PDA

View Full Version : Where's the line in Copywriting?



Scott Shepherd
01-04-2008, 12:24 PM
I'm real clear on corporate logos, etc. Wouldn't dream of making and selling anything with a Disney character on it, but I'm a bit confused on some aspects of the copywrite law.

A few real examples- The Smithsonian Institute owns the Washington Zoo. Their policy is that you can take all the photos you want, but you cannot sell them without the permission of the SI. Well, I have no plans to sell my animal photos taken at that zoo. However, if I take a photo that I took myself, then come back, modify the image, and then make it into a piece of work (or art is you can call it that) by running it through PhotoGrav and them putting the modified image on a piece of cherry.

Could I sell that in good standing? In my mind, if I take a photo and run it through a difussion filter in Photoshop (would be hard to do, since I don't own Photoshop), then that new image is a unique creation. Yes, I used the original to get to that point, but I'm not selling the original, I'm selling my own creation that was inspired by the original. All artists use a variety of things to get inspired. Can you not use an original to inspire you to create a variation of that which is unique?

Seems to me like as long as I'm not selling a copy of the original, then I should be allowed to do so? I also understand that by simply taking the original photo and sending it to the laser doesn't make it unique or original.

Anyone know how that works?

Joe Pelonio
01-04-2008, 12:32 PM
It becomes really hard to prove ownership of photos that are engraved, if only because of the lack of color and clarity. I would certainly not worry about using and selling a photo that I took, unless, as in the case you mentioned, you have a shot showing something really identifiable like the entrance sign.

Places like the National Zoo see a way to make money by selling you rights, and also, you are competing with their gift shop, hence that rule about selling any photos. Unless there is such a specific rule in place, you own the photos you take and can do as you wish with them. There may be such rules also in effect at concerts, theater events, museums and art galleries, so one has to be careful when using such pictures.

That doesn't even begin to tell the story of how complicated this is, though. Consider the taking of photos of people in a public area, say the dock at the waterfront. Then later it turns out that you caught some guy with "another woman" and by publishing it you ruined his marriage, so he sues you.

Scott Shepherd
01-04-2008, 12:50 PM
I think I understand the people one fairly well. If you don't have a model release of the people in the photo, then you can't use it. However, that's only if they are identifiable (sp?). For instance, if someone has their head turned, then you don't need the permission. Or if they are so far away that you can't easily idenify them, then that's okay too.

You also cannot take a photo of a building and use it without the written permission of the owner of the building. It's really crazy when you get into the details.

Rob Bosworth
01-04-2008, 12:53 PM
It is our understanding that the rights to that image are owned by the Zoo. If you try to resell anything generated by that photo, then you need the Zoo's permission. I would guess that you would not have any problem getting permission to reproduce a photo of a kid and his grandma for their enjoyment. But if you are going to take that image and build a marketing campaign around it, the Zoo is going to want a taste.

Scott Shepherd
01-04-2008, 1:11 PM
So if I take some canvas and paint to the zoo, set it up and sit there and paint that animal, then I cannot sell it? It's not a reproduction of an image, it's a new piece of art.

If I paint a picture of you, then I own the rights to that painting, right?

Mike Null
01-04-2008, 1:28 PM
There is no limit on how far a zoo will go.

In my former hometown of Columbus, Ohio the zoo sells a product called zoo doo. You guessed it, it's manure from the zoo animals.

Doug Griffith
01-04-2008, 1:36 PM
Google this and search for "zoo":
Photo Attorney: February 2007

Cheers

Rob Bosworth
01-04-2008, 1:41 PM
I believe that you would own the rights to the picture you painted of me at the Zoo. But if someone who thought they owned the rights, and they had more money and ambulance chasers than I do, they could probably try it in a court of law.

