Ethics of Posting Photos of Sold Coins

I regret so many here have trouble with the difference between the coin and an image of a coin. You can sell one without selling the other. I used to request that people who used my images send me a copy of the work in which it was used. I modified that when a very honest person sent me a $50 book that included one of my photos. I still have the coin and plan to own it until I die. I bought the coin in 1994 but it is quite possible that someone took a photo of it before that time. If so, they retain ownership and rights to their photo but have no rights to my image below.


I have a better example but it is not a coin. Many years ago I was in an antique/crafts shop that had many modern and fancy picture frames in various sizes. Most of them had a very low quality photo of a little boy dressed in a fashionably fancy suit. In the stock of the shop also was a daguerreotype taken c.1855-60 of that same boy. The frame maker had photographed the daguerreotype and printed copies of it to decorate his frames. The original photo, like all photos that old, is out of copyright. Technically, he could have copyrighted his photo of it but that gives him no rights to the photo I took of it. I doubt that person is still using that fuzzy old photo for his frames. I do wonder if any of them still exist. You can tell the difference between my photo and his. I will not mention how. If you want a cute kid photo to hang on your wall, I can allow you to use mine. If you own one of his frames that came with the image, I can not give you permission to copy it. I do wish I had a frame containing his copy of the image but I bought no frame. His cheapest frame cost several times what I was charged for the old piece of junk (in their mind) photo.


Now a question: Do you consider any photo of the same thing to be in any way related to all other photos? How may of you have taken a photo of the Eifel Tower or Colosseum? Do you think you own any part of those structures or the 10,000 photos taken by other people of the same structure? You don't. Do you think all photos of the same coin are the same coin are the same? Some of my coins have been photographed many times and each is different. Many photographers configure their camera to record EXIF data on every shot that includes their name, contact info, date and exposure data. Some will use it against people who use their images without permission. Most of us who shoot coins allow anyone to use the images. Wedding/portrait photographers and not so liberal unless you contract separately to buy rights to the photos they took of you. For the record, anyone who bought a coin I once owned is hereby allowed use of my photo of that coin but I can not give you permission to use the photo taken by the dealer to whom I consigned the coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One picture says it all (read : this is not a pipe, rather it's (only) an image of a pipe)


Image, courtesy of René Magritte

Q

 

C'est vrai!(true) However, one can still "smoke" it with a simple safety match or lighter. To Rene Magritte, Merci beacoup. Thanks for the post.

 

T.C., I'm not surprised you unloaded this Koson stater with so many superior examples available .

 

Although, I don't claim to know any laws regarding photographs. If there is a copyright on a picture I believe you need to have authorization in writing from the owner of the photo. Personally, any coin I've purchased that a picture exists I download it and keep it as a visual record. In my opinion any picture that was posted to be used to sell the coin that I own I consider mine to use as I see fit. I have posted a number of pictures here on Coin Talk that were of coins I've purchased from Heritage or other dealers. This is no different than posting a picture of a car I own. However, where trouble can arise is if you use a picture of a coin that isn't yours to sell your own coins. That's false advertising unless you include a disclaimer. Basically, if a picture is posted online with no indication the picture has a copyright on it. You can use it as you wish as long as it isn't used to commit fraud.

 

Sorry, but it's is a common misconception that if copyright isn't stated or claimed, it doesn't apply.

Copyright applies automatically when a work is created. It's true that most people won't sue you for using their photo. But the creator has the legal grounds to do so. Although, I would suggest it's mostly not worth the trouble, literally.

More can be read here, although there are probably better sources. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-automatic-copyright-protection-3514945

 

Here is an interesting story, which is another example, of photos being owned, by the person, who took the photos. Instead of photos of a coin, it's photos of a person.

"Ariana Grande Is Being Sued For Posting Paparazzi Photos Of Herself To Instagram"

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/ariana-grande-sued-lawsuit-paparazzi-instagram

 

I do not personally see this as a copyright issue. Seems I may be in the minority.
Basically post coins you own. If you post a coin you formerly owned then state that in your post. If you post a coin you have never owned.. tell us.. Seems simple.. Honesty is pretty cool.

