCGS Registry is free to everyone all the time; it is not limited to paid PCGS members.
I don't think even PCGS knows what is allowed and isn't allowed. It sounds like they are making up the rules as they go. If they do have a set standard of what is allowable please post it so it can be clearly understood.
<< <i>efforts expended to create the TruView image/data is what is being protected. >>
They are paid for their efforts, it's just a service they make money from. But it absolutely has convinced me that I would never pay to have coins imaged by PCGS, even though they are technically some of the best I've seen. I display my collection online and to say I wouldn't be able to use images I had paid for turns me off.
I'm really not understanding why so many people are having a hard time grasping the concept here.
Having TruView images made of your coins is no different than hiring a professional photographer to do the same thing. Unless you have a contract that has a clause specifically granting all rights to the purchaser, the photographer (in this case, PCGS) retains the copyright to the images. It is their work product, not yours, even though you paid for copies of the images. As the owner of the item you are granted only limited fair use; that is, you many use the images personally and in a limited capacity only, and only if you are the purchaser of the images (or possibly if you bought the item in question that was imaged, which transfers those limited rights to the purchaser).
In this case, the 100-greatest website creator doesn't own any of the items themselves, much less did he purchase any of the images from PCGS... thus he has no standing to be able to use them without the permission of the image creator (PCGS), no matter how altruistic the purpose.
It's just that simple.
Now you can argue that PCGS could be the "good guy" here and let him use the images... but frankly I can understand not allowing a thief (albeit an unknowing one) to keep the work product that he essentially stole.
<< <i>I'm really not understanding why so many people are having a hard time grasping the concept here.
Having TruView images made of your coins is no different than hiring a professional photographer to do the same thing. Unless you have a contract that has a clause specifically granting all rights to the purchaser, the photographer (in this case, PCGS) retains the copyright to the images. It is their work product, not yours, even though you paid for copies of the images. As the owner of the item you are granted only limited fair use; that is, you many use the images personally and in a limited capacity only, and only if you are the purchaser of the images (or possibly if you bought the item in question that was imaged, which transfers those limited rights to the purchaser).
In this case, the 100-greatest website creator doesn't own any of the items themselves, much less did he purchase any of the images from PCGS... thus he has no standing to be able to use them without the permission of the image creator (PCGS), no matter how altruistic the purpose.
It's just that simple.
Now you can argue that PCGS could be the "good guy" here and let him use the images... but frankly I can understand not allowing a thief (albeit an unknowing one) to keep the work product that he essentially stole. >>
Yeah, yeah , yeah!!! Blah, blah, blah.
That issue is over. WL has agreed, apologized to PCGS and complied by pulling the photos from the site. How many times does it need to be repeated?
The issue I am having a problem with is having an album of TrueViews purchased by me, showing my collection on your my web site, for my personal enjoyment. For the life of me I can't see the downside or what objections could be made.
That issue is over. WL has agreed, apologized to PCGS and complied by pulling the photos from the site. How many times does it need to be repeated?
The issue I am having a problem with is having an album of TrueViews purchased by me, showing my collection on your my web site, for my personal enjoyment. For the life of me I can't see the downside or what objections could be made. >>
What part of the term "work product" isn't clear? By using the TruView service you contract with the photographer (PCGS) to purchase copies of the images for limited personal use; you aren't purchasing all rights to the images. How many times does THAT need to be repeated? And "personal use" doesn't mean publishing them to the world wide web, unless you and the photographer specifically mutually agreed to it up front. If you want to make your own site, fine. You can either use your own pictures that you shot yourself, or pictures shot by someone else that you have acquired the copyrights to... but NOT ones that you don't own the rights to. And that's the case here. I don't know how to explain it any better.
A photographer sells their rights with the photograph. If not legal that is the logical conclusion. Anything beyond that is overuse of the concept of copyright and gets no backing here. +1 StubbyMcNumbthumbs
So many have trampled on photographers rights for so long that they think they have a right to our work, unbelievable
someone on the thread said "only in America" in a condescending way, I take it Only in America where we PROTECT the RIGHTS of artists. >>
Someone needs to get off their “high horse” and have a reality check.
No one has said it is alright to steal someone else’s work. Valid questions have been asked. I will re-ask a couple of them.
1. Someone quoted PCGS web site as saying: "The purpose of the PCGS TrueView photo service is to provide a quality image of a coin at the most opportune moment - before the coin is encapsulated in plastic. This will provide the customer with an unobstructed view of a coin in an image that can be utilized for a number of numismatic and commercial purposes. " Is this the equivalent to an “unconditional license” of the Copyrighted material to utilize a Trueview photo that you paid for anyway you want to?
2. How do the exemptions of Title 17 USC Section 107 apply under the “Fair Use” doctrine?
That issue is over. WL has agreed, apologized to PCGS and complied by pulling the photos from the site. How many times does it need to be repeated?
