Options
Another photo rights question
CaptHenway
Posts: 31,597 ✭✭✭✭✭
If I buy a coin off of eBay, do I automatically own the rights to the photo I bought it from? I would assume no, but perhaps someone knows the facts in that situation?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
0
Comments
No.
You own the coin. You do not own the photo.
I have no firm opinion either way, yet what if the seller used PCGS Trueview photos?
Do you then have the rights to the photo either for personal use or for potential gain?
peacockcoins
The seller does not own the Tru-View images and can not transfer the rights.
I believe PCGS allows coin sellers to use Tru-Views.
You are not allowed to make a TruView Calendar to sell commercially.
What you can do vs the legal options sellers have are two different things. Most sellers don’t care but if you turned around and sold that coin back on eBay for a profit using the sellers photos. It would be a simple and effective argument for that seller to claim that your infringement on their IP is what enabled you to profit entitling them to that profit and damages. The photo is a weirdly protected class of product. The laws were developed when film was analogous to canvas and not with the digital age in mind
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
This. This this this.
Coin Photographer.
Interesting question and there may not be an obvious or clear answer that may satisfy the sharpest legal minds.
I would think the TrueView image follows the coin- at least as long as the coin remains in the same slab as referenced in the TrueView.
As for the Ebay picture/image taken by the seller, that is more complicated mainly because an image is used to market and sell. And i this instance it would be tied to a specific item- it's not like you are going into a car dealership whereby hundreds of a given car model will be sold. In an ebay listing, the buyer could assert that it was the image that was persuasive that lead to sale the coin. The argument could easily be framed that the image should be included based on the possible representations made as to grade, condition and rarity. If the seller is making such representations, those representations come with a price that should at a minimum be mutually beneficial to capture what was sold and whether it was of the quality represented at the time of the listing and sale.
Edited to add... Ebay seller image- The buyer may have a right to the image but it likely would not be an exclusive right.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
“The photo is a weirdly protected class of product. The laws were developed when film was analogous to canvas and not with the digital age in mind”
I’ve always thought this as well. It’s bizarre to me that someone can run up, snap my image at any time against my will, and now they “own” it as their “art”. Very unusual.
I’ve found that almost everyone thinks it’s weird…except for photographers 🤣
Take your own pictures of the coin you now own.
Throw a coin enough times, and suppose one day it lands on its edge.
...
You would be wrong. The copyright of the image and ownership of the coin are two COMPLETELY separate items.
Remember Taylor Swift? Her song catalog (the master tapes) are owned by somebody else (sadly it's common for musicians starting out to not own their masters) - she doesn't have the rights to re-release the albums. That's why she's been re-recording her output as "Taylor's version".
Again wrong. In every particular. The eBay seller owns the copyright of the image they took (whether you register the image as a part of seeking damages is different. The image is copyrighted from the instant of production). Copyright is not a function of use, it's a function of creation. And no, buying the coin doesn't give you rights to the image.
Now: The image owner could grant or license you the ability to use their image for anything imaginable, say a book. I have carefully logged permissions from dozens of sellers for just that reason.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
That is where it gets tricky. The photographer owns the copyright of the image, yes. But you own your likeness. Properly, using that image requires permission from both sides (that's why when you walk through a movie or TV set in NYC a Production Assistant will pounce on you to sign a release). You will often see this when the estate of a dead famous person licenses their name or likeness for a product.
Ryan Reynolds, as a co-owner, has licensed his likeness to promote Aviation American Gin. If you wanted to make and sell, oh, Ernest Hemingway vodka, you would need a license from his estate.
Under US law, copyright lapses after 95 years, so images of Hemingway taken in 1928 or earlier would be in the public domain. So you - might - consult a copyright attorney - be able to use a photo of him, but not if you used his name.
Old Dead Author Vodka might fly...
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@BStrauss3
I would not be so quick to write that I am wrong...
