<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
You were given permission to use my material and I either took the pictures
I have given you or have rights to them. I truly appreciate,
Bob, the fact that you asked first. I have never refused anyone who
asked first.
<p>I don't really know how you protect yourself other than by being damn
careful. When I was doing the PCC books, Warren Miller offered to
let me use anything he had from the Barney Neuberger collection ... I turned
him down because it would be almost impossible to verify ownership.
<p>The copyright law changed since I edited <i>Headlights.</i> In
those days, you had to file a print with the Library of Congress to get
seven years, and renew for another seven. In the early 1980s, it
was changed to the life of the photographer or artist plus 50 years unless
sold or given away. The stipulation that a print had to first be
filed with the LofC changed to a looser policy that filing it might help
you prove a case, but it didn't necessarily mean you couldn't later prove
ownership rights if you failed to file the print. It apparently applies
to all original work no matter who owns it ... if you send a slide to Kodak
that has a copywriter notice on it, even if original and in the original
mount, Kodak will not make a print or duplicate slide from it without a
letter absolving them of all responsibility. If I understand the
law correctly, individuals are now allowed to make a copy for their own
private noncommercial purposes, which was not allowed under the old law.
Example, you don't want to schmutz up a good print on the workbench, so
you make copies to guide you in building a model trolley. That's
legal.
<p>From a practical standpoint, Bob, your liability is probably determined
by the financial ability of the aggrieved party to take it through a Federal
court. Remember, it is a Federal law. To win, you will probably
have to prove a monetary loss. If you had no books in print or in
production that would suffer by someone else's plagiarism, you probably
have nothing to sue for. And very few people would spend $10,000
to sue to recover $200.
<br>
<br>
<p>"Dietrich, Robert J." wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Gentlemen:
<p>This discussion has me pondering the contents of my SHJ site.
I started
<br>putting together the "Cars that passed by" page and since I don't have
many
<br>pictures myself I rely on web content. My method is not to copy
the
<br>pictures but to reference the original photo from within my web page.
That
<br>way the photo on Dave's site appears in my web page, with my comments.
<p>I'm being diligent in assuring that I give due credit but as you all
know
<br>Dave's Rail Pix has many photos without credits. So should I
reference
<br>those photos? They are already posted and available to anyone
who goes to
<br>Dave's site, I'm just pointing to them.
<p>Dave has already given me permission to use anything on his site but
I
<br>realize he doesn't always obtain proper permission. So what should
I do?
<p>I also have a PRCo poster from about 1940 introducing the PCC.
It contains
<br>photos of representative cars from the first horse car to the latest
low
<br>floor car. I was going to scan and use these photos referencing
the poster
<br>as a source. Is this right or wrong? This publishing stuff
is all new to
<br>me and I want to do the right thing, so please help.
<p>Thanks.
<p>Bob
<p> -----Original Message-----
<br>From: Kenneth and Tracie Josephson [<a href="mailto:kjosephson@sprintmail.com">mailto:kjosephson@sprintmail.com</a>]
<br>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 6:22 PM
<br>To: pittsburgh-railways@dementia.org
<br>Subject: Re: Photo Ownership
<p>Jim Holland wrote:
<p>> Greetings!
<br>>
<br>> I have purchased
PRCo prints from a multitude of sources and
<br>received
<br>> the same identical print from several different sources. And
each of
<br>> these prints was made from a negative - and the prints were not copies
<br>> of another print - these are readily identified.
<br>> So it is possible
that there was more than one photographer at the
<br>same
<br>> location snapping photos and very possibly it was some type of railfan
<br>> excursion. Even the photo that Fred thinks is his own could
be the
<br>> print of another photographer who was at the same location - but
there
<br>> may be special identifying features where Fred can identify his photo.
<p>Case in point: You and I were standing together at Clearview Loop snapping
<br>pictures
<br>in 1976 and were also near each other at SHJ earlier in the day.
<p>Plus the beautiful night shot Roberta Hill took on November 13, 1971
of a
<br>PAT grey
<br>1700 on the last 44 Knoxville run on Smithfield Street (followed by
a 1600
<br>interurban and two more cars) is nearly identical to another shot published
<br>during
<br>the 1970s (though that could be Roberta's shot since her notes on the
back
<br>indicate
<br>she had several 8 X 10s made for friends.)
<p>>
<br>> Think we have been
thru this before and are well versed about
<br>posting
<br>> the work of others. NO ONE HERE
is guilty of posting Fred's work
<br>> -- the finger pointing needs to be done elsewhere!
<p>Fred cc'd a letter he wrote to Dave Mewhinney to this list.
<p>I am frustrated because I have a number of Pittsburgh, Philly and DC
prints
<br>that
<br>are not featured on Dave's site by anyone else. Since the photographers
did
<br>not
<br>identify themselves on the back of the prints, I can't share these
pictures
<br>on the
<br>web site. I have no way of knowing who (if anyone) currently owns the
<br>rights.
<p>I have an unidentified shot of retired Pittsburgh Lowfloors being torched,
a
<br>shot
<br>of a Lowfloor going through a car washer (oops, leak detection unit-
<br>Pittsburgh
<br>never washed their cars) and even the familiar 1920s print of the trolley
<br>meeting
<br>the Sarah Street horsecar. I believe (but may be wrong) the latter
shot
<br>belongs to
<br>PTM's library, but the photographers of the other two are unknown
to me.
<br>Ken J.</blockquote>
</html>