Angus Hines
01-04-2008, 2:35 PM
Well having brought a case to Federal Court in Boston for just this thing copyright, trademark and patent infringement, that is still pending, so I won't go into details.
I can say that under any circumstance the owner of said property must first send a "cease and desist" letter to the offending party. Should they not at that time stop using the property in question. Then and only then can it be brought to court.
So with this knowledge I would have no issue using Disney characters or picture from the National Zoo until that letter came from their attorneys. However, I also know that I don't want to pay my attorney to respond with a we have ceased and desisted letter so Disney is safe.
So long story short is the line gets drawn in the sand with the "cease and desist letter."

AL Ursich
01-04-2008, 4:00 PM
I was still in San Diego in the Navy when the Red Light Photo Cameras first came out. A nice glossy 5 x 7 arrived at my Navy friend's home mail box with a Red Light Violation Photo Ticket. His wife finds the girl sitting next to him is his girlfriend and the date and time stamped on it with 4 views of the car. Not Good. :eek::confused::(:mad::rolleyes::cool:

Copyright issues are something that I really try to be aware of in my business. I tried for 2 months to get permission to do a Krispy Kream Sublimated sign for a local business. Got the run around from the Corp Office and finally someone told me that I was too small and they didn't want Mom and Pop Shops doing the Signage and that the Signs were available from the Corp Office. So I gave up with lessons learned.... The Owner still wanted me to do it... I won't tell anyone.....

Didn't do it.

AL

Michael Kowalczyk
01-04-2008, 4:35 PM
It is our understanding that the rights to that image are owned by the Zoo. If you try to resell anything generated by that photo, then you need the Zoo's permission. I would guess that you would not have any problem getting permission to reproduce a photo of a kid and his grandma for their enjoyment. But if you are going to take that image and build a marketing campaign around it, the Zoo is going to want a taste.

My thoughts on this issue would be that if you took a photo of an animal and there was NO reference of the zoo, such as signage or identifiable habitat, etc..., and you where just producing a product that had no mention of the zoo. But if you were at a place that had a recognized animal like Shamu and you made a product and made any reference to Shamu in any of your marketing materials be prepared to pay...

I have sent out a "Cease and Desist" to a former customer and can't wait til the end of this month when I do a show that they will be at and see if they have any pirated copies of my patented product. I will have video and digital camera in hand, if needed to document. Once a C & D has been sent if they continue to infringe my understanding is it can be worth triple damages. But you know who always makes out on these situations... _t _ _ n _ y's.

If someone brings you a picture and wants it lasered, have them sign a release of liability or Hold harmless agreement. Cover yourself. (I think there is a post somewhere on the Creek that covers this already.) If it is for their own personal use, probably won't be an issue unless it is an item that the Zoo (or any business) already offers and the prospect is intentionally trying to circumnavigate the them.

Maybe you can approach them as a vendor but be prepared to cease if they say no and/or maybe be copied because their purchasing agent has connections overseas and really likes the idea but wants it for dirt cheap.

Most recognized businesses put money into name recognition and anyone that wants to ride on that train, has to buy a ticket. Some may ride for free and they are usually trying to hide or be inconspicuous but if you are in it for the long run like most of here, I hope, do the right thing and ask.

just my 2 cents, well OK maybe a nickle;)

Barbara Buhse
01-05-2008, 8:41 PM
I can't resist chiming in here with my silly story...

about a year ago, I got a call from a woman who had seen my work at a craft show. (Work specifically being engraved photos on wood). She asks if she can order a wooden box for her friend with a photo on it.
Silly me, I asked for the details...
FIRST, she wants me to engrave Jon Bon-Jovi on the box. :confused:

SECOND, she does not even own the photo, she wants me to use a picture of a photo someone was selling on ebay.:confused:

THIRD, she was not even planning on buying the ebay picture, she just wanted me to use the sellers thumbnail to do it from.:confused:

How many violations do you think that is? ...let me counts the ways...

