Someone just tried to scam me on eBay.

Only certain mint designs have copyrights. You can read into it here if you really want to https://www.usmint.gov/news/consumer-alerts/business-guidelines

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nope... you just can't make a square peg fit in a round hole.

I guess teenagers aren't the only ones who think they know everything.

Marshall - go read up on copyright laws, and do us all a favor and take up Beanie Baby collecting. They seem to fit your persona.

 

I'll do one better and leave the hobby entirely. It was bad enough with perverts running it, but now the lawyers will kill it for sure. But they're just the minions of their father Lucifer. Never underestimate the evil of greedy lawyers and politicians.

 

Because people told you not to steal other peoples pictures to use to try and make money?

 

Curious is using a Heritage image for a GTG type thread okay?

 

In my best guess, I would say that is ok, as it is for educational purposes. If you were to use their image in the classifieds, though, that would not be (technically) allowed.

The key is the intended purpose of the use of the image. Are you using it in any way that can be perceived as 'commercial'? It's all about the money.

In all honesty, unauthorized use of an image by the general public has become somewhat commonplace, and unless it's a blatant attempt to circumvent the image owner's right to any potential earnings (ie, not paying for the service of taking the photo, removing a watermark (let's not go there), etc.), the chances of a legal issue are slim, but it's really up to the individual copyright owner whether or not it bothers them that their image is being used for commercial purposes.

 

Do that yourself. You'll find coin images to be a rather special case, since their subject matter is public domain and the government cannot thus own a copyright for their imaging. There is as strong an argument against the ability to copyright a coin image - and the better, more accurate the image, the better the argument against - as there is in favor. And no specific precedent either way, although Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corp. has relevance. There's plenty of inadequate knowledge being exposed in this thread, but it ain't coming from the direction you think it is.

 

The problem with the Bridgeman case is that it was specific to exact reproductions of works of art. Yes, some can say that a coin is a work of art, but a coin is 3-dimensional, and cannot be exactly reproduced by a photograph, so it is not a copy per se, the photograph itself becomes a separate, individual, and unique piece, which then entitles it to copyright protection. The Bridgeman case also is not a precedent setting case, and shouldn't (and isn't) be used in similar copyright cases. Courts have already decided that photographs of 3 dimensional works are art, in and of them self, and entitled to protection. With 3-D objects, creative angles, lighting, and other techniques play a part in the final image (see example below). In the Bridgeman case, the image was a flat-field exact reproduction, or a 'copy', so it doesn't get copyright protection, as it is not original. The discussion we have been having has nothing to do with what was found in the Bridgeman case. If this was an art forum, and we were talking about exact reproductions (including color rendition, which we all know in coins can vary between photographers), then the 'loophole' would have been brought up. But we were talking about general use of images created by others, of which each is unique, and therefore hold copyright protection. So I see the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it applies in the discussion at hand.

Samples of how 'creative use of lighting' will make the same subject look very different, constituting artistic value:

 

While the coins themselves are not copyright protected, my 'creative use of lighting' has turned an exact copy of them into 'works of art', and that makes the photos protected by copyright.

Now.....

If I'm wrong (which if you haven't guessed, I don't think I am), I am more than willing to change my views, but only when relevant facts and cases of law contradict what I've learned over the years. So if there is a case out there that has set a precedent other then what I am aware of, I'm all ears. I may be a Taurus, and a bit stubborn, but I'm also open and a realist.

 

I think it has more or less been established at this point that, in most cases, using images that are not in the public domain without explicit permission is illegal (although this may or may not be more murky with regard to coins). However, today's reality is that millions if not billions of images have been and are being reproduced illegally online.

I would like to make it clear that I'm not saying that just because many people do something, it becomes okay. I do believe, however, that digital copyright law needs to be improved. It will never be perfect, and I certainly don't have all the answers, but I don't think that the way it is is adequate.

When someone steals a physical object from someone else, the thief now has it and the other person no longer does. There is only one of that specific object. Digital files can be perfectly duplicated an innumerous number of times. When someone illegally uses someone else's image or pirates music, they make a copy which does not in any way interfere with the original. Wrong? In many cases, absolutely, such as when it causes financial loss to someone. I don't think, however, that it should necessarily be treated the same as the theft of a physical object.