The issue I am having a problem with is having an album of TrueViews purchased by me, showing my collection on your my web site, for my personal enjoyment. For the life of me I can't see the downside or what objections could be made. >>
What part of the term "work product" isn't clear? By using the TruView service you contract with the photographer (PCGS) to purchase copies of the images for limited personal use; you aren't purchasing all rights to the images. How many times does THAT need to be repeated? And "personal use" doesn't mean publishing them to the world wide web, unless you and the photographer specifically mutually agreed to it up front. If you want to make your own site, fine. You can either use your own pictures that you shot yourself, or pictures shot by someone else that you have acquired the copyrights to... but NOT ones that you don't own the rights to. And that's the case here. I don't know how to explain it any better. >>
Here's the thing, imho, and likely some others, the current law is outdated. Technology has continued to move forward. As such, say someone in the past may have taken the shot and put it in a portfolio, and showed it off.....would you agree they could do that as "personal use"? "Here is a booklet of photographs of my top 10-100 coins that are in my SDB"......
Now, how do people share things? Digitally. Digitally means the world wide web as well.
Current laws are slanted against consumers in a detrimental (to the consumer) way in MANY cases. Just like the DMCA. By the letter of the law, I believe it goes to say that if you buy a CD/DVD/etc, you cannot even make a backup copy for your own use. Is that fair? I am sure that those in that particular industry, getting paid, will state it is. I think many more will see that it is a flawed law that is overly negative to a consumer. We buy a CD of songs, but we don't own those songs.....that's fair enough. However, if I want to rip that for my personal use, copy to another CD in case of potential damage, etc, then I should be able to. Now, I know they have allowed some personal back-up, but it isn't always easy to do. My point on this is that laws go into effect that are FLAWED laws for the overall majority of society. There are case instances where laws are not up to date and/or they are overly influenced by a vocal minority and work against a majority who don't know about it until too late.
Yes, it is a law. No, it is not a law that 100% of the people can stand behind.
We buy a CD of songs, but we don't own those songs.....that's fair enough. However, if I want to rip that for my personal use, copy to another CD in case of potential damage, etc, then I should be able to.
Using your analogy, that's a lot different than taking those ripped CDs and giving them away to all your friends for free...which is what is essentially being done by taking copyrighted images and posting them on a website without permission. You simply don't have the right to do so.
Is the law outdated? Does it need to be modified to adapt to the electronic world? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not our call. If you don't like it, fight to have it changed; elect someone who shares your view. But-until then, it's the law, and merely thinking that it's not right or fair is not a valid excuse for violating it.
<< <i>We buy a CD of songs, but we don't own those songs.....that's fair enough. However, if I want to rip that for my personal use, copy to another CD in case of potential damage, etc, then I should be able to.
Using your analogy, that's a lot different than taking those ripped CDs and giving them away to all your friends for free...which is what is essentially being done by taking copyrighted images and posting them on a website without permission. You simply don't have the right to do so.
Is the law outdated? Does it need to be modified to adapt to the electronic world? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not our call. If you don't like it, fight to have it changed; elect someone who shares your view. But-until then, it's the law, and merely thinking that it's not right or fair is not a valid excuse for violating it. >>
What if I rip those songs and play them, loudly, from my car as I drive around, so that others can hear them? Pretty similar to me Note also, I never said it wasn't the law.....I have said it is a dumb law.....also never said I was violating it, nor have you seen me type something that was telling others to do so....have you? Still doesn't mean I don't think it isn't a stupid law that works against common sense (like so many of our laws that are for special interests).
Bochi, I agree that there are some dumb laws out there... however I don't think copyright laws are among them; a photographer is an artist and his images are his work product. Without copyright protection the creator of the product no longer retains any control over it and thus has no protection from those who would steal it. The big problem with the Internet is that there are so many workarounds to be able to copy images therefrom. If nothing else, people need to add code to their sites that disables the right click feature. That would be a good start. I am surprised frankly that our hosts haven't considered that yet.
LOL.... all those pics you post on facebook..... Facebook now owns them!
When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.
<< <i>We buy a CD of songs, but we don't own those songs.....that's fair enough. However, if I want to rip that for my personal use, copy to another CD in case of potential damage, etc, then I should be able to.
Using your analogy, that's a lot different than taking those ripped CDs and giving them away to all your friends for free...which is what is essentially being done by taking copyrighted images and posting them on a website without permission. You simply don't have the right to do so.
Is the law outdated? Does it need to be modified to adapt to the electronic world? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not our call. If you don't like it, fight to have it changed; elect someone who shares your view. But-until then, it's the law, and merely thinking that it's not right or fair is not a valid excuse for violating it. >>
I think there is a big disconnect in this specific argument that PCGS is trying to tiptoe around: PCGS says the coin owner/submitter has access and permission to use the image for certain display/selling purposes. The website creator took the time to contact each submitter/owner and get their approval for image use.
Users on this site regularly post such images to share their coins and collections - which I think is great and stands to show PCGS' quality work! Should such sharing also be met with 'cease & desist' letters becuase they do not own copyright to the image?
<< <i>I think there is a big disconnect in this specific argument that PCGS is trying to tiptoe around: PCGS says the coin owner/submitter has access and permission to use the image for certain display/selling purposes. The website creator took the time to contact each submitter/owner and get their approval for image use. >>
...but in this case he wasn't asking permission from the right people. PCGS gave THEM access and permission, not him. He needed to ask PCGS.
<< <i>Users on this site regularly post such images to share their coins and collections - which I think is great and stands to show PCGS' quality work! Should such sharing also be met with 'cease & desist' letters becuase they do not own copyright to the image? >>
Well, considering this site is owned by PCGS and its parent company, posting those images here would obviously fall under reasonable and fair use, as such use wouldn't be to the detriment of the image creator (PCGS). It would be like a pro photographer having a portion of his site with testimonials from customers showing examples of his work.
