Trademark/Copyright Laws Regarding Pictures Found on the Internet...Coin Related

OneCent · September 27, 2007 8:50AM

After seeing some discussion here lately about posting pictures (others) of coins here for discussion, I would like to receive some clarification.

Question: If I see a coin on an online dealers site and post that dealers picture here for forum opinions, am I breaking the law?

I know we have some lawyers here so I'd really appreciate there opinion.

291fifth · September 27, 2007 8:55AM

An interesting question. I wonder if this issue has been raised in any legal action?

Bochiman · September 27, 2007 9:00AM

I think the answer would be generally not a problem since you are not attempting to profit from using said picture.
I'm not a lawyer (thank god!

) so don't bet the farm on my opinion there, but I think that is how it will trend...

ONETHREE · September 27, 2007 11:39AM

Actually if you willfully infringe on someone's copyright they are entitled to statutory damages whether or not you did it for profit.

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General. - Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either -

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

(b) Actual Damages and Profits. - The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

(c) Statutory Damages. -

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

JohnMaben · September 27, 2007 12:02PM

You can not legally "borrow" an image that is not yours unless if it is in the public domain without a stated owner, or designated as copyright free, or with the owners permission.

More Info Here

OneCent · September 27, 2007 12:09PM

Interesting...So the picture that I posted below, which is my own personal photograph, could legally be used by anyone because it has no indication of my ownership anywhere on the picture. Hence, it is free game.

On the other hand, if said picture had "OneCent" watermarked on the photo I could legally sue someone for damages suffered for copyright infringement. Of course, damages would need to be proved and quantified. So, in said example, if I couldn't prove or quantify that I suffered damages there is no case.

SUMORADA · September 27, 2007 12:14PM

Great link...........but in reality how many photos that state "copyrighted".............are in fact truly "copyrighted" ?

I'm a bench jeweler and see items all the time stamped *copywrited"............maybe 10% are for real...........the die/stamp cost about 14.95, the qualifications for buying one is
a person with a mailing address.......

Frankcoins · September 27, 2007 12:59PM

This system only LINKS to the photos, it is not copying them.

ONETHREE · September 27, 2007 1:03PM

<< This system only LINKS to the photos, it is not copying them. >>

Yes. I believe it is referred to as "framing," which is akin to providing a weblink, which is not considered infringement. However, if you copy the image to photobucket and post it, it could be considered infringment.

fc · September 27, 2007 1:04PM

thanks frank. linking to a picture using html in a forum can hardly
be called copying it.

the picture sits on a public webserver for anyone to see....

but if you copy the picture and upload to this server.. well that is
a different ballgame.

that is the way i see it from an ISP standpoint.

BAJJERFAN · September 27, 2007 1:07PM

Never mind.

clackamas · September 27, 2007 1:08PM

There is educational use on all copyright material. If you are posting for education, i.e. discussion that helps people learn you have a dang good defense and it will never make it to court.

ONETHREE · September 27, 2007 1:27PM

<< There is educational use on all copyright material. If you are posting for education, i.e. discussion that helps people learn you have a dang good defense and it will never make it to court. >>

The TEACH Act of 2002 expanded the fair use doctrine for educators in teaching situations, but it only applies to accredited nonprofit educational institutions. Fair usefor general educational purposes as stated by the copyright office:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006

Coxe · September 27, 2007 1:59PM

<< Great link...........but in reality how many photos that state "copyrighted".............are in fact truly "copyrighted" ? >>

All of them are. Copyrights do not need to be registered nor noted as such to benefit from the protection of copyright laws.

Anyone can sue, but reason says that they overwhelmingly probably won't unless there are damages or abuse. Still, that is up to the owner.

An interesting coin issue here is worth thinking about. If one posts some eBay seller's photo(s) on, say, this forum to expose a problem with his coin, can he claim damages from the exposure of the problem to the public? For instance, consider a coin that was previously in a public auction and is being offered again clearly after having been altered (dipped, lasered, AT'ed ...).

ElmerFusterpuck · September 27, 2007 2:32PM

So should we all be scared of lawsuits and just draw stick figure drawings of the coins we come across on the web? This kind of thinking (I know it's the law) put into constant practice would really stifle creativity and thought, as well as constructive criticism.

JapanJohn · September 27, 2007 3:17PM

I have to think somebody has to suffer some harm from the downloaded and reposted photo. Having a coin that is for sale and posting it on a coin collectors web site is essentially free advertising for the dealer. Still the others here are correct in what they're saying but I don't think it's actionable until bad things start being said about the coin or dealer.

John

pb2y · September 27, 2007 4:43PM

The books written on copyrights laws would fill a huge wall of shelves.
For whom do these laws apply? Would the laws apply to a Forum member
who is using your avatar? Most of the avatars on this Forum are probably
from photos sketches ect that belong to someone else. Can we be
sued for this most grievious violation.

"From the sublime to the ridiculous" Who said that?

Texast · September 27, 2007 5:08PM

<< Interesting...So the picture that I posted below, which is my own personal photograph, could legally be used by anyone because it has no indication of my ownership anywhere on the picture. Hence, it is free game. >>

If you want to place a copyright on your picture it is not hard to do, in a program such as Photoshop you can go to the Picture Information screen and enter your copyright information. It will not show up in the picture itself but it will be coded into the picture file.

ONETHREE · September 27, 2007 9:41PM

<< I have to think somebody has to suffer some harm from the downloaded and reposted photo. Having a coin that is for sale and posting it on a coin collectors web site is essentially free advertising for the dealer. Still the others here are correct in what they're saying but I don't think it's actionable until bad things start being said about the coin or dealer.

John >>

You are correct that any case without damages fails. The difference with copyright is if you can prove infringement you can opt for statutory damages without having to prove actual damages. Say my damages really are one -dollar. I can ping you for $750.00 minimum per violation under the statute. Is it likely to happen for posting? No. However, if you are infringing and they are "motivated" and sue you, prepare for a bad day. What are the damages for posting a song to the internet for download? You can download a song for $.88 at walmart. When they sue it is $750.00 per song they ask for. Link

Longacre · September 27, 2007 10:51PM

Great information OneThree, and thanks for the reference to the statute.

richbeat · September 30, 2007 4:29PM

Get permission if you can. Whether you need it or not, it can't hurt. I did that with Andy and his website, and he gave me his okay. And of course I will credit his website if and when I post a photo.

BBN · November 14, 2007 11:20PM

here's a question. Could you use someone else's photo to sell a coin on ebay if you now own the coin? No copyright or watermark on the photo. Just the pic, but the pic is of the actual coin you now have in hand.

mrpotatoheadd · November 14, 2007 11:46PM

<< here's a question. Could you use someone else's photo to sell a coin on ebay if you now own the coin? No copyright or watermark on the photo. Just the pic, but the pic is of the actual coin you now have in hand. >>

There'd be no question about it if you got permission from the person who took the picture. Is there a reason you wouldn't ask first?

Silverstate · November 15, 2007 1:04AM

Pictures used for "Archival" Purposes are also allowed.

Trademark/Copyright Laws Regarding Pictures Found on the Internet...Coin Related

Comments

Leave a Comment