coin photo copyrights

The only question I have is why do you want to protect your photograph? What would you gain by prohibiting others to use the image? What would you lose if others used the image?

Now, if you take a photograph of a pretty sunset that you want to market the image commercially then I can see a copyright. But if you're merely picturing a coin or medal you have then, in my mind there's no justification for copyright.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As I said, the only images of this particular medal I can find are owned by the MN Historical Society and use of their image generates them revenue.

Perhaps my photo will be better than that of the MNHS, and some day when an author writing a book on any number of subjects where it could tie in would happen across it and want to use it.

 

One guy I know will often spend a lot of time and effort on taking great photos from all kinds of angles, different lighting etc. One time he discovered that a dealer used one (or more) of his images. That was here in Germany, but apart from the option to register, the regulations regarding copyright are about the same. And no, he did not like that "theft" ...

Christian

 

There doesn't need to be justification for a copyright. The copyright comes into being when the work is created. Protection of the copyright is another issue, and that is up to the copyright holder. Just like I can decide whether or not to protect my sandwich from someone else wanting to eat it (my PBJ cost me less than $1 to make), I can choose to protect copyrighted material I have produced. Whether the costs justify it or not is purely my decision.

 

So, by that definition a single, watermarked (with some form of a signature), photo that is exhibited here on CT would be protected by copyright law. (?) At least that is what it would seem to me.

 

A single un-watermarked photo exhibited here is protected by copyright law. The issue at hand is how you would enforce that law. Registering your image with the copyright office, and actively pursuing violators are key to getting the copyright enforced (ie, images "un-stolen" or paid for).

 

IIRC, Photoshop or whatever has a way to put a "clear page" over the top of your photos so when someone tries to save it all they get is the translucent page.

 

Alt+PrintScreen should defeat that.

 

This is actually one place where the law kind of makes sense (in one sense ). Our goal with coin imaging is the most accurate possible depiction of the coin, the polar opposite of "creative license" which - to me - forms the basis of copyrightable work.

 

I agree, actually, so it appears I was wrong.

It looks like that definition of "visual work of art" does exclude photos (and scans) of coins and paper money where "...Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned;" (from http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html). In other (my) words if there is artistic work in the photo, then it can hold a copyright, but if there is simply the mechanics of pointing at a known object and setting up the exposure (or even more simply using a scanner), then it cannot hold a copyright.

 

I think you are misreading that act. It itemizes certain specific types of work that might otherwise not be certain to be copyrightable, but it says nothing about all other visual works are not copyrightable under other parts of the law.

Until VARA it wasn't certain that a limited edition work WAS copyrightable.

 

Wrong. The photograph is an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression and barring exceptions and allowing for fair use the photographer owns the copyright. Copyright in both the US and abroad is statutory. Neither does the owner of the copyright need the little symbol, that's only for public notice.

Read his disclaimer...

"Note: The author of the above article is not a lawyer and this article should not be construed as legal advice."

Read this...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

 

Let's keep reading, shall we? In fact, we'll start at the very beginning of it, 17 USC 101, "Definitions." Here's an excerpt, bold mine:

A coin image for our purposes is, by definition, the most accurate-possible depiction of a physical object. The inclusion of anything resembling "artistic craftsmanship" in that kind of image ruins it for us.

You can't take a flawlessly-accurate picture of the Mona Lisa and copyright it, can you?

 

Bad example. The Mona Lisa is in the public domain. So an exact images of public domain works can't be copyright isn't what is being discussed.

Further, not all coins are in the public domain. The US government has various rights, including that some of the images are licensed by the US Mint from their creators:

from http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/?action=Jewelry

But for same of argument, it's likely that the design of, say a Seated Liberty IS PD.

However, while your goal may be a exact copy, there is no such thing. The amount and placement of light(s) to reveal the details of the coin, etc. are surely creative (how many times have you heard the photographer lament that the coin "looks different in hand"?)

Plus, for fun, let's ask whether this is a "Monkey selfie"? The fight there is whether the choice made how to crop the PD image is sufficient artistically...

 

Interesting point, Burton. If the US Government owns copyright on the design, how could anyone else ever copyright a realistic image of that design?

 

I posted this in a different thread. Perhaps some of what I said may be germane to this discussion.

 

Back in the days when I had a website about Scottish banknotes and coins I had numerous "lifts" of images that turned up on eBay. All were at some level fraudulent since some used the image to sell something they really had but were too lazy or incompetent to image, others were outright nefarious schemes to sell something they didn't possess an example of.

At another point I found one of my images being used on a website in Scotland without citation or permission - and the hosting company took it down after I contacted them.

After awhile it rather became too much of a pain to even bother with a website. After being overseas for awhile it became too much of a PITA so I just nuked it.

 

Do I need to get into the case law? Give it up. You're confusing everybody. A person takes a picture, he owns the copyright in the picture. It doesn't matter if it's of a coin or the McDonald's Golden Arches.