<< <i> Well, considering this site is owned by PCGS and its parent company, posting those images here would obviously fall under reasonable and fair use, as such use wouldn't be to the detriment of the image creator (PCGS). It would be like a pro photographer having a portion of his site with testimonials from customers showing examples of his work. >>
Valid point! That being said, I'd leave it at PCGS missing out on an opportunity.
<< <i>Bochi, I agree that there are some dumb laws out there... however I don't think copyright laws are among them; a photographer is an artist and his images are his work product. Without copyright protection the creator of the product no longer retains any control over it and thus has no protection from those who would steal it. The big problem with the Internet is that there are so many workarounds to be able to copy images therefrom. If nothing else, people need to add code to their sites that disables the right click feature. That would be a good start. I am surprised frankly that our hosts haven't considered that yet. >>
TP1 - I am not disagreeing with you on the main portion of this. If the photographer took a picture, then yes, it is his. It gets muddied, for most people, when someone PAYS the photographer for their services to take the picture. In a case like this, with funds exchanged, most people would see this as a paid for good now, to do with as they please, as they do cars. If Toyota told someone they couldn't sell a Camry once it was purchased, then that would be ridiculous, right? If Dell told someone they couldn't sell their PC to someone else, it would be laughed at, right?
What about if you commission someone to create a portrait for you? You expect to be able to take it home, put it in a gallery for show, etc, right? You can take a picture of it and put it on the website, can't you? You paid for it.
So, if you PAY the photographer for the photos, then they are being paid for their services. If the photographer paid YOU for the coin's time so they could take a picture of it, then you shouldn't have any rights to that photo...I think most would agree.
Again, because of the payment for services, it gets muddied.
Comments
100's of man hours showing PCGS coins in all their glory!
Super Nice Job WingedLiberty1957!
This truly helped collectors and also helped promote the PCGS brand,
then Don, in all his wisdom?
dumped it all in the toilet.
Hey Don,
why not work out a solution?
There have been many dark day's for PCGS, and their collector base since Don took over. Oh to be a PCGS Coin Dealer.
Enjoy Your Coins!!!!
<< <i>I've read all the post's.
100's of man hours showing PCGS coins in all their glory!
Super Nice Job WingedLiberty1957!
This truly helped collectors and also helped promote the PCGS brand,
then Don, in all his wisdom?
dumped it all in the toilet.
Hey Don,
why not work out a solution?
There have been many dark day's for PCGS, and their collector base since Don took over. Oh to be a PCGS Coin Dealer.
Enjoy Your Coins!!!! >>
Just a little harsh BG?
Not sure that Mr. Willis is the "big bad Guy" you are trying to make him out to be. Mr. Willis is answerable to the companies Board of Directors and ultimately to the shareholders of Collectors Universe. Mr. Willis has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the best interest of the shareholders in general, even to protect the intellectual property of the company from unauthorized use.
Was it a nice web site that Winged Liberty1957 created? Yes
Do I wish this could have ended differently? Yes
Should you vilify Mr. Willis for doing his job? Absolutely not
Just my two cents worth,
Caleb
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Is PCGS maintaining that they own all the rights associated with True View images? If so, then what is the point of even having digital images or the photographs? If the photos cannot be posted on the original poster's site, then how can collectors post them in threads and other sites? Does this mean that if I post True View images of my coins on say - the NGC Forums - is PCGS opining that it can demand that they be removed at will?
If this is the position of PCGS, and if PCGS does indeed own the intellectual property rights to the photographs, then collectors should be made aware of this before they post these images anywhere.
<< <i>According to Ron Guth of PCGS in this article Trueviews:
"...can be used by dealers and auctioneers any way they wish, for print or online advertising, marketing and promotion" - Ron Guth
See Link to PCGS Website >>
I didn't see this before I made my original post. It would seem that PCGS already authorized the use of the photographs for the original poster's purpose and even for limited commercial purposes:
"This service represents a huge advantage for customers because the high-quality digital images are made prior to encapsulation, or outside the holder, resulting in crystal clear illustrations of the certified coins. Plus, we have designed a special background and imbedded security devices into the image so that any user will have confidence that the coin in the picture matches the PCGS-certified coin. The service is perfect for auction catalogs, fixed price lists, online postings and for collectors who want superb images of their coins."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Awesome move PCGS. THANK YOU!!!!!!!
You can not go and USE other people photos without permission and payment for services. >>
Permission was asked for and received by the coin owner and TrueView purchaser well before the site became live. >>
I'd like to think it was an honest misunderstanding. The website owner simply asked the wrong people.
PCGS determines acceptable usage, not the coin owner or TrueView purchaser. >>
I agree with this. I think the OP meant no harm and tried his best for permission, just went the wrong way.
<< <i>
<< <i>According to Ron Guth of PCGS in this article Trueviews:
"...can be used by dealers and auctioneers any way they wish, for print or online advertising, marketing and promotion" - Ron Guth
See Link to PCGS Website >>
I didn't see this before I made my original post. It would seem that PCGS already authorized the use of the photographs for the original poster's purpose and even for limited commercial purposes:
"This service represents a huge advantage for customers because the high-quality digital images are made prior to encapsulation, or outside the holder, resulting in crystal clear illustrations of the certified coins. Plus, we have designed a special background and imbedded security devices into the image so that any user will have confidence that the coin in the picture matches the PCGS-certified coin. The service is perfect for auction catalogs, fixed price lists, online postings and for collectors who want superb images of their coins." >>
It does not say anything being used for content for a website. Plus the website producer is not the original purchaser of the TruView images.
I totally get (understand) now that you CANNOT post TrueView images from others on an educational, non-profit, numismatic related website, even if you have permission from the coin owner (and the buyer of the TrueView photo). Actually I think that you ultimately don't need the coin owners permission at all. You can completely bypass the coin owner. All you need is permission from PCGS.
I also found out that PCGS typically will approve the use of one or two TrueView photos for non-profit use and even commercial (for profit) use, but they object to a large number of TrueView images being posted on a non-profit educational numismatic related website.
Ultimately I am fine with deleting all the photos from the 100Greatest websites as clearly that is in violation of how PCGS allows usage of TrueView photos. I am fine with that and have already moved on so to speak!
Today I was trying to find out if it was OK to post a large number of TrueView images of COINS THAT YOU YOURSELF OWN, on a personal website. Sort of a "HERE IS MY COIN COLLECTION" website. I personally have bought roughly 150 TrueView photos of coins in my personal collection -- and I wanted to know if it was OK if I posted the TrueView images of coins that I own and the associated TrueView images that I bought and paid for (150 images x $20 per image = $3000) on a personal "here is my coin collection" website.
So I asked Don Willis ...
Can we as Collectors show a myriad of TrueView photos of coins that we ourselves own and TrueView photos that we paid for on a personal "here is my collection" website?
At first Don appeared to say Yes -- Then later when I tried to find out more details on fine points of that yes reply -- he basically said No.
The issue seems to be around building a website "around" TrueView photos, even if you own the coins. (At least I think that is the fine point of law that Don was trying to convey).
I have to admit that I didn't know of the "rules" myself, previously. And I have to admit that I still am not 100% sure that I know and understand all the "rules" now, even after asking the question about 5 times in various threads and on the phone with PCGS. What I would absolutely LOVE is a page somewhere on the PCGS website that completely and clearly spells out what is allowed and what is not allowed around the posting of TrueView photos on a website -- especially on personal collection websites on coins that you own.
I am still a bit confused and perplexed by the response I am getting from PCGS on this point (asking the question of can we build "here is my collection" websites showing TrueView photos of coins that we own and are there any further (additional) restrictions on that).
Ultimately I would just like to know what is legal and what is not legal for my own knowledge base and to know what is allowed and what is not allowed. I am hoping this information is useful to others that would like to post TrueView photos of coins that you yourself own on "here is my collection" websites.
I think the fine point of law on TrueView photos is in "publishing a website". I think that is key point of law. We cannot "publish a website" (basically "post a website") of TrueView photos, even if we own all the coins shown.
If someone from PCGS could clarify any of this, that would be fantastic!! All I want to know are the specific rules so I can stay in compliance. THANK YOU!
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
It is pretty clear that you cannot simply post images of coins that you do not own, images that you did not commission, for public display.
It seems acceptable to publish a TrueView on any site where they are used one or two at a time (eBay, Photobucket, etc.), but it would be unacceptable to publish it on a website like the one in question which seeks to aggregate TrueViews.
<< <i>
I had a page on my personal coin website which included the TrueView images that I have purchased. The website was linked here on multiple occasions, and no one ever bothered me about posting the images on my website.
It is pretty clear that you cannot simply post images of coins that you do not own, images that you did not commission, for public display.
>>
I also posted these 100 Greatest websites on this board (numerous times) and also was never "bothered" (your words!) by anyone from PCGS about posting TrueView images on my websites. Just because you posted the website here, doesnt mean PCGS doesn't think your useage is legal. I was never told no, until I specifically asked PCGS.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
<< <i>
<< <i>
I had a page on my personal coin website which included the TrueView images that I have purchased. The website was linked here on multiple occasions, and no one ever bothered me about posting the images on my website.
It is pretty clear that you cannot simply post images of coins that you do not own, images that you did not commission, for public display.
>>
I also posted these 100 Greatest websites on this board (numerous times) and also was never "bothered" (your words!) by anyone from PCGS about posting TrueView images on my websites. Just because you posted the website here, doesnt mean PCGS doesn't think your useage is legal. I was never told no, until I asked. >>
Well, jaywalking is also not legal, but I have done it many times and will likely do it again.
I think perhaps if you do post TrueViews of coins that you own on a "here is my collection" website ... PCGS might not actually "bother you" about it ... but perhaps you should not directly ask them if it's ok?
I think that perhaps PCGS doesn't want to give a blanket OK, which might be why PCGS would rather not post the explicit rules, but they want to be able to retain the right to deny you that usage at some point down the road at their discretion.
It might relate to how you actually present the TrueView photos on your site and things that you say? Perhaps? I am guessing.
Clearly what I did (posting TrueView from others with the owners permission only) was wrong, and I apologized to PCGS for doing that. I thought the owners permission was all I needed (especially since I was NOT trying to profit but doing it only for educational purposes and my love and passion of numismatics and to ultimately promote PCGS which I did a great job of ... sending numerous new customers to PCGS! I even taught a few folks how to fill out the paper submission forms on ordering TrueView photos (many people don't know you check "OTHER" on the form and write in True View Photo). Also I know of a bunch of people that were buying tons of coins and submitting them to PCGS for grading and TrueView photos in an attempt to get "listed" ... so certainly I put money in PCGS's pocket (and clearly not mine!).
But what is allowed in terms of building a "personal collection" website using TrueView photos of coins that you own falls in somewhat of a gray area (at least that is the impression I am getting).
I do know for a fact that there are TWO absolutely legal uses of TrueView photos.
First, it's perfectly legal to post TrueView photos of coins that you own on coin forums (like this one).
Second, you can clearly show a TrueView photo on auction websites when selling the coin.
Those two uses are golden.
Beyond that I think there starts to be more restrictions applied to how you can "use" and/or "display" TrueView photos of coins that you personally own. Building (publishing) a website of TrueView photos of coins that you own I think is (at least somewhat) frowned upon by PCGS and could have some restrictions applied. And you could be denied at some point at PCGS's discretion (perhaps?) depending on the site content, how it's displayed, or what you are trying to show/convey. However I am guessing at this last point.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
<< <i>Yes, I hear you about Jaywalking!!!
I think perhaps if you do post TrueViews of coins that you own on a "here is my collection" website ... PCGS might not actually "bother you" about it ... but perhaps you should not directly ask them if it's ok?
I think that perhaps PCGS doesn't want to give a blanket OK, which might be why PCGS would rather not post the explicit rules, but they want to be able to retain the right to deny you that usage at some point down the road at their discretion.
It might relate to how you actually present the TrueView photos on your site and things that you say? Perhaps? I am guessing.
Clearly what I did (posting TrueView from others with the owners permission only) was wrong, and I apologized to PCGS for doing that. I thought the owners permission was all I needed (especially since I was NOT trying to profit but doing it only for educational purposes and my love and passion of numismatics and to ultimately promote PCGS which I did a great job of ... sending numerous new customers to them!)
But what is allowed in terms of building a "personal collection" website using TrueView photos of coins that you own falls in somewhat of a gray area (at least that is the impression I am getting).
I do know for a fact that it's perfectly legal to post TrueView photos of coins that you own on coin forums (like this one) and you can clearly show TrueView photos on auction websites when selling coins. Those two uses are golden.
Beyond that I think there starts to be more restrictions applied to how you can "use" TrueView photos of coins that you personally own. Building (Publishing) a website of TrueView photos of coins that you own I think is frowned upon by PCGS and could have some restrictions applied. And you could be denied at some point at PCGS's discretion (perhaps?) depending on the site content, how it's displayed, or what you are trying to show/convey. However I am guessing at this last point. >>
WingedLiberty1957,
Did you violate the Copyright Laws?
Or were you in compliance with the “Fair Use Doctrine” exemption for teaching?
I am no lawyer ... just a small time amateur coin collector. But I do love the hobby! Clearly my passion is visible to all.
Ultimately I learned SO MUCH on doing those websites, my knowledge based expanded exponentially, so it wasn't a lost cause. The websites were a blast to do, I haven't had that much fun in ages!
I love learning about things and to be honest with you, in the scheme of life, these little websites are "small potatoes" when measured against truly important things ... like life, death, love, health, sickness, and family. So no big deal. Right?
What was that conversation in the Ferris Bueller movie ...
Cameron: "My father loves this car more than life itself"
Ferris: "A man with values that out of whack, doesn't deserve such a fine automobile"
Let's hear it for keeping things in perspective!!!
Tell someone important to you that you love them ... that's what really matters.
And happy collecting too!
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
The "hobby" just lost a bit of fun (and respect) here.
Very sad.
<< <i>That the issue seems to be around building a website "around" TrueView photos, even if you own the coins. (At least I think that is the fine point of law that Don was trying to convey). >>
Since PCGS is the copyright holder for these images, they could help you out of this gray area by granting you a license for such a website if they wanted. In the long term, though, as more coins become TrueViewed, more collectors will start wanting to build websites showcasing their coins, and this gray area will be revisited. It'll be in everyone's best interest for PCGS to have rules that are easily understood without having to contact an attorney, while not scaring people away from wanting to use the TrueView service.
If the issue is that all the pictures on the site are TrueView pictures, there are also ways to fix that.
At any rate, it's good to see that you're getting some actual feedback from them, and you weren't just given a "no soup for you!" response.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>He's not trying to sell someone else's coins or run any sort of scam. He's just attempting to spread the fun of the hobby. >>
If PCGS lets one person use the images as they wish, what happens when the next person (and the next and the next after that) want to do the same?
After paying $20 for each TrueView photo, I'd be a bit shocked and upset if PCGS objected to my use of one or more of the photos of coins I own, for whatever purpose I wanted to use them for... whether it's selling the coin on eBay or showing them off on my own website or Facebook or a coin forum or whatever.
But I can understand the objections to someone building a website that goes beyond using photos of coins that are owned by the website owner as that starts to step on the toes of what CoinFacts has been doing. In any event, it was a fun site to look at while it was up.