 

I never practiced copyright law, but my quick reading of the Bridgeman case cited by @Ed Snible leads me to believe that only a strained reading of the court's opinion could cause anyone to conclude that photographs of ancient coins are, in general, "slavish copies" that don't qualify for copyright protection. That's my reading even assuming that the copyright in the underlying "works of art" -- presumably belonging to the government that issued the coins, with the engravers producing the dies as works for hire -- expired a couple of thousand years ago. See this excerpt from the amended opinion in the case, Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196-197 (S.D.N.Y. 1999):

"[T]here is broad scope for copyright in photographs because "a very modest expression of personality will constitute sufficient originality."

As the Nimmers have written, there "appear to be at least two situations in which a photograph should be denied copyright for lack of originality," one of which is directly relevant here: "where a photograph of a photograph or other printed matter is made that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying."[32] The authors thus conclude that a slavish photographic copy of a painting would lack originality . . . .

There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection. "Elements of originality ... may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." 197*197 But "slavish copying," although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify. As the Supreme Court indicated in Feist, "sweat of the brow" alone is not the "creative spark" which is the sine qua non of originality. It therefore is not entirely surprising that an attorney for the Museum of Modern Art, an entity with interests comparable to plaintiff's and its clients, not long ago presented a paper acknowledging that a photograph of a two-dimensional public domain work of art "might not have enough originality to be eligible for its own copyright."

In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create "slavish copies" of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality — indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances."

I do not think that any collector would be wise to rely on this opinion, without more, as a license to use (and publish/widely disseminate, especially for profit) other people's photographs of ancient coins, without permission, to a degree that goes beyond fair use and constitutes wholesale appropriation. It seems very unlikely to me, without researching the specific issue, that most photos of ancient coins -- involving photographing both sides (at least) of a three-dimensional object -- would be deemed the kind of slavish copying, without any spark of originality, that the photos involved in Bridgeman admittedly constituted.

 

For the most part that's not going to get you in trouble, but regardless US copyright law does cover photographs, and fair use doctrine limits when you may use photos for which you don't own the reproduction rights.

As Victor has pointed out, fair use doctrine has four main components, with the main variables here being the nature of use, commercial or not, and whether the rights owner would suffer financially due to your usage.

I assume (but I am not a lawyer) that posting photos to a public discussion forum like this, at least by a user, would be considered non-commercial, even though the web site itself is commercial - it carries advertising. If the owner of the web site posted the same pictures to spice up the website, that might be regarded differently.

As examples of where the rights owner might suffer if you start copying their photos, consider cases where the photos were specifically taken in order to generate money, such as for a coin book, photographer's stock portfolio, or a coin web site generating revenue by advertising. Even dealer's photos used to sell the coin are increasingly being used to generate profit by being licensed to sites like Coin Archives, etc.

Of course it'd be bad business for a dealer to legally go after customers, or potential customers, over something like this, so in the US at least dealers' photos used in moderation aren't likely to cause any complaints (and used in moderation, fair use probably has you covered anyway). On the other hand, if someone started copying dealers photos in bulk, for example to start their own Coin Archives competitor, then I'd guess the response would be different.

 

@DonnaML I am not a lawyer.

I learned of this concept from Andrew McIntyre, who discussed it in 2006 (updated 2009).
http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Copyright_of_Coin_Photographs.html

My guess is that 99% of coin photographs are not creative. The right answer for scholarship is to allow re-use coin images. 99% of re-use of images are amateurs and academics, not businesses trying to replace CoinArchives.com.

As I said, I am not a lawyer. My layman's understanding of the law is that "The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement." I have heard from non-coin academics who have had their graphics and charts ripped off that this maxes out at the amount they usually charge, which is usually zero. Coin dealers do sometimes charge for catalogs, but usually they give them away free and lose money on them. I would not want to be on a jury and decide on damages for such a case.

This thread started with a discussion of ethics. Writing auction descriptions is a creative act. In some cases coin photography is a creative act. Look through your catalogs. How many dealers disclose the name of the cataloger or photographer? I realize catalogs are work-for-hire. I still like it a lot better when the creators are named.

I have been trying to write a coin book. I am more into moral rights that copy rights, because I expect to sell about 10 copies. For a while I was captioning my photographs "photographer unknown; auction catalog ..." but I got tired of looking for and being unable to find the photographer.

100% of modern counterfeits have a secure copyright, owned by the forger, and no one objects to publishing photos of those!

 

Thanks for the link. The author of that article notes that he is not a lawyer himself. I suspect that he doesn't realize how easily distinguished Bridgeman is, and how weak a precedent it would be (in any jurisdiction) outside the specific context underlying the decision, or one resembling it more closely than ancient coin photographs do. I don't agree that 99% of ancient coin photographs are simply "slavish copies" without any creativity or originality whatsoever. The best evidence of that, perhaps, is how much difference there is among different photos of the same coin. However, it's been more than 20 years since Bridgeman, and I haven't followed up to see how, if at all, it's been applied in contexts more closely resembling ours. Nor do I intend to do so!

Also, I agree with you that regardless of whether ancient coin photographs are subject to copyright, the damages from the kind of "infringement" that most people engage in are generally zero, and the use most people engage in is fair use -- and not infringement -- to begin with.

 

Very interesting to read your take here, @DonnaML , thank you.

 

I haven't been posting for quite a while because of the amount of effort it took to make an image that communicated exactly what I wanted it to say, i.e. what people would see. In my photography each image got bracketed three steps up and three steps down. From those I would select one and go to work in photoshop adjusting cropping, size, tone, color balance, and saturation. In most cases a bit of alteration had to be made. Nothing ever turned out as ideally as I wanted, but I worked at it. All so it would do a good job of communicating on a free website. But in the end it got to be too much.

Therefore, to hear you say that my effort was mostly not creative, and that you have the right to take it as your own, and maybe even use it in a book you intend to sell, without any photo credit to me or even a recollection of who made the image - makes me wonder why I should care at all about the quality of my work.

I have been at photography since 1973, and one of the first things I learned is that real photographs are not taken, they are made. That is still true even after the move to digital.

"in recent years a debate has arisen as to whether punitive damages may be awarded in addition to actual damages and profits under the Copyright Act. Under the Act, a plaintiff may elect either actual damages and profits or statutory damages; statutory damages may be enhanced in cases of willful infringements. The statute is silent with regard to punitive damages but some experts have suggested that the silence does not necessarily mean that punitive damages are completely precluded by the Act."
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/565/

Moral rights? The book might be yours, but not all the photos in it will be. Images you did not make and used without permission you will have stolen unless they are in the public domain.

 

If I take a photo of a coin the labor was mine and so is the copyright. My photo was a creative act and as such is under my
Copyright.

The same applies to an academic paper I have written. I wrote it and therefore the copyright is mine also unless I transfer this right. For example, many academic publications require that the author signs over the copyright to the publisher. I have had to actually ask permission to make copies of a paper I had written. Many publishers allow an author a certain number of copies.

If I create something it is mine until I say differently. Coin photos are definitely included in this.

 

Your work is creative. I did not feel the need to mention it, but let me call it out. When I say 99% of coin photos are not creative, I am attempting to be precise. I believe 100% of all image-stack coin photos are creative. Anything with a weird angle or special lighting: creative.

I see myself as being on your side. I think it is a pity that auction houses do not name photographers and catalogers. Some do, and we should encourage all the houses to start. (Lanz does!). If I write a book -- and it is seeming less and less likely -- I will make a serious effort to determine and name the photographer, even for corporate produced catalogs and defunct eBay accounts.

I believe 99% of coin photos are not creative. That is no reason not to credit the photographer when known, but -- for me -- it is good enough to not hold back the photo when it cannot be cleared. But let's not take my estimates. I see 115,753 ancient lots on eBay right now. How many of those photos would you say are creative? 100%? How many have photo credits? If a unique coin sold on eBay, and the seller closed down his account, should that photo appear in future catalogs if another image cannot be located?

I have an extensive photo-file of rare coins taken from photo files of auction catalogs. It is impossible to determine the photographer. 2/3rds of the firms have gone under and there is no way to determine who inherited the intellectual property rights from the firm.

I use my real name here. I have no clue who @lrbguy or @Orfew are. 20 years from now, when CoinTalk is gone, how would I ever find you? There is little I can do to get photo releases for images I snagged off eBay in 2003. I believe the custom in numismatics is that unique coins get illustrated in reference works from auction photos, even if the photo can't be cleared.