I made the mistake of trying to explain why I wouldn't do it... she actually argued with me.
:mad:

Anthony Scira
01-05-2008, 10:15 PM
I think somewhere it is refrenced that if a wooden box was made with a photo of jon bon jovi the universe would implode.


Glad you didnt do it !

Ricky Gore
01-06-2008, 1:00 AM
Most all of this will always boil down to money. If you're making enough money from it, the copyright / trademark holder will want their share. As someone mentioned earlier, there are companies who don't want small shops doing their logo, for fear of violating their brand standards. I deal with branding issues all the time in my day job. I've heard the story of a day care being threatened by Disney for using their characters, (I checked the story out, it was true). But, I think it's rare that a company would sue anyone who wasn't making a large profit. If you have a 260,000 square foot warehouse full of Mickey Mouse Pen Boxes, they would go after you. But, if you're selling something unique to an individual, they will never know (or care).

Scott Shepherd
01-06-2008, 12:51 PM
Here's an example and tell me if this is a yes/no/maybe situation.

I have a photograph of an eagle close up. It's basically a head shot of bald eagle. The background is leaves and sticks, so nothing I'd like to engrave. I'd like to make the background an American Flag. So, if I pull an image off the internet of a flag photo, and I crop it heavily to only have a couple of stars, and a few bits of the bars, then plot this big old eagle head on it and engrave it, did I violate the copywrite laws?

I have used other art to create new art. Is that a violation?

Doug Griffith
01-06-2008, 1:41 PM
Yes, using other art to create new art is a violation. It pretty much boils down to your own personal ethics and how the artist would react should they realize what you've done. The later is the gamble. Get permission, go for it and wait for the C&D, or create everything from scratch.

Steven Wallace
01-06-2008, 2:42 PM
As for the use of the flag, remember that the original Chevrolet Corvette crossed flags logo was an American flag and the checker board flag. That logo was dropped due to the law that states the U.S. flag can not be used in a corporate logo. Chevrolet changed the second flag to the one with the Bowtie and Fluer De Lis emblems. I think you are also okay since you are not using the flag but using components to suggest the flag.

James Jaragosky
01-06-2008, 2:51 PM
Yes, using other art to create new art is a violation. It pretty much boils down to your own personal ethics and how the artist would react should they realize what you've done. The later is the gamble. Get permission, go for it and wait for the C&D, or create everything from scratch.
So if I buy 5 expensive lithographs all numbered and signed from 5 different artists, and cut them up into smaller pieces and place then in a Calash to create a new piece of art, and call it something else with no reference to the original work, and display it for resell, as lets say a protest piece on world hunger. I would be in violation of copy write laws?

I seems to me I see famous works all the time that incorporate someone else's work, buildings, faces, pictures, ideas etc used in this fashion.
Also every 3 grade school teacher that has ever had her students make a calash from magazine or news paper for an assignment is mandating her students to violate the law. Not to mention teaching them that it's ok to do so. Here is another example. lets say I took the logo of a major corporation and put it into Adobe cs and blurred , smeared and twisted it beyond all possible recognition, and then printed my rendering and sold it. Am I in violation of the law?
Too many greedy people and l*wy*rs in this world IMO.
jim j.

Doug Griffith
01-06-2008, 3:33 PM
So if I buy 5 expensive lithographs all numbered and signed from 5 different artists, and cut them up into smaller pieces and place then in a Calash to create a new piece of art, and call it something else with no reference to the original work, and display it for resell, as lets say a protest piece on world hunger. I would be in violation of copy write laws?
-- Yes

I seems to me I see famous works all the time that incorporate someone else's work, buildings, faces, pictures, ideas etc used in this fashion.
-- All have different issues, embedded art is a no no.

Also every 3 grade school teacher that has ever had her students make a calash from magazine or news paper for an assignment is mandating her students to violate the law. Not to mention teaching them that it's ok to do so.
-- Education has exceptions

Here is another example. lets say I took the logo of a major corporation and put it into Adobe cs and blurred , smeared and twisted it beyond all possible recognition, and then printed my rendering and sold it. Am I in violation of the law?
-- Yes. The problem is selling the logo if it is the primary focus of the piece.