Another thought is that the website could be duplicated if you just did your own photos (or had another professional take the photos and you obtain the necessary permissions in advance). You seem to have good relationships with many of the owners of these coins and at least some may be willing to send you the coins for imaging or send them to a photo pro. I thought the ranking of the coins solely based on a single TrueView photo was a bit problematic anyways as matte proofs are very dynamic and have different looks depending on lighting and how you tilt them. You really must see these coins in hand to know them and to be able to more fairly rank them. Accordingly, doing your own photos would maybe allow you to more accurately rank the coins. Just a thought on a way the site might be able to survive...
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
If the issue is that all the pictures on the site are TrueView pictures, there are also ways to fix that.
>>
True.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
<< <i>
<< <i>He's not trying to sell someone else's coins or run any sort of scam. He's just attempting to spread the fun of the hobby. >>
If PCGS lets one person use the images as they wish, what happens when the next person (and the next and the next after that) want to do the same? >>
Well, I guess the world as we know it will end.
Lots of people showing off images of beautiful coins for the enjoyment of others. We certainly can't have that.
Silly me. I thought this was just a fun hobby/pastime. I didn't realize it was only about who can profit, and how we can stop others from getting any pleasure from anything we may have been remotely involved with, according to the legal clauses in the fine print.
I had better stop now before I breach some legal code of which I was unaware.
Is it because of the pics Trueview border and background being removed, and not representing the product fully?
If the pics retained the background and border would there be an issue?
I thought the site was tastefully done, sad to see the pics removed.
<< <i>
It's their work, therefore they own the rights to the photograph, pretty elementary.
Is it because of the pics Trueview border and background being removed, and not representing the product fully?
If the pics retained the background and border would there be an issue?
I thought the site was tastefully done, sad to see the pics removed.
>>
As far as I could find out from PCGS, the background going to black was not an issue.
When I specifically asked Don Willis about that very issue in a PM, I did not get a response to that.
So based on that, I don't think that was the key issue.
One PCGS representative posted that they DO NOT MIND people turning the TV background to black.
One forum member even gave a step by step tutorial on how do do that and posted it here.
So I think that is considered ok.
I think the key point of the violation was that a website cannot be "built around" more than 1 or 2 TrueView photos.
You simply cannot do that. Even in the case where you own all the coins in question and paid for the photos yourself,
which was the exact point I was asking Don Willis about in a PM yesterday, where he replied no.
So I think that is the crux of the ruling -- and the ultimate limitation of customer usage of the TrueView photos we buy.
Yes, Illini, you are exactly right, Don did point me to the PCGS Set Registry site and the CoinFacts site, I think PCGS really wants those to sites to be the primary storage points (and web display) of TrueView Photos. I think CoinFacts costs $12.95 a month, and the PCGS Registry is free. My only complaint with the PCGS Registry, is there are way too many coins listed (inventoried) with no photos of any kind (TrueViews or other) posted; but I do like the concept of the registry.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
PCGS created, defined and executed the "TruView" system of digital imaging. As the creator, they are the sole definer and enforcer of usage. As the user (and just like purchasing software), when you buy a TruView image, you enjoy personal usage and other rights as granted by PCGS. They alone have all rights to determine how and where. Some uses are expressly defined, others are not; that's why we have attorneys.
As has been mentioned, PCGS COULD offer additional uses not granted by the general EULA, but may not be inclined to do so especially in this case as the usage could be considered to infringe on current or future company-based usage of the TruView system.
Ownership of the coins is not an issue; efforts expended to create the TruView image/data is what is being protected. People are free to create and use their own images of their coins as they see fit; users of TruView images are not.
This isn't a new position by PCGS; most mass-usage systems carry very similar EULA's.
<< <i>Yes, Illini, you are exactly right, Don did point me to the PCGS Set Registry site and the CoinFacts site, I think PCGS really wants those to sites to be the primary storage points (and web display) of TrueView Photos. I think CoinFacts costs $12.95 a month, and the PCGS Registry is free (I think to members of PCGS, which there is an annual fee). >>
The PCGS Registry is free to everyone all the time; it is not limited to paid PCGS members.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>efforts expended to create the TruView image/data is what is being protected. >>
They are paid for their efforts, it's just a service they make money from. But it absolutely has convinced me that I would never pay to have coins imaged by PCGS, even though they are technically some of the best I've seen. I display my collection online and to say I wouldn't be able to use images I had paid for turns me off.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
Having TruView images made of your coins is no different than hiring a professional photographer to do the same thing.
Unless you have a contract that has a clause specifically granting all rights to the purchaser, the photographer (in this case, PCGS) retains the copyright to the images. It is their work product, not yours, even though you paid for copies of the images. As the owner of the item you are granted only limited fair use; that is, you many use the images personally and in a limited capacity only, and only if you are the purchaser of the images (or possibly if you bought the item in question that was imaged, which transfers those limited rights to the purchaser).
In this case, the 100-greatest website creator doesn't own any of the items themselves, much less did he purchase any of the images from PCGS... thus he has no standing to be able to use them without the permission of the image creator (PCGS), no matter how altruistic the purpose.
It's just that simple.
Now you can argue that PCGS could be the "good guy" here and let him use the images... but frankly I can understand not allowing a thief (albeit an unknowing one) to keep the work product that he essentially stole.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
So many have trampled on photographers rights for so long that they think they have a right to our work, unbelievable
someone on the thread said "only in America" in a condescending way, I take it Only in America where we PROTECT the RIGHTS of artists.
