Someone just tried to scam me on eBay.

What makes the photos public domain? Your own self-righteous thinking? Your own convenience?
Legally, as explained to me in numerous photography classes by professional commercial photographers, IF YOU USE ANYBODIES PHOTOGRAPH OR LIKENESS FOR FINANCIAL GAIN YOU MUST REQUEST PERMISSION BEFOREHAND. IT IS UP THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO GRANT PERMISSION AND REQUEST OR NOT REQUEST A FEE. YOUR THOUGHTS, AND OPINIONS DO NOT CHANGE THIS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for the legal lesson. It's no wonder it's so easy to break a law with so many stupid and contradictory ones on the books. It still doesn't make it right. Just enforceable.

 

Instead of taking your bat and ball and going home, why not simply ask permission to use the picture? How about offering to add an acknowledgment if/when you do use it?

 

The only thing not right in this conversation is your insistence that you should have the right to steal other peoples work.

 

Well, somebody just put their lawn ornaments in the front yard for everybody to see.... must be public domain now. Mine!

 

You simply cannot reason with an unreasonable person. This @Marshall guy is clearly beyond unreasonable.

As @ToughCOINS said, without going down the political road, he's a perfect example of why this nation has become so polarized. He feels he should get whatever he wants without actually earning it. He's of the no blood no foul mentality. What he needs to realize is its because of people like him, that we have the need to have so many "stupid" laws. It's people like him that there is a warning on the McDonald's coffee cup that states the contents are hot, or the warning on laser pointers about pointing them at people's eyes.

Do you think I'm going to miss a wink of sleep because you are not going to buy my coins or my imaging services? No, actually, I would at this point exercise my right to refuse service to you.

As far as my "garbage" is concerned, you know the saying... "One man's garbage is another man's treasure". Thankfully in only this instance, you are among the 1%, congratulations on making it sir.

 

I haven't followed this thread and a casual read through reveals a lot of people saying the same thing over and over.


As I understand it, a creator of a work has complete control over that work under the copyright laws. However, that control can only be enforced if the work is registered.

If you take a photo and put your little "(c) John Doe 2017" on it, you have established that you own it. However, if I copy that photo and hang the copy on my wall, I have not used it to profit in any way so there is no harm and no foul. If, on the other hand I use a copy of the photo in a book I have written for publication then I have infringed on your rights as the holder of the copyright. In this case you can sue for infringement, but ONLY if you have registered your copyright.

Things get murky in some cases as when you and I stand next to each other and, at the same moment, take a landscape photo. We have both taken essentially the same photo of the same thing at the same time. Who owns the result? If I register mine are you then prohibited from using yours?

In our field of interest, practically all coins hove some physical attribute which distinguishes them from other similar coins. If you photograph and publish a photo of a coin and I copy the photo using filters and other means to obscure all identifying marks, can you prove I stole your photo?

In years past, possession of a negative would be sufficient to prove ownership of a photo, registered or not. Now, if the EXIF data is preserved on a photo, that may be enough.

Bottom line, if you're going to complain about copyright infringement, REGISTER your work and take action against anyone who violates your copyright.

 

Ok, there are people who dedicate their entire lives to intellectual property and copyright law. I am not one of those people. However, I am pretty certain works of art do not need to be registered in order to be protected. (fwiw, if I'm remembering my schoolings correctly, this was a fairly recent amendment created to help protect artists from people like Marshall)

I looked it up to be certain:
"No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

 

Unless something has changed (and to the best of my knowledge nothing has), according to the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, ANY and ALL photographs are automatically copyrighted from the moment they're taken.

I can't say I disagree with some of your points, and for all practical purposes, saving someone else's photo, be it of coins or most anything else, for personal reference (or whatever), isn't likely to be a big issue. However, this doesn't make it legal or morally sound.

