coin photo copyrights

Oh, I think I get where you're confused. No, he doesn't own the Mona Lisa, he owns the copyright in his photograph of the Mona Lisa, however accurate or not a depiction of the Mona Lisa that photograph is. It's his original work of authorship that counts. In how many ways can one set a camera to shoot a photograph? From how many angles can one shoot a photograph? It's that originality, that creativity, that authorship, that copyright protects. You shoot the McDonald's Golden Arches, the trade symbol of the McDonald's Corporation, and they use that photograph in their advertising, you're all over them on copyright infringement. The only way they can use said photograph is on a written waiver or assignment of copyright from you. Of course, who the hell cares, but that's a different matter. Legally, you're the copyright owner, even when it's a photograph of a trade symbol. Now, you use that photograph? Ah, you'd better watch it, as you're nearing trademark infringement. Forget that. Put it in your scrapbook to show your friends what a great photographer you are. But, there are ways one can use trademarks, too, and not be infringing. But, we shan't go there, as this is off the track enough.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Do you have the negative? Do you see where I'm going with this? Forget this watermark silliness, get a 35mm camera.

 

Citation needed.

 

There's only case law left and that's only going to open the door to deeper and more complex legal issues you're going to need further explanation on. Save us both that grief and take what I said to an intellectual property attorney and when he or she verifies it's right on the money let it go at that. What am I, a law library? Thank you.

 

Given the assurance with which you're expressing your points, you're plainly certain that you're correct. That makes you the only participant with that attitude. I'm not sure - that's why I'm pursuing this.

 

I know. But I am right. And, no, I'm not "the only participant with that attitude." How would you characterize this participant's attitude? This is right, too...

 

So could you comment on this case study which is extremely relevant: http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Copyright_of_Coin_Photographs.html
and the corresponding section in the US Copyright Law at: http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Are we just reading them wrong? Would the case be overturned on appeal, is that your position?

 

I'm not getting drawn into case law, here, Dave. I'm sorry. Nothing personal.

 

No big thing; we're going back and forth but I ain't feeling any hate either way. I'm pushing the subject because I'm not sure myself, and it's been in my mind for years because I'm pretty photography-centric with my collecting.

 

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2010/09/five-things-you-can-do-to-protect-your-online-imag/

 

FWIW, be careful when trying to post images of commemorative €2 coins to Wikimedia Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:...009_Braille.png_Nominated_for_speedy_Deletion Fortunately that does (AFAIK, IANAL ... ) not apply to images of US coinage.

Christian

 

Doug, forget this "public domain" business when it comes to copyright. That's what's throwing you off. Think, rather, coins are works of the U.S. Government, and copyright protection doesn't extend to works of the U.S. Government. 17 U.S.C. 105. Where does that leave pictures of coins? The photographer owns the copyright in those. 17 U.S.C. 102(a)(5).

 

Leads to an interesting thought. Can you copyright an image of something somebody has copyrighted?

 

Can you copyright a picture of a picture? But, you're right, and you're into something called a "derivative work." And these cases are very fact-intensive.

 

1. If you want legal advice, consult an attorney. Do not assume that any random internet poster knows the law or how it applies to specific situations.
2. You can safely assume that I am "any random internet poster."
3. The world is a very big place. What follows only is only based on my interpretation of U.S. law.

Copyright exits in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. (17 U.S.C. 102(a)). This implies a "minimal quantum of personal creativity." While the threshold is quite low, a straightforward, head-on shot of a coin such as those that I typically post here might well not meet that threshold. If not, it's not a copyrightable work.

If you assume it passes that threshold, as soon as the image is "fixed" in a tangible medium, a copyright typically exists in that work. You may own it, or in case of a work for hire whoever hired you may own it. The only exception I can think of offhand is a work for hire for the U.S. Federal Government. However, having a copyright is one thing. Being able to do something with it is quite another.

Let's start with SuperDave's question. Yes, you can copyright an image of something somebody else has copyrighted. However, your work will often be a derivative work. Copyright protection in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. But worse, it's almost always an infringement of "somebody else's" copyright. As usual, there are exceptions. One major one is on architectural works; in the United States a photograph of a building does not infringe on the copyright of the building. U.S. Coins and Medals, as has been noted here already, are not copyrighted, so you don't have to worry about your coin photographs being an infringement. However, if you are thinking of selling photos of, say, Zombucks tokens, please think again after paying a lawyer.

Instead, let's say that some steals your copyrighted photograph of a U.S. Coin and starts using it on a website, sells direct copies, or creates their own derivative work and you want to do something about it. In order to "get in the courtroom door" you must register your copyright with the United States Copyright Office. If the infringement occurs after registration, you can sue for actual damages or statutory damages, plus attorney's fees. If the infringement occurs before registration, unless the work was a) published, and b) registered no later than 3 months after publication and no later than 1 month after the infringement was discovered, you can only sue for actual damages. For a photograph of a coin, it will likely be extremely difficult to prove anything more than nominal actual damages under copyright. You may win your case, but lose big time in your wallet.

As has been noted previously, it is possible to register multiple photos in a collection. But to quote the copyright office, "If the works included in a collective work were not preexisting—not previously published, registered, or in the public domain or owned by a third party—the registration may extend to those works in which the author of the collective work owns or has obtained all rights." Note the word may; again, please contact and pay a lawyer for specifics. But if you make the photo available to the public (say, on this site) before registering a copyright on the collection, it likely won't be covered under the registration of the collection.

For purposes of U.S. copyright law, copyright notices and watermarks are important mainly for proving ownership and determining if the copyright infringement is willful. The damages for willful copyright infringement can be much higher than for other infringement.

So in a blunt summary:
-- Photographs of coins are copyrightable if they have pass the "threshold of originality" test.
-- Photographs of privately minted tokens and possibly even foreign coins may infringe of copyrights on those objects.
-- In order to be worth suing under copyright law, the work must be registered either before or shortly after publication.

This already too long post does not cover defenses, such as Fair Use or immunity under the DCMA. Nor do I plan to do a follow up post on those subjects; again, contact an expert for any specifics.

 

I wonder if PCGS is under this impression of the law?

They threatened a copyright lawsuit against a forum member because he hosted a website of PCGS coin photos.

These were either CoinFact photos or TrueViews of coins belonging to various collectors.

 

What VARA did was not to limit copyrights at all. Instead it explicitly provides under U.S. law additional "moral rights" in an artist's creation whether or not they hold a copyright. These rights are included in the Berne Convention and brought the U.S. in closer compliance with that treaty. Here are a couple of good articles on VARA:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/esworthy.htm
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/vara.html

As I noted in my longer post, there is something called "Fair Use" written into the law. What is and is not fair use does not lend itself to "bright line" tests, but yes, people can and have recovered damages for copyright infringement of photographs since VARA was passed.

 

If you forget everything, remember this: "General propositions do not decide concrete cases." Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

Again, these cases are fact-intensive, and you own the copyright in your photograph. Let me be even more specific: whether that photograph be a photograph of a coin, or of the Vice President of the United States having sex with a giraffe.

We brief out our issues, Doug, and we let them fly, and that's what trials and appeals, i.e., "concrete cases," are made of. Until we get to that point, and properly "clothed," i.e., properly researched, briefed, and under the rules of practice and evidence, we don't know the answer, in "concrete cases." Before that point, take this as the "general proposition," you own the copyright in your coin photograph, and you won't go wrong.

I can't go further. This is where I'm obliged to get off this bus. You boys have a big time with this. I'm getting back to 13-year-olds asking about "double dies."