Excerpt below regarding collages:
Collage is considered a derivative work, sometimes called a "new version" of the original work. The US Copyright Office says that "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work."

I base my usage on ethics and will use almost anything if for personal use. If I plan to sell, it is a different story.

Cheers

Larry Bratton
01-06-2008, 4:57 PM
Here's an example and tell me if this is a yes/no/maybe situation.

I have a photograph of an eagle close up. It's basically a head shot of bald eagle. The background is leaves and sticks, so nothing I'd like to engrave. I'd like to make the background an American Flag. So, if I pull an image off the internet of a flag photo, and I crop it heavily to only have a couple of stars, and a few bits of the bars, then plot this big old eagle head on it and engrave it, did I violate the copywrite laws?

I have used other art to create new art. Is that a violation?
Scott:
How could one identify the eagle as being the one in the photo? That would be a tough case to prove. However, I would just guess that if the photo had some unique characteristics and you used it without permission from the maker their conceivably be a problem, unless you changed the form of it so much it became unique as a result.

James Aldrich
01-06-2008, 8:23 PM
If anyone gets bored or is just curious. Here are a couple of links for copyright. There is a lot of reading here.


http://www.copyright.gov/

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Jim

Darren Null
01-07-2008, 7:13 AM
Almost anything you can do is in violation of some copyright or other.

In practical terms the questions I ask myself are:
1) What is the object you're doing...will it appear in public or is it a private thing? For, say, individual drinking glasses for a friend's kids, I don't consider copyright at all. They usually want some copyrighted animated character. If the object is going to be displayed in public, that's a completely different story and you have to tread warily.
2) How many are you doing? If it's a single piece of art that you're only going to make one of, then (IMHO) a certain amount of derivation is OK, but who wants to copy things for one-off pieces anyway? If you're producing thousands of an object, then you really need to have your copyright sorted out. Full written permission from whoever is the holder. If you're not working directly for the copyright holder, then it's probably worth coming up with something original in the first place, to save brain-damage later on.

Copyright on photos that you take? It's yours. The zoo can't copyright light falling. There's prior art. Stuff 'em, with something pointy, I say. If you're worried, you can always flip the image laft-to-right. That should sort out identifying marks.

Angus Hines
01-07-2008, 10:07 AM
I realize this thread is more about photos and such. However, one other thing to keep in mind is copywrites and trademarks expire after 10 years and must be renewed.
Is the Trademark/Copywrite still listed with the USPTO as an /active/ mark copy if you do a search at the USTPO (US. Trademark and Patent office) and the mark or logo is listed as /inactive/ then it's fair came and public domain because the original owner failed to renew.
I have several old John Deere logos I use this way.

Steven Smith
01-07-2008, 11:20 AM
I realize this thread is more about photos and such. However, one other thing to keep in mind is copywrites and trademarks expire after 10 years and must be renewed.
Is the Trademark/Copywrite still listed with the USPTO as an /active/ mark copy if you do a search at the USTPO (US. Trademark and Patent office) and the mark or logo is listed as /inactive/ then it's fair came and public domain because the original owner failed to renew.
I have several old John Deere logos I use this way.

What you say is accurate for trademarks, but not for copyrights. Generally, a copyright will be in effect for 70 years after the creator's death as of 1978.

Angus Hines
01-07-2008, 11:54 AM
Oppps sorry guys for that little bit of mis info. I have been having so many discussions about all this type stuff with my atty. that I'm now just officially confused.


What you say is accurate for trademarks, but not for copyrights. Generally, a copyright will be in effect for 70 years after the creator's death as of 1978.

Chad Voller
01-07-2008, 12:10 PM
Scott:
How could one identify the eagle as being the one in the photo? That would be a tough case to prove. However, I would just guess that if the photo had some unique characteristics and you used it without permission from the maker their conceivably be a problem, unless you changed the form of it so much it became unique as a result.