<< <i>I'm really not understanding why so many people are having a hard time grasping the concept here.
Having TruView images made of your coins is no different than hiring a professional photographer to do the same thing.
Unless you have a contract that has a clause specifically granting all rights to the purchaser, the photographer (in this case, PCGS) retains the copyright to the images. It is their work product, not yours, even though you paid for copies of the images. As the owner of the item you are granted only limited fair use; that is, you many use the images personally and in a limited capacity only, and only if you are the purchaser of the images (or possibly if you bought the item in question that was imaged, which transfers those limited rights to the purchaser).
In this case, the 100-greatest website creator doesn't own any of the items themselves, much less did he purchase any of the images from PCGS... thus he has no standing to be able to use them without the permission of the image creator (PCGS), no matter how altruistic the purpose.
It's just that simple.
Now you can argue that PCGS could be the "good guy" here and let him use the images... but frankly I can understand not allowing a thief (albeit an unknowing one) to keep the work product that he essentially stole. >>
Yeah, yeah , yeah!!! Blah, blah, blah.
That issue is over. WL has agreed, apologized to PCGS and complied by pulling the photos from the site. How many times does it need to be repeated?
The issue I am having a problem with is having an album of TrueViews purchased by me, showing my collection on your my web site, for my personal enjoyment.
For the life of me I can't see the downside or what objections could be made.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>Right on telephoto ..
So many have trampled on photographers rights for so long that they think they have a right to our work, unbelievable
someone on the thread said "only in America" in a condescending way, I take it Only in America where we PROTECT the RIGHTS of artists. >>
Good post!!..I agree.
<< <i>Yeah, yeah , yeah!!! Blah, blah, blah.
That issue is over. WL has agreed, apologized to PCGS and complied by pulling the photos from the site. How many times does it need to be repeated?
The issue I am having a problem with is having an album of TrueViews purchased by me, showing my collection on your my web site, for my personal enjoyment.
For the life of me I can't see the downside or what objections could be made. >>
What part of the term "work product" isn't clear? By using the TruView service you contract with the photographer (PCGS) to purchase copies of the images for limited personal use; you aren't purchasing all rights to the images. How many times does THAT need to be repeated? And "personal use" doesn't mean publishing them to the world wide web, unless you and the photographer specifically mutually agreed to it up front. If you want to make your own site, fine. You can either use your own pictures that you shot yourself, or pictures shot by someone else that you have acquired the copyrights to... but NOT ones that you don't own the rights to. And that's the case here. I don't know how to explain it any better.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
+1 StubbyMcNumbthumbs
<< <i>Right on telephoto ..
So many have trampled on photographers rights for so long that they think they have a right to our work, unbelievable
someone on the thread said "only in America" in a condescending way, I take it Only in America where we PROTECT the RIGHTS of artists. >>
Someone needs to get off their “high horse” and have a reality check.
No one has said it is alright to steal someone else’s work. Valid questions have been asked. I will re-ask a couple of them.
1. Someone quoted PCGS web site as saying: "The purpose of the PCGS TrueView photo service is to provide a quality image of a coin at the most opportune moment - before the coin is encapsulated in plastic. This will provide the customer with an unobstructed view of a coin in an image that can be utilized for a number of numismatic and commercial purposes. " Is this the equivalent to an “unconditional license” of the Copyrighted material to utilize a Trueview photo that you paid for anyway you want to?
2. How do the exemptions of Title 17 USC Section 107 apply under the “Fair Use” doctrine?
<< <i>
<< <i>Yeah, yeah , yeah!!! Blah, blah, blah.
That issue is over. WL has agreed, apologized to PCGS and complied by pulling the photos from the site. How many times does it need to be repeated?
The issue I am having a problem with is having an album of TrueViews purchased by me, showing my collection on your my web site, for my personal enjoyment.
For the life of me I can't see the downside or what objections could be made. >>
What part of the term "work product" isn't clear? By using the TruView service you contract with the photographer (PCGS) to purchase copies of the images for limited personal use; you aren't purchasing all rights to the images. How many times does THAT need to be repeated? And "personal use" doesn't mean publishing them to the world wide web, unless you and the photographer specifically mutually agreed to it up front. If you want to make your own site, fine. You can either use your own pictures that you shot yourself, or pictures shot by someone else that you have acquired the copyrights to... but NOT ones that you don't own the rights to. And that's the case here. I don't know how to explain it any better. >>
Here's the thing, imho, and likely some others, the current law is outdated. Technology has continued to move forward. As such, say someone in the past may have taken the shot and put it in a portfolio, and showed it off.....would you agree they could do that as "personal use"? "Here is a booklet of photographs of my top 10-100 coins that are in my SDB"......
Now, how do people share things? Digitally. Digitally means the world wide web as well.
Current laws are slanted against consumers in a detrimental (to the consumer) way in MANY cases. Just like the DMCA. By the letter of the law, I believe it goes to say that if you buy a CD/DVD/etc, you cannot even make a backup copy for your own use. Is that fair? I am sure that those in that particular industry, getting paid, will state it is. I think many more will see that it is a flawed law that is overly negative to a consumer. We buy a CD of songs, but we don't own those songs.....that's fair enough. However, if I want to rip that for my personal use, copy to another CD in case of potential damage, etc, then I should be able to. Now, I know they have allowed some personal back-up, but it isn't always easy to do. My point on this is that laws go into effect that are FLAWED laws for the overall majority of society. There are case instances where laws are not up to date and/or they are overly influenced by a vocal minority and work against a majority who don't know about it until too late.