 

People are not right. Thanks for the heads up, will put him on my block list

 

Don't get confused. There are Fair Use laws as well. I can download and save photographs without breaking the law. I can share them with others for Educational Purposes also. However, as soon as I publish them in a manner for personal gain (published material, advertising, etc), a law has just been broken and the artist is entitled to some form of compensation.

 

Similar to copyrights are trademarks and servicemarks. A (T) or (S) can be added to any original product or design but the violation of their use can only be enforced IF they are registered.

As an example, everyone is familiar with a smiley face - a circle with two eyes and a grin. This was not registered and is free for anyone to copy for any reason.

However, if you use a similar design using two round eyes, a round nose and a grin, and put this design on a cookie which you then sell - you will be sued for trademark infringement. This includes round cookies as well as other shapes such as shamrocks, hearts, Christmas trees, stars, flowers, bunny heads; and includes variations on the design such as using candy corn for eyes and nose, or coloring to resemble a baseball, basketball of football, or adding an eye patch to the figure.

see https://www.google.com/search?q=smi...AUICigB&biw=1775&bih=900#imgrc=EygFbGA7QPc3iM:

I bring this up to illustrate that innocently copying a copyrighted image of something very basic that everyone sees every day may indeed be a gross violation resulting in a world of hurt for you.

 

Marshall? No one is perfect, but he's also easily one of the most knowledgeable EAC guys on this forum. Turning one's back upon such knowledge, at least if said area is of interest, would be beyond foolish, particularly since one issue has nothing to do with the other.

As an aside, I'll never understand why so many today feel the need to hide from opinions or views, right or wrong, simply because they happen to disagree with them. There was a time when it was considered honorable and intellectually stimulating to broaden one's horizons, but this has, apparently, gone out of style along with concept of history being static. You know, based in fact as opposed to the revisionist and politically motivated nonsense being promoted today.

 

No I wouldn't have a problem if they used a picture for a newspaper announcement or if they used it in later years for anniversary announcements. As I said, my problem was scanning the photo and making their own copies, first, I wasn't that expensive for copies of wallet sized prints and second the scanned copies were not even close to the quality of my original prints. Someone who received one of these copies would not get a true picture of the quality I put out, and I might have lost a potential client.

 

I give up. I have no rights to use pictures of my own coins. If you wish to block me, than by all means do that. We'll both be better off. But you can forget trying to help out the hobby at this point. It has stopped being fun and become a quagmire for lawyers.

Nice Job.

 

BooksB4Coins, I agree with you. I think the biggest thing that has changed is the incivility people far too often display when disagreeing. We are all fellow numismatists here, and I presume ladies and gentlemen, yet there are sometimes very harsh, dismissive words exchanged. I do not understand the need for it. Being rude does not make one correct.

 

I just want to be clear. If you are taking the seller's photographs, coming to this site and sharing with others (or for own records), you are probably fine (it's still a good idea to credit the photographer/origins at the very least). If you are using another person's photographs to advertise and sell coins or for publication, you are risking litigation from the artist.
I mean.. a spiteful angry person isn't always after money. Sometimes, they are happy just taking time and money away from the person who did them wrong. I'm not a lawyer; however, as a crappy artist, I've taken the time to learn enough about intellectual property law to protect myself and not get into legal trouble.

 

If I by a coin on eBay, I capture the picture the Seller used (assuming it's better than the poor close-up pictures I take) to keep for insurance purposes. It's good to have pictures of your coins, especially slabbed ones, to show your insurance company if the worst happens. If I'm asked to show a coin I have on this forum and I don't have a good shot of it, I don't see any harm in using the one I captured. I'm not an attorney, but I think if it's used for educational purposes (contrary to what some peoples believe, this is an educational forum) I believe it's legal to use it. I'm not profiting by it and I'm using it to sell the coin.

 

I'm shocked. A reasonable point of view about using an image to sell your own coins. you are NOT selling the image.

You are using it to INFORM and EDUCATE potential buyers about what YOUR coin looks like. But be prepared for the extremists to attack you for holding a different view.