You seem to be missing a huge issue in that the image of the seller is used to sell that specific item which in this instance is a coin. And if there are representations and arguably warranties made as the authenticity, grade, and rarity of that coin , the image should likely follow ownership of the coin as part of the representations by the seller that arguable were part of the bargain at the time of sale. If there are no representations or warranties made by the seller as to those issues- then your position would have greater weight.
How does an Ebay seller own the copyright of an image if it is that image that he is using to is merely to sell a specific coin which he in turn is representing as X and in realty it is U (as in u have been taken to the cleaners) ? The buyer has some right to the photo if that was in fact part of the bargain based on the REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SELLER.
Music copyright issues are just different as in not relevant to trying to buy coins because what is recorded and copyrighted are clearly different.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Didn’t another discussion say that once an image is posted on EBay that they own it (or have all rights to it, or that version of it, or something)?
If I’m remembering that part close enough to correctly, and you got the image from eBay and used it again on eBay (for the same item) wouldn’t it be eBay’s call as to whether or not it was acceptable?
I guess I’m asking (restating?) if posting on eBay might mean that the picture can live there indefinitely and beyond the wishes of the original “artist” as long as it stays in the eBay ecosystem.
People just making up chit.
The law is clear.
Weird times we live in.
Nap time.
Exactly. @coinkat I’m not sure how you in your mind fabricated an attachment of the intellectual property rights to the sale of an item, but no such attachment exists. By submitting photos you allow eBay to use the images royalty free, again, you allow eBay USE, not ownership. Use is for cases such as a featured item, a screenshot using said image for eBay promotional use, or similar. eBay does NOT somehow take ownership of the intellectual rights, thus no transfer of ownership to the new owner of the item. In fact, eBay specifically states that using an image whose intellectual rights are owned by another party is expressly prohibited unless you have proof of a release from the rights owner. You are simply wrong. If you purchase a coin I am selling on eBay, and the images are ones I took, and thus own the rights to, and you then relist the item as the seller using my photos, eBay will promptly remove the listing when I ask under the VeRO program. It’s simple, don’t make it fallaciously complicated.
eBay's TOS gives them a worldwide unlimited license to use the image. They do NOT own the copyright.
You are correct that the license MIGHT - I'd ask a lawyer who specializes in IP - allow a 3rd party (2nd seller) to use that image in a listing.
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-policies/images-text-policy?id=4240
And in the FAQ
So it would turn on whether the image(s) were added to the product catalog. Dig into that and it's keyed by "UPC, ISBN, part number, or the product name of your item" so Lincoln Cent might be there, it's unlikely that 1939S VP-001 Lincoln Cent is...
And yet you are. Wrong that is.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Our disagreement in part is based on my perception of how the image was used to make a sale and the right to use that image to protect and document what was purchased. And this relates directly to the representations made by the seller in an effort to establish authenticity, grade and rarity.
I was not viewing this in the same light as an image that had artistic merit to stand alone which had intrinsic value beyond selling the coin. I do not see Ebay pictures in that light. Nor did I contemplate images of coins taken solely for the purposes and intent of selling on Ebay as intellectual property.
I stand corrected... I do not list coins for sale on ebay. My sincere apologies.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
All I know... is that my photos on ebay.... have been showing up on Worthpoint. Most likely a deal between ebay and worthpoint. Perhaps I still own the copyright.... but appears to be rather worthless if ebay is free to sell the photo....
As most of you likely know... Worthpoint is a website you can purchase a subscription to, to look up what items have sold for. Includes auction descriptions and photos.
It's curious to me that there are so many opinions on this issue. Opinions are fine, but on this matter, right or wrong, the law is quite clear. 99% of the time nobody will make a big deal about it, but the law will be squarely on their side if they want to.
I think that if I ever start selling coins on eBay again (I used to, but haven’t in over 15 years) that I’m going to fire up my old DSLR and take some decent pictures and send a thumb drive along with the coin with the images on it in high resolution to the buyer as a bonus. I bet you I’d sell more coins at better prices if I did that and I could include marketing info in the thumb drive showing website info for people to go to my (future) website to order custom background templates and custom virtual albums and stuff like that. I’m thinking of doing stuff like that when I retire in a couple years.