Yes, it is a law. No, it is not a law that 100% of the people can stand behind.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Using your analogy, that's a lot different than taking those ripped CDs and giving them away to all your friends for free...which is what is essentially being done by taking copyrighted images and posting them on a website without permission. You simply don't have the right to do so.
Is the law outdated? Does it need to be modified to adapt to the electronic world? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not our call. If you don't like it, fight to have it changed; elect someone who shares your view. But-until then, it's the law, and merely thinking that it's not right or fair is not a valid excuse for violating it.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>We buy a CD of songs, but we don't own those songs.....that's fair enough. However, if I want to rip that for my personal use, copy to another CD in case of potential damage, etc, then I should be able to.
Using your analogy, that's a lot different than taking those ripped CDs and giving them away to all your friends for free...which is what is essentially being done by taking copyrighted images and posting them on a website without permission. You simply don't have the right to do so.
Is the law outdated? Does it need to be modified to adapt to the electronic world? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not our call. If you don't like it, fight to have it changed; elect someone who shares your view. But-until then, it's the law, and merely thinking that it's not right or fair is not a valid excuse for violating it. >>
What if I rip those songs and play them, loudly, from my car as I drive around, so that others can hear them? Pretty similar to me
Note also, I never said it wasn't the law.....I have said it is a dumb law.....also never said I was violating it, nor have you seen me type something that was telling others to do so....have you?
Still doesn't mean I don't think it isn't a stupid law that works against common sense (like so many of our laws that are for special interests).
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.
<< <i>We buy a CD of songs, but we don't own those songs.....that's fair enough. However, if I want to rip that for my personal use, copy to another CD in case of potential damage, etc, then I should be able to.
Using your analogy, that's a lot different than taking those ripped CDs and giving them away to all your friends for free...which is what is essentially being done by taking copyrighted images and posting them on a website without permission. You simply don't have the right to do so.
Is the law outdated? Does it need to be modified to adapt to the electronic world? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not our call. If you don't like it, fight to have it changed; elect someone who shares your view. But-until then, it's the law, and merely thinking that it's not right or fair is not a valid excuse for violating it. >>
I think there is a big disconnect in this specific argument that PCGS is trying to tiptoe around: PCGS says the coin owner/submitter has access and permission to use the image for certain display/selling purposes. The website creator took the time to contact each submitter/owner and get their approval for image use.
Users on this site regularly post such images to share their coins and collections - which I think is great and stands to show PCGS' quality work! Should such sharing also be met with 'cease & desist' letters becuase they do not own copyright to the image?
<< <i>I think there is a big disconnect in this specific argument that PCGS is trying to tiptoe around: PCGS says the coin owner/submitter has access and permission to use the image for certain display/selling purposes. The website creator took the time to contact each submitter/owner and get their approval for image use. >>
...but in this case he wasn't asking permission from the right people. PCGS gave THEM access and permission, not him. He needed to ask PCGS.
<< <i>Users on this site regularly post such images to share their coins and collections - which I think is great and stands to show PCGS' quality work! Should such sharing also be met with 'cease & desist' letters becuase they do not own copyright to the image? >>
Well, considering this site is owned by PCGS and its parent company, posting those images here would obviously fall under reasonable and fair use, as such use wouldn't be to the detriment of the image creator (PCGS). It would be like a pro photographer having a portion of his site with testimonials from customers showing examples of his work.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
Well, considering this site is owned by PCGS and its parent company, posting those images here would obviously fall under reasonable and fair use, as such use wouldn't be to the detriment of the image creator (PCGS). It would be like a pro photographer having a portion of his site with testimonials from customers showing examples of his work. >>
Valid point! That being said, I'd leave it at PCGS missing out on an opportunity.
<< <i>Bochi, I agree that there are some dumb laws out there... however I don't think copyright laws are among them; a photographer is an artist and his images are his work product. Without copyright protection the creator of the product no longer retains any control over it and thus has no protection from those who would steal it. The big problem with the Internet is that there are so many workarounds to be able to copy images therefrom. If nothing else, people need to add code to their sites that disables the right click feature. That would be a good start. I am surprised frankly that our hosts haven't considered that yet. >>
TP1 - I am not disagreeing with you on the main portion of this. If the photographer took a picture, then yes, it is his. It gets muddied, for most people, when someone PAYS the photographer for their services to take the picture. In a case like this, with funds exchanged, most people would see this as a paid for good now, to do with as they please, as they do cars. If Toyota told someone they couldn't sell a Camry once it was purchased, then that would be ridiculous, right? If Dell told someone they couldn't sell their PC to someone else, it would be laughed at, right?
What about if you commission someone to create a portrait for you? You expect to be able to take it home, put it in a gallery for show, etc, right? You can take a picture of it and put it on the website, can't you? You paid for it.
So, if you PAY the photographer for the photos, then they are being paid for their services. If the photographer paid YOU for the coin's time so they could take a picture of it, then you shouldn't have any rights to that photo...I think most would agree.
Again, because of the payment for services, it gets muddied.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
The law it very clear.
You just can't make up stuff. Get real ........