Quite frankly, if I sell a coin and the buyer decides to resell it and use my images, I think that should count as fair use.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just asserting that in the very specific instance of US cons, there's plenty of grey area in regards to copyrighting. Your point about deliberately manipulating lighting to achieve "artistic merit" is easily agreed with; it is in that deliberate alteration where the right to copyright is gained.

However, we generally wish to present our coins in the most faithful possible light, and the better we succeed, the further we are into the grey.

For the record, I was born on Mother's Day. I know exactly how you feel.

 

I have not said much in response to what has been posted. I have followed it and agree with several in here.

The theft of images has been blurred to the point of it becoming somewhat like a police officer attempting to pull over every vehicle going 5 mph over the posted speed limit. We all know that going 5 mph over the legal limit is breaking the law, but everyone else is doing it, so we comfort ourselves in knowing that more than likely that next cop won't pull us over. We figure they are simply looking for the guy going 15 mph over the limit and he will nail them. We do need to remember however, that it might be close to the end of the month and there is not much traffic on the road, if that cop wanted to, he could pull us over and write a ticket for going 5 mph too fast. He could simply be having a bad day or his boss is getting grief for not meeting the quota for citations. The reason he decided to pull you over today does not matter, what matters is you were still breaking the law.

What needs to be done is a simple request for permission to use an image. If someone asked me ahead of time before using my images (and they have), I absolutely will give them that permission. What I don't tolerate is the assumption that they can use my images because they bought my coin. My images remain my images. I shot them purposefully to enhance the marketability of them by giving an accurate representation of the coin. That accurate representation of the coin helps to put me at a slightly better advantage of achieving my asking price than the next guy on eBay or whatever market it may be. It's why I offer and charge for my services to clients that might want to sell their coins.

When a client commissions me to photograph their coins, they are entitled to the use those images however they choose, they have bought and paid for that right. It's the same reason that PCGS charges for the TV images either separately or through another service tier. The customer paid for the images they can then be used however the customer wants.

The other side of the coin (pardon the pun) is that the image creator still retains the rights to the use of the images created for the client to be used as they wish. Typically it's usually for self promotion but it's not just limited to that. Also a true professional will not advertise who's coin he has shot, they simply offer the fact that they photographed the coin. The privacy of the client in most cases is paramount, unless the client has no issues with the revealing of their identity. This again is why PCGS lists almost all TV images they have shot on their CoinFacts page and don't list who submitted them. You will also notice that the PCGS logo appears on the image, it's for the promotion of their services. They want to continue to make money photographing coins.

 

And thankfully no legal action was required. That's a win win...

 

I've done it but I always give credit (citation) to the original source.

 

You want to be LEGALLY right and so you've decided you are. I brought up public domain as a counter argument and you went all lawyer and talked about legal technicalities which completely ignore moral right and wrong. Legality does not have anything to do with moral issues, but more to do with greed.

If I'm stealing something YOU own, which is your position, then it is morally wrong. But if I use something which is in public domain, it is not. It's not that far removed from trying to sue someone for taking your garbage.

This is what I believe. Does that make me right or are you right? These are opinions. But I will not do business with someone who would sue someone for taking their garbage.

 

I don't think public domain means what you think it means.

When I create a photo and post it here or on my website then I have published it. I have NOT added it to the public domain.

There are ways to do that, and when I needed something for my site I very specifically took it from somewhere that specifically allowed common usage, and even then some I looked at had permissions restricting from me benefitting commercially in any way. I run no ads or links or anything on my site so I'm well covered on that end.

That said, if someone wants to use one of my photos and asks (which has shockingly been done) I most likely will say yes, BUT I still own the photo and rights to it.

Buying my coin is not the same as buying my work. My hourly rate is quite high, so I doubt you'd really want to pay it considering my photos are barely adequate (which is the most likely reason my photos are safe, they kinda suck).

 

So from a morals standpoint, if you park your car in a public parking lot, can I then use your car without your permission?

Or can I take your money because your banking info is available on the internet? It's public domain, the internet as you say, and just because you have tried to privatize your little bits of data on the internet, but someone hacks your account, why would that be a crime, or even morally wrong? You allowed that info to be placed in the public domain, and therefore, by your reasoning, anyone that can access it should have the right to it.

By your thinking, it is perfectly fine to use anything without permission if it's in what can be considered "public domain".

It's not about money, it's about morals. If it isn't yours, it isn't yours. Period.