Mr_Spud
Other than a dispute, why would you even make such a request ?
If you own the coin outright, by any means, (other than theft), if , found, purchased, handed down or even slabbed, I'm sure your presentation photo's would or should exceed your standards of quality.
A poorman's copyright would be my move, if this is what he's asking ?
Seriously just take your own photos. It’s not that hard.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
Correct. However, you are free to use the photos per ebay user agreements on ebay
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-policies/images-text-policy?id=4240#:~:text=If
The Essential Guide to Photography and Copyright Law
https://format.com/magazine/resources/photography/photography-copyright-law-guide#:~:text=Copyright%20in%20photography%20means%20that%20you%20own%20an,copyright%20throughout%20their%20life%20and%2070%20years%20afterwards.
There are several programs you can use to set what is called the EXIF data - it's part of the image file.
There are over a hundred fields
Camera & lens & exposure information
The name of the editing software
And also copyright and related information, including a pointer to more detailed rights and licensing information...
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Yes I agree.
Of course lawyers have been known to harness dead horses together to try and make them run fast.
But there really must be something significant at stake.
Just curious, not important, but I always wondered about who owns a picture of a painting or even a picture of a picture.
Like, someone I know painted this painting and gave me the painting and then I took this picture. Who owns the picture? The person who painted it or me?
And I took a picture of a painting in a museum down in San Diego and then heavily edited it. Here’s the picture, do I own the picture?
In the two examples above, does it matter if I own one of the paintings I took a picture of? Does my ownership of the first painting make me the owner of the picture more than the one in the museum that I don’t own? If it was a photograph hanging in the museum and I took a picture of it, does it make a difference because it’s a photo of a photo and not a photo of a picture. If I take one pixel of a photograph and insert it onto my own picture of something I took, does it make the picture not mine anymore (that’s basically sort of what AI images do, only it’s pieces of many pictures combined into a new image)? If someone takes a picture and tears it up and throws it in the air like confetti and one piece falls on the ground and I take a picture of a hat on the ground and the piece of the picture just happens to be present… and on and on
Just wondering 🤔
Mr_Spud
@MrSpud, the first one is easier. If the artist sold you the painting, you own it, but not the copyright of the painting, unless it was transferred to you too (this is unusual). This protects artists who want to make and sell multiple copies or versions of an artwork (even if each is somewhat different) . If you simply take a photo of a painting you own, you can use it for personal use, but not commercial use, since you don’t own the copyright. You can certainly resell the physical painting if you want, but again, the new owner does not obtain the copyright.
The second example is a bit tricker. If the paining is older than 1924, or it’s 70 years from the death of the artist, the copyright has expired, and you can do about whatever you’d like with it. Since you have heavily modified the artwork through your own creative effort, you would likely then be able to copyright your new production. If the original is still under copyright, you could run afoul of the law if you tried to sell or promote your new work, (having benefited unfairly from the artist’s original work). Exactly how much can you mimic an original, copy the unique style of the artist, or exactly how much do you have to alter an original to have generated something you can copyright…… that’s a bit murkier.
You can’t for example, take an original painting, slightly modify it (one pixel) and then try to sell it as your own. That steps on the rights of the one who first created it.
In the world of music and songwriting, these disputes arise all the time. Can you copyright a 5-note jingle? How about a 6-note jingle? Obviously a 100-note piece of music can be unique and new.......
It is in this grey area that lawyers are ever so happy to accumulate billable hours on your behalf.
This is my distillation of the research I’ve done, but I’ve only driven past a few law schools. I’m happy to be corrected if someone has better facts.
Refer back to the earlier discussion, it's murky.
You own the copyright on your photograph.
The subject matter may have it's own copyright, or might be in the public domain (depending on when it was created).
That wouldn't hamper you from taking the photo, but you might not be able to use it.