It actually isn't a tough case to prove if you have a graphic artist and a photographer on the prosecution team. Every photo and every painting have their own tell-tale signs, that can be traced back to the original. Look at a fingerprint. A detective does not need the whole print to be able to find who it belongs to, it helps, but is not always needed. You could filter the heck out of an image and as long as it still has some detail somewhere, you can trace it back to the original.

And keep this in mind, now, tomorrow, and forever. An artist knows when they see something they created. Photography, painting, sketches, 3D, etc...An art teacher I had, who created some water color paintings of some fruits and vegetables years ago, was eating at a restaurant. On the corner of the menu was a vegetable that was cutout from the rest of his painting, and used. He found out who created the menus, and either they had to take back all of the menus from all restaurants, or pay him. He makes his living by selling his art, not giving it away.

I myself would get an image that you can buy the rights to. Like from www.gettyimages.com (http://www.gettyimages.com). There's nothing like the wrathe of a starving artist who wants to get paid for an image they created. And I have to agree with them. They did the work to make the original piece of work, to make a living. And then someone comes along, steals their work, changes it, and calls it their own, and sells it to "make a profit".

Micheal Donnellan
01-07-2008, 3:10 PM
What you say is accurate for trademarks, but not for copyrights. Generally, a copyright will be in effect for 70 years after the creator's death as of 1978.

So for 70 years after their dead they can still screw you over. Nice one, typical us law.

What’s the deal with copyright in relation to proper art the stuff done by real artists by oils like the old masters and the new wannabes? Probably applies to scribblers and doodlers as well, would not be surprised.

Darren Null
01-07-2008, 6:03 PM
What’s the deal with copyright in relation to proper art the stuff done by real artists by oils like the old masters and the new wannabes? Probably applies to scribblers and doodlers as well, would not be surprised.
70 years after the copyright holder's death. Artists, writers, musicians etc.

It's the Mickey Mouse law. Every time mickey mouse looks like going public domain, Disney campaign for an extension, thus frigging up every single person on the planet so they can make a few quid extra. This from an outfit who lifted most of their stories in the first place.

I don't like Disney much.

Joe Pelonio
01-07-2008, 6:26 PM
So for 70 years after their dead they can still screw you over. Nice one, typical us law.

What’s the deal with copyright in relation to proper art the stuff done by real artists by oils like the old masters and the new wannabes? Probably applies to scribblers and doodlers as well, would not be surprised.
You can do a drawing or take a picture of the Mona Lisa, from any public source such as the internet and engrave it on anything you want. You can use it on your advertising, change it by having her in a bikini or whatever you want because the copyright is expired. By doing so, however, you now own the copyright to that new version! That means I or anyone else would need your permission to use that.

On the subject of the graphic artists on a legal team, proving an infringement, I would agree with Chad, with the exception that a laser engraved image would be much more difficult to identify that way without the original color and the lack of resolution. Still, if someone wanted to badly enough they could take the image and engrave it on the same material on the same machine to prove by comparison. W

Chad Voller
01-07-2008, 7:30 PM
If it made it to court, would they be able to order you to supply your working files? File that was sent to laser, files used to make the illustration....And if you couldn't supply them, like an excuse, "I can't find them", or "I must have deleted them by accident", would that be more damaging to you, as you got the image/data from somewhere? Where's your proof that you did not use their copyrighted material? I realize that they have to prove you are guilty, but if it made it to court, they must have some evidence to prove you're guilty.

On the zoo part. As I understand fair use, if the zoo owns the rights to what is in the picture, including the buildings, the people, the animals and their likeness, you could only use your picture as fair use, not for profit. Now many might ask, how can they tell that that is their bear, or lion, or penguin? It's similar to how an artist knows what he/she created. Ask any wild life professional if they could identify a wolf they raised in captivity with ones from another zoo, and chances are they will say yes. To us, a wolf looks like a wolf, and that wolf, and that one over there. But to them, they see the personal traits, the scars on their nose, weird pattern of fur color or how it lays. In some ways, taking a picture of their wolf is the same as taking a picture of the Mac logo and using that in your works.

I guess my point is that people should not be so quick to think that no one will know that you used their material. A simple flipping of the image or a couple filters is not enough to fool someone who's been in the business and can tell you exactly what filters you used and at what settings. That's how they caught that one child pornographer, undoing the swirl filter he used to hide his face. I'm glad he wasn't smart enough to know that CG artists are not all stupid, but I do hope you all take a lesson from that. All it takes is one of them to ruin your day. It'll probably ruin more than that if they find more material you don't own the rights to and they find the owners of that material.

Ricky Gore
01-08-2008, 3:19 PM
They went through the same thing with Rap music. A rapper would use a piece of an original song and try to claim that this was an original piece of work. But, that did not fly, because it was not an new original piece of work. It was a piece of work created using another persons song to create it. You (technically) need permission to use it. Sometimes, the owner will wan't a royalty from using their work. Sometimes they just want to be able to decide whether they want their art inside your art. Let's say you're a Christian and you create a beautiful picture of Jesus on the cross. Then Marilyn Mansion comes along and wants to put your picture in his picture, but upside down with some satanic message over it. You might want to have control over where your art winds up. After all your name is still attached to it. :)

Joe Pelonio
01-16-2008, 7:34 PM
There was a very interesting article in today's paper on this, but the tables were turned. They mentioned several cases, but the most interesting was this: A guy took a picture of his 15 year old daughter and posted it on one of the online share/storage services. Their terms allow use but must credit the owner.

Later they discovered the picture being used in a national advertising campaign in Australia for a cell phone provider. They are suing the cell company for use without crediting the owner, and for invasion of the daughter's privacy.

Another case settled out of court was a picture blown up and shown behind the host of a late night tv talk show, the owner was paid $500 for the photo plus more for "pain and suffering" by the network.

Angus Hines
01-16-2008, 11:22 PM
Are there any lawyers in the house who can give more than a speculative answer to this question?

James Jaragosky
01-17-2008, 12:34 AM
Are there any lawyers in the house who can give more than a speculative answer to this question?
Your asking for free advice from a lawyer? :eek:
The ones I had recently, charged me 10 grand and were worthless> I wouldn't put to much stock into a free one. Just funning with you. Good luck with this I'll be watching. If it works i'll do all my legal advice this way.:)

Marc Myer
01-17-2008, 1:15 PM
I'm an artist and graphic designer, and we just completed a nasty and very public copyright case with a noted photographer I work with.

The case involved a woman who took one of his photo images, a hula dancer, and made the design into a stained glass window. If she had done it for herself, my friend would not have done anything. In fact, many people do that. When it isn't to be sold commercially, it's not a problem from the artist's point of view and he won't do anything.

But back to the story--the woman put the stained glass window up for sale in a gallery, which forced my friend to send a cease and desist order to the gallery. They took it down, but later put it back up again. The woman and gallery owner got some serious legal help from a rich Native Hawaiian Legal organization and they made it very public and very messy, trying to say that non-Hawaiians can't copyright anything cultural (yeah, it's nuts).

As part of the process, she had to show that she came up with the design on her own, and produce sketches or whatever. Of course, her image was clearly a tracing, which was easily proven by identifying key points in the image and overlaying it with the photo. But because they had unlimited funds, they dragged it out in the media, demonizing my friend as an exploiter of hula (?). Eventually they settled, agreeing to pay all my friend's legal bills.

