Calling all owners of coin sites

I hope PCGS is this easy as most are in PCGS slabs

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Don't know yet. My effort is non-profit and may be easier. But eBay if for profit and they don't seem to have an issue there.

 

You own the slab/coin/bodybag, whatever. You are allowed to take pictures of your own property. Now, taking a picture of a copyrighted photo would be wrong, but you can take a photo of your coin/slab/label.

I suspect you will get a slightly less humorous response (if any) from PCGS, but it should be the same. They don't own the slab or label, you do. You paid for it.

That said, being cautious and asking permission is not wrong.

I have a few photos on my site--one was a shot from an Atlas Numismatics coin I purchased. My cell phone shots were atrocious in my earlier renditions for the site (pre-Canon Rebel XS). I asked Atlas if I could use their sales photo (with permission and no profit motive) and they said yes. I own the coin, but not their photo (on the flip side it is astonishing at how many people think if they buy the coin, they own the photo--which is soooo NOT true).

I also had a few coins imaged professionally and asked the photographer permission to use them on the site. Seeing as they were imaged with the intent of me sharing the pictures on message boards or for a registry set, it was kind of implied. Even so, I asked and he gave permission (with the appropriate credits given of course). My site is an informational/vanity site and there is no profit motive.

In any case, I applaud trying to stay within the bounds of copyright laws and not using someone's intellectual property inappropriately. However, you bought the NGC/PCGS/ANACS/ICG opinion and slab. YOU are the owner of the photograph in that case and it is YOUR intellectual property.

The ANACS response was spot on and funny to boot.

 

Here was my response from NGC after I emailed them slabs I would like to have in my book:

 

I thought so after we chatted, but in this litigious society, I had to ask.

 

So far, that has been the case. And now I can feel free to show how some of my slab labels have incorrect info on them in my book without being sued.

 

How about taking a picture of a picture?

 

What about taking a picture of me taking the picture?

 

GDJMSP - I think I figured out that an earlier statement in this post is correct based on my responses from the auction houses. Their only concern was use of images without proper attribution. If one states that coin 123 appeared in the Stacks Auction catalog on 1/1/1981 that is a statement of fact and not subject to copyright unless you quote directly from the listing. I also assume that the sales price would be a statement of fact, but might be proprietary and I don't need it for my project.

Did I read/understand this correctly?

 

Let's assume that in 1929 in The Numismatist there was an article explaining large cents and one specific coin stood out and I want to track its life. If I find it listed in auction catalogs in 1930, 1938, 1945, 1980, and 2015 then I can track down its movement. I should be able to state these as facts, not as copyrighted material.

 

Thanks and have a good evening.

Did I see you say that you are in the Tampa area?

 

slavish copy
basic definition or concept is a photo of a photo, examples
1. Nimmer on Copyright (“A photograph of another photograph that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying lacks the requisite originality to qualify for protection
2. Hand drawn sketches of a photo are not copyrightable.
ATC Distrib. Grp. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700, 712 (6th Cir. 2005)
3. color transparencies of a painting are not copyrightable.
Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 197 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

Basic requirements for a photograph to be copyrightable
1. Photo must be original to the author -Feist Publ’ns Inc., v. Rural Tel. Service C
The Supreme Court specifically stated in Feist (Emphasis added)

"To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See Harper Row, supra, at 471 U. S. 547-549. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer). To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Id. § 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable. See Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 54 (CA2 1936)."

2.
In Daniel P. Schrock, d/b/a Dan Schrock Photography vs. Learning Curve International. Inc., RC 2 Brands, Inc., and Hit Entertainment No. 08-1296, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated regarding copyrighted photographs and requirements for originality (with emphasis bolded):

"Federal courts have historically applied a generous standard of originality in evaluating photographic works for copyright protection. See, e.g., Ets-Hokin, 225 F.3d at 1073-77; SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House,Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). In some cases, the original expression may be found in the staging and creation of the scene depicted in the photograph. See, e.g., Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., 377 F. Supp. 2d 444, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). But in many cases, the photographer does not invent the scene or create the subject matter depicted in it. Rather, the original expression he contributes lies in the rendition of the subject matter—that is, the effect created by the combination of his choices of perspective, angle, lighting, shading, focus, lens, and so on. See id.; Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Elements of originality in a photograph may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved.”). Most photographs contain at least some originality in their rendition, see Mannion, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 452 (“Unless a photograph replicates another work with total or near-total fidelity, it will be at least somewhat original in the rendition.”), except perhaps for a very limited class of photographs that can be characterized as “slavish copies” of an underlying work, Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 421, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (finding no originality in transparencies of paintings where the goal was to reproduce those works exactly and thus to minimize or eliminate any individual expression)."

3. In order to litigate, photographs must be registered with the Copyright office, before there is an infringement.

Kevin

 

Facts are not copyrightable.

For my photographs, I normally require my name (Copyright Mangement Information) be included with the photograph, identifying me as the owner of the photo, so if the photo is used by someone else, I can address it accordingly.

Kevin

 

That's where properly attributing photos on your website comes in. Lots of people allow their pictures to be used through creative commons but I'm always surprised when they don't require attribution. There are many different "levels" of creative commons for those that don't know. Flikr is a great source for CC pictures

 

I lived in Orlando in the late 80's, but it has grown and changed a lot as I understand it. Not a lot of ocean breezes in Orlando and it gets really hot there. Had a good time there, but was glad to get back to Georgia.