Photo Ownership

[Fred W. Schneider III]

The Pittsburgh poster about which you speak was printed about the time the 1200s
were delivered.  If there every was a copywrite on it, it expired about 1961.
Most of the individual pictures on it were copied so many times I think one would
have trouble proving that they were not in the public domain today.   Everyone of
the pictures is in the PTM library.  I also have most.  Bob Brown did.  So did
Harry Bartley.

I have questioned the other issue you brought up and I have no answer.  The old
rules were that you had to place the copywrite notice on every copy of your art
that was released, and if one item got out there without such a notice, you tossed
away your rights.  I purchased all of Frank Goldsmith's negatives and prints upon
his death by prior arrangement ... the sale was spelled out in his will.  I have
the negatives.  I doubt that I could prove I have any strong legal rights because
I couldn't prove what he did before his death.

I understand there is a copywrite infringement suit in process in England at this
time, brought by a major tramway museum against a major book publisher (that
churns out ten trolley picture books or more every year).  The museum (you add the
name) bought many photo collections over the years and claims they have the rights
to control usage.  There legal position seems to be ... if you have a note from
the deceased photographer giving you rights to print his pictures in the book, so
be it.  Otherwise, we are now the owners.   How does this relate to us?  I think
there many be similarities in copywrite laws to provide worldwide protection.
This brings up another issue, doesn't it.

As I recall, there was another very significant point in copywrite law.  The
object must be copywritable.  I can write a book and take out a copywrite it, but
my protection extends only to my own work.  It protects my writing, my
arrangement, my layout, but not information or other people's efforts which have
been incorporated.  Information, specifically, can not be protected.  But remember
that layout and design can be copywrited.  Therefore, map makers often incorporate
a series of trivial mistakes in their cartographic efforts, that, if repeated in
someone else's map, shows evidence that their initial work was copied.

Simply filling out a copywrite application and mailing the pictures along with it
to the Library of Congress and then putting the required copywrite symbol on the
prints does not necessarily offer protection.  It does prove that you tried to get
a jump on another individual.  It might intimidate someone else.  BUT YOU STILL
ONLY WIN IN FEDERAL COURT.

I personally look on this as a moral and ethical issue more than a legal issue.
If you bought all of Mortimer Hogwollow's negatives and you want to protect your
investment, in my mind, so be it.



HRBran99 at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 06/28/2000 8:03:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> bob.dietrich at unisys.com writes:
>
> << I also have a PRCo poster from about 1940 introducing the PCC.  It contains
>  photos of representative cars from the first horse car to the latest low
>  floor car.  I was going to scan and use these photos referencing the poster
>  as a source.  Is this right or wrong? >>
>
> This item was produced by the Pittsburgh Railways Co. and belonged to them
> under the OLD copyright law. After 21 years it is on the open market. I am
> still doubtful if any person, organization, museum, etc., can take possession
> of such documents and claim them as their own under the law of copyright.
> There is a man in Cleveland, OH you works for Cleveland RTA. He obtained
> photos from the old Cleveland Transit System and now claims them as his and
> places a copyright on them. Bear in mind that these photos were taken by a
> photographer who was paid with taxpayers money, using a camera paid for by
> taxpayers money, on film bought by taxpayers money, and developed using
> taxpayers money. I would not hesitate to use any of those "public" photos at
> any time. I am sure a court would agree that some things cannot be
> re-copyrighted.
>
> Also, check the Library of Congress website for information concerning
> copyrights. This is right from the "horses mouth."
>
> HrB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dementix.org/pipermail/pittsburgh-railways/attachments/20000629/258ed0e9/attachment.html