Now toss in "fair use", which allows you to - for example - quote a small piece of a book when writing a review. Or use a small bit in the creation of a derivative work. Where it gets murky is there have been cases where a few second snippet of a song (but identifiable) has been held to be infringing.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-supreme-courts-andy-warhol-decision-keeps-fair-use-questions-alive-2023-05-22/
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
So if you sold it at a loss, would that be theirs also? 🤣
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I don't know one way or the other, I'm just asking. Wouldn't the seller have to file for copyright protection for each and every photo they take themselves and use?
I ask permission if I like the photo.
No. Automatically copyrighted.
An additional layer of protection for a photographer is to register a copyright which also entitles punitive damages along with fair use payment.
sell it as your own.
This is what the copyright of images is trying to protect....selling someone else's photos/images.
Street photography is a funny thing too, take a photo of a crowded sidewalk...can you sell it without everyones permission??
PCGS grants license to use their true views. However, ebay or such sellers, are not granting you a license to use their photo without permission.
Usually just asking politely "Hey, you photos are great and would you mind if I save them so when or if I sell I can use them?", will get the job done.
I found a seller that had a fantastic eagle/flag rendition and I thought it would be good for a business I was starting so I asked if I could use it and he said no. I then offered to pay him for the license to use the image and he said yes. The company is still using that image today.
bob
Vegas baby, home of the SUPERBOWL tomorrow!
In the past whenever I ask the seller if I may post the photos online, they have unanimously agreed. 😃
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Registration strengthens the case for damages if someone infringes. It does not change nor is it required to create the copyright, under the Berne Convention as codified in US Law, copyright comes into existence when the expression is fixed into a tangible medium. Image file on a memory card for example.
Probably, unless there is somebody clearly recognizable in the image. If Mel Brooks happened to be walking across 57th St and you captured him, you likely would have needed a release.
Except a single coin dealer in Washington State who explicitly said no. I have the images filed in my
No Permissions folder for my personal reference.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Edit
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Oh, I have asked a few of the sellers for permission to use their photos in my book with credit to them and everybody has said yes. I was just curious as to what the law is.
One more thought, once a seller sells a coin what use do they have with the image they used. Do they somehow keep selling the image once they no longer own the coin?
Mr_Spud
Ethics 101 should kick in when that comes into play.
You have their consent in writing plus you give them credit for the photo, you're probably good to go.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
What they could do is rather beside the point. 99.99999% of the time they have no use for it. [I delete all of my sales photos after a couple months. ] That really had no bearing on the fact that they still own it.
Which is an interesting (?) secondary question: if you keep my photo and I delete it, do I still own it?
I don't think they have any use, but the expectation that the image rights transfer with the coin is simply wrong. As others have said, most sellers are gracious when you ask. It's just ******* Rare Coins that has been an ***.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Seems the larger issue remains which are the representations and warranties made by the seller in connection with the auction/sale listing. Seems the photos have a role that documents and records all of the pertinent details associated with the transaction. And the retention of such information could be significant depending on the specific auction/sale.
If pictures are deleted, that might constitute abandonment (and I say might... it seems the argument can be asserted) and your ownership rights may have been extinguished by deleting or simply not taking measures to retain in long term storage. I am not certain if abandonment and what would constitute abandonment of what is considered intellectual property has been litigated or in what jurisdiction.
I see the real telling tale is the statement...
What they could do is rather beside the point. 99.999% of the time they have no use for it.
So clearly the coin images are taken for purposes of illustrating and providing a visual description for selling the coin. As a threshold issue, seems that intellectual property should have some type of intrinsic value or the creative intent for the image to stand alone based on its own merit. And I suspect there are others that simply see that intellectual property in a different light and currently the body of law on the question may support that view.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The photographer owns and retains the copyright.
PCGS owns the copyright but has agreed to allow use (even commercial use) of the images. The seller is irrelevant in this scenario.
YOU take a picture of ME with MY camera.
WHO owns the copyright to that picture?
is it YOU, or is it I ????
it is a clear-cut answer.