Here's the point: An artist MUST protect his images, or he can actually lose his own copyright protection! It's considered allowing it to go into the public domain. The artist doesn't have much of a choice. He has to assiduously protect his images from commercial use without permission. My photographer friend often allows people who ASK to use his images for free or cheaply: this allows him to retain his copyright ownership and still be a good guy. For example, I make a number of commercial derivations of his images, and he allows it without cost. It helps visibility of his work, and he can still retain his copyright. If you want to use something, it doesn't hurt to ask.

That said, I have no problem with using images to help me create artwork. They key is to use it as a resource, not a source. If it's your own work, and the image isn't characteristically identifiable, you're fine. If a client wants you to do something derivative for them, I agree that getting a waiver of liability is a good choice. Doesn't have to be complicated.

Sam Yerardi
01-17-2008, 2:47 PM
I have copyrighted several songs with the US Copyright office. I know there is the concept of a 'derivative work' in music based on a previously copyrighted piece but I'm not sure if it applies in this case. If it does, you may be able to use the works in that fashion. Go to the US Copyright website. They're very helpful.

Lee DeRaud
01-17-2008, 3:20 PM
I have copyrighted several songs with the US Copyright office. I know there is the concept of a 'derivative work' in music based on a previously copyrighted piece but I'm not sure if it applies in this case. If it does, you may be able to use the works in that fashion. Go to the US Copyright website. They're very helpful.That's actually the whole point of this discussion: derivative works are explicitly covered under whatever copyright applies to the original.

The common misconception is that once you alter it sufficiently, it's a "new work": it isn't. There's also the concept of "fair use", but virtually all the examples discussed here do not fall under that concept. And no, "not-for-profit" is not sufficient to estalish fair-use.

That's the legal situation. Several people on this thread seem to take the view that, "Well, if you alter it enough, there's no way you'll get caught." That's possibly true in practical terms, but the ethical situation is pretty clear-cut if you're making for-profit use of someone else's work without permission.

Sam Yerardi
01-17-2008, 3:33 PM
Lee,

I may have made myself misundertood. I agree completely with what you're saying. I wasn't trying to imply that he create a derivative work that he could then try to copyright and call his own. I only meant that perhaps there was something in copyright law that would allow him to do what he's wanting to do. I have copyrighted material but I'm not a lawyer. If copyright law was so easy to understand we wouldn't need the courts and lawyers to fight it out. And I certainly don't want people copying my work and changing it around a bit to try to copyright it. I have both published articles as well as music so I certainly am not going to encourage someone to do that.

Lee DeRaud
01-17-2008, 3:50 PM
I wasn't trying to imply he create a derivative work that he could then try to copyright. I only meant that perhaps there was something in copyright law that would allow him to do what he's wanting to do.You mean the original poster? I'm not sure "copyright" even applies to that situation. The zoo is basically saying, "We are granting you permission to take photos on our property, subject to the following conditions...". That's certainly not an unreasonable thing for an owner of private property* to do, but it's not the same thing as the zoo claiming copyright of every photo taken on the premises. I suspect that legally it's more like a photographer who forgets to get model releases: he owns the copyright to the photos, but there are limits on what he can do with them without the model's permission, the "model" in this case being the zoo.

*We'll ignore the rather interesting question of who "owns" the Smithsonian and, by extension, the zoo.

Sam Yerardi
01-17-2008, 3:58 PM
I agree. I don't think it does either, but then again I'm not a lawyer.

Scott Shepherd
01-17-2008, 4:13 PM
We'll ignore the rather interesting question of who "owns" the Smithsonian and, by extension, the zoo.

Ah HA! That's exactly the point I wanted to bring up when reading your previous posts. As a taxpayer, I fund that zoo. In fact, they are part my animals :) So I see no reason I can't take a photo of my favorite big cat and use it how I want.

Okay, enough of that, and back on to a serious note-

I think you can do what you want with the zoo photos from there, but I think they take issue when you market it as a photo taken at the Smithsonian. They don't want their name used to market anything without their permission. I imagine if you used the photo in something else and never mentioned their name, there wouldn't be any issue, but that's just a guess.