Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kasia, post: 1928435, member: 31533&quot;]Also, regarding copyright of other&#039;s coin pics, here&#039;s a good starting place to think whether the photographer of a coin can claim copyright protection or not. A lot hinges on whether the coin (as a design, not the exact coin photographed as one of x number minted) is in the public domain or not and what creativity has gone into photographing it. If it is a true picture of a coin that is in the public domain (such as a coin that has been issued for use) then it has no creativity in the photograph and the photograph would not be copyrightable. <a href="http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Copyright_of_Coin_Photographs.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Copyright_of_Coin_Photographs.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Copyright_of_Coin_Photographs.html</a> . In fact, even though this can not be construed as legal advice, in looking at copyright laws regarding other things, there have been rulings that stress the uniqueness and creativity needed as input into something in order to get a copyright on it or to stop others from using it legally. One thing I read was the wiki on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural</a>, in which one publisher of a phone book tried to hold someone else liable for copyright infringement because they took the same names and published them themselves. When it went the Supreme Court, however, it was ruled that &quot;facts&quot; no matter who compiles them, are not copyrightable as it has no spark of imagination. But the spark of creativity doesn&#039;t have to be very much to get into play, though. So for what I take from that, it likely means if you take and use someone&#039;s photos of a coin (in which the coin has been issued, and is therefore public domain) that are special and have special creativity put into it, it may be a violation of copyright for that individual one, but if you just take a run of the mill photo (where no creativity is really in play) then the true and fair representation of that coin as a photograph is essentially just giving the facts, and it would not be a violation of copyright.</p><blockquote><p>For Feist vs Rural, this was said in the wiki: &quot;In regard to collections of facts, O&#039;Connor stated that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange it, it would destroy the copyright owned in the data. &quot;Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another&#039;s publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement,&quot; O&#039;Connor wrote.&quot;</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>But if you take a someone&#039;s photograph of something that is not in the public domain, then you might be violating copyright.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in