To be clear. The law books do NOT back me up. I have no more right to reproduce an eBay photo crediting a closed Eastern European account than I have a right to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. I suspect legal precedents are in my favor, but a lawyer in the group says no.

 

That's not exactly what I said. I really have no idea whether or not relevant legal precedents are in your favor. I haven't researched that question. What I said was that the facts underlying the Bridgeman decision aren't closely analogous to the ancient coin photo context, and, therefore, that I believe the holding in that case -- which is extremely fact-specific -- is not a relevant legal precedent in your favor in the first place. Certainly not by itself. In fact, it could easily be argued that Bridgeman supports an opposite conclusion to yours regarding ancient coin photos. (I'm simply addressing the legal theory. The practicalities you discuss are another matter.)

 

For what it's worth, a major hobby of mine is photography. The art has run in my family. My father photographed the Japanese surrender on the USS Missouri and the aftermaths of the first atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A member of my family has been in the photo business for the last 100 years. On my side, my images have been used by the BBC, numerous travel organizations, and they have hung in hospitals and various businesses. Last year, I was selected to provide all photos for a coffee table book of Seattle available at many local shops. Most of that info is unnecessary, but I am familiar with copyright laws from publishing not only my book, but several others for charity.

When you take a photo of a coin, that's your photo. It doesn't matter if it's "artful" or not, nor does it matter if you sell the coin. You still own the photo and may use it any way you wish. It's the same thing with real estate photography (which I also have done). The photographer still owns the photos no matter who owns the house. If the sellers fire their agent and use another one, that agent has to pay the photographer for the photos because neither the seller nor the agent own them. Note that in the case of real estate, the photographer may be limited in how he uses the photos unless he received a property release at the time he took them, but property releases don't apply to coins in your own possession at the time. For another example, I once licensed real estate photos to commercial ad agencies for their uses, even though I didn't own the house. I was able to legally do this because I owned the house myself at the time I took the photos, so I of course had a full release, signed by myself.

Now in terms of auction house photos, many of these have employees photograph the coins and include (or should include) licensing agreements in the employment docs stating that all coin photos are the property of the auction houses. In the past, I've done similar things for retail establishments that want full ownership of their images. I of course charged them more for that.

So, technically when someone here posts a photo from an auction house, they're breaking the law. That being said, unless the image is being used in a malicious and damaging attack against the auction house, it's not in their best interest to do anything. They're far happier with the positive advertisement saying "look at this coin from so and so" than with the negative backlash that would come from enforcing their copyright. Only if the image were to be used in a large publication or some other commercial use would they likely object.

Finally, since this is a coin group and not a photography one, I'm adding photos of my Lysimachos tetra that I purchased a few months ago. The portrait isn't as nice as many of those currently going for thousands at auctions, but I paid only a fraction of that. It's from the Perinthos mint and I believe it was minted in 283/282 BCE, or maybe up to a year after his death (so 280 BCE). I purchased it from Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger, who mentioned that it may be an unpublished variant, and I haven't found one exactly like it. 17.08g.

 

From all the posts on this subject. It appears there are some gray areas as to exactly what you can do or not do. Personally, I look at this subject in a few ways. If I own the coin and down loaded a picture of my coin from the dears site I don't believe that's a problem. I feel I can use the picture as a record for myself or to show friends. It's far safer to have pictures of coins I own at home than to have the coins sitting in my house. I don't think it's a problem if I down load pictures of coins I may be interested in or have questions about. Actually if a dealer started taking customers to court for down loading pictures of coins they bought from the dealer the dealer would basically be putting themselves out of business fairly quick. Word would get around fast in the market it wouldn't look good for the dealer and that's even if the dealer won the case. It's bad for business to come off as a jerk. However, I do agree with Kirispupis there is some legal issues related to use the pictures. I think it comes down to what is being done with the pictures.

Just to let people know most dealers don't have a problem with you down loading pictures of coins you bought. I've bought a few coins from dealers that take their pictures down as soon as the coin is sold. I've contacted those dealers and asked them to send me the picture for my records and not one dealer ever had a problem with sending me the picture.