So called "copyright" pictures - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: So called "copyright" pictures


Quoted text here. Click to load it
[...]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would, except in this case, they were right. But the studio should
still place a mark on their work, IMO, for their benefit.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures

(snip)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

(snip)

KODAK makes a paper that says on the back "Professional Images are
Copyright Protected."   Now, probably anyone can buy that paper, but it
tends to be sold to ones selling copyrighted pictures.

This same paper may or may not have a feature that is visible from the
front.  It is not glossy, and seems to have a very fine pattern of
bumps.  It could be just that pattern that is detected by the printing
device.

-- glen

-- glen


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

This can't be it. Our photographer (who assigned copyright to us,
remember) supplied proofs on this type of paper. We scanned one of
them for thank-you cards at an all-in-one print booth in Wal-Mart and
there were no problems.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On 26 Nov 2003 02:34:18 -0800, the renowned snipped-for-privacy@larwe.com (Lewin

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe the machine wasn't (yet?) set up to detect the microdot pattern
pre-exposed in the emulsion. Or maybe it just didn't do it right in
that case.

While looking at this on the net, I ran across a case of visible dots
showing up in the image from a computer scanner, from attempting to
scan in this kind of paper.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it


The 4"x4" format is another giveaway . . .

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics    /"\   ASCII ribbon campaign
snipped-for-privacy@psu.edu  Smeal 178  (814) 375-4700      \ /   against HTML mail
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Approximately 11/23/03 20:08, Bryan Hackney uttered for posterity:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  This is a human issue.  Any doofus can buy that paper at any
  decent camera or mail order store.  Don't even have to pass a
  shutter test or know what an f-stop is.



--
Still a Raiders fan, but no longer sure why.


Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Good question. It would be interesting to see just how that was done.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I see no reason why not.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Incorrect. The photographer, as the one to create the work, holds the
copyright unless it was assigned to your daughter (or someone else) as part
of the photography contract - something which is quite rare, as wedding
photographers make their living off of prints and reprints. There is more
involved in wedding photography (and, indeed, in nearly all photography)
than merely recording an event that is taking place. If you doubt this, I
suggest posting your same question to rec.photo.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 CBFalconer> If anyone has copyright on these pictures it is my
 CBFalconer> daughter, not someone hired to record the event for a fee.

Assuming you are in the USA, unless you had a contract that
specifically transferred the copyrights to your daughter,
you are absolutely wrong.  The default situation is that
the photographer owns the copyright on pictures that he
takes when you hire him.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Unfortunately not. A photographer automatically has the copyrights on the
pictures he takes. Even when he is hired to take the pictures. The client
pays for the work and the prints.

Meindert



Re: So called "copyright" pictures

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Firstly, the position on copyright is that the person commissioned to take
the photographs is the copyright owner. Annoying, isn't it? Unless a
transfer of copyright is agreed it's not legally yours to copy.

Second is that there is invisible watermarking that can survive photocopying
and other copying methods. http://www.digimarc.com/watermarking/default.asp

Third, as other people mentioned the emulsion can be invisibly marked
http://www.kkcolorlab.com/newsline/news0398.htm

Peter



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:54:52 -0000, the renowned "moocowmoo"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Digimarc is the one I've played around with. IME, it can be removed if
you're deliberately trying to do so, and the image manipulation
software vendor is not in cahoots with them, with some loss in
quality. I just did this to evaluate how robust it was, putting a
watermark in a photo myself and then trying to deliberately remove it.
It easily survived changes in image format, cropping, retouching and
other typical innocent manipulations, and even bicubic resampling to
fairly low resolutions (which is pretty tough).


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Looking at a few of Kodak's many patents on this kind of thing, it
could be a pre-exposing of the media to create many very small dots on
the photo. If that's true, a slight blurring of the photo by some
optical means might be able to defeat it.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
To add insult to injury, Mr. Gates and Mi$uck are also working on
something similar for computers (*no* joke). It's called something
like "secure computers" or something... In such an environment,
if the OS thinks you are using a "pirated" piece of software, it
just deletes it...so much for "due process".

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You don't tell us exactly how long ago "Several years ago" was, but
steganography (as suggested by others) is extremely unlikely unless
the photo went through digital processing.  That's very likely for the past
few years, and unlikely (although entirely possible) before then.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Probably identified the print as having been taken on a "professional"
film.  Color rendition is markedly different than with "consumer" films.
I can tell the difference by eye, so it must be possible to do it with
a computer too.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It depends on the agreement signed.  A photographer hired as a contractor
will always hold the copyright unless he signs it away.

Tim.

Re: So called "copyright" pictures


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why does the same not hold true for software?  Doesn't seem different at all
to me.

Ralph



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:22:43 +1300, "Ralph Mason"

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I believe that as a rule more "creative" works are presumed to belong
to the author, whereas most software is considered to be
problem-solving, using engineering or mathematical skills. However,
the lines are blurred for people who create 3D computer art, or write
interactive fiction, or similar media that can only exist on
computers. Years ago when I worked for a platform video game company
they claimed copyright to "audio-visual effects" in an attempt to have
the same broad protection against  non-literal copying that motion
pictures and songs enjoy. I have no idea if this concept is legally
valid or has in fact ever been tested, but some elaborate video games
do resemble movies -- simple, brain-dead movies, to be sure.

Jim McGinnis

Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hah - Some, if not most, of the software I have created for a
paycheck has been a work of art and a thing of beauty.  The same
applies to hardware.  I don't remember assigning copyright
anywhere.  In many cases they were expressions of well known
algorithms, and that expression was so round, so firm, so fully
packed (a phrase probably better known to a.f.c readers) as to be
a joy forever.  I do remember basking in self-admiration over the
code or schematics etc.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures


Quoted text here. Click to load it

It does.

A large part of software is covered by employment contracts that the authors are
under, which place the copyright or ownership with the employer. And a large part
of software is not published in source form, and therefore requires no copyright.
It's held as a trade secret or proprietary property.

It's oyxmoronic to place a copyright notice on source code that is never intended
to be published. Even in the accidental case, the notices should tell of the
proprietary
nature of the work, not of a copyright.



Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:22:43 +1300, the renowned "Ralph Mason"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would think it depends on exactly what is in the contract**. As an
employee, photographer or code monkey, I think you don't have any
rights to your work.

http://www.nolo.com/lawstore/products/product.cfm/objectID/991DEF76-7EAC-402F-A36984BEADE9DB53/sampleChapter/5

**However, it is unclear whether software--computer code itself--falls
within any of the work made for hire categories. For this reason,
persons who hire independent contractors to work on software should
never rely on the work made for hire rule. Instead, they should have
the independent contractor assign all copyright rights to the hiring
party. (See Chapter 11, Initial Copyright Ownership, for detailed
discussion.) The hiring party can then register the software as a
transferee as discussed in Section 2 below.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
Quoted text here. Click to load it
And it is also possible to write software under contract,
where the contract states that you write the code and
provide *only* the binary...and that you retain copyright
and the right to distribute other binaries to other
customers.

Presumably, this would affect the amount charged to the
original customer...


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: So called "copyright" pictures
On 2003-11-24, Ralph Mason
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sure.  If you read the contract, it assigns copyright to the
employer.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you hire a photographer and pay him strictly by the hour,
and provide the equipment and materials, then the copyright
probably belongs to you.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  NEWARK has been
                                  at               REZONED!! DES MOINES has
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline