Court Rules Against Photographers in Copyright Suit 116
An anonymous reader writes "Photo District News Online reports a Federal District Court in NY says that republishing Magazine content on a CD is the same as republishing the magazine itself. Photographers claim they should recieve additional compensation for images published on the CD that were published in the orginal magazine articles. IANAL but there is some additional interesting case history in the article as well."
A few more million... (Score:5, Funny)
Jungle Book (Score:5, Interesting)
The estate of the guy that composed the music in Disney's Jungle Book sued Disney for not paying out royalties on the VHS, DVDs, CDs, etc, which were put out with that music. Disney's stance is that, since the contract did not specify VHS, DVD, CDs, etc, they are not obligated to pay royalties on anything but the film itself.
Somebody can score some easy karma by providing a link- Im to lazy to use google at the moment.
Re:Jungle Book (Score:5, Interesting)
In Europe its just thr other way around. If you get the right to "use" musik of a certain author in the cinema, you have no rights to use it in VHS, DVD etc. And you not only have to pay royalities, no, its a copy right violation to distribute his music with out a suiteable contract.
Regarding the Magazine its probably a question in USA: was it *content* from the original magazin, or was it the *original* magazine, only publiched in a different way? If that was a case it might give a dispute in europe as well. But in general our terms of authors rights are quite clear, copy rights are granted for a certein work in combination with a certain media.
Copyright law itself covers the case that if new distribution ways are discovered(DVD/internet) the original contract does not extend to those.
Further more it covers that an author ha a right to get a reasonable compensation. So if a smal unknown band makes a 4 minute intro track to a movi and that ovie ges faous, the band has the right to get a suitable extra compensation for publishing records/CDs with that title.
angel'o'sphere
Re:Jungle Book (Score:5, Interesting)
Disney is TRYING to say that, since the media is not mentioned, they dont have to pay. But common law generally goes against the writer of the contract, hence, its unlikely they will win with that arguement.
Ok, I poked around google and found this [animatedbuzz.com], which should bring a few actual facts to the discussion. Apparently the case was settled; Disney probably noticed they didnt have a chance of winning. Here is a quote of a key part, in case anyone doesnt feel like clicking (it is a short article, however)-
So the issue concerned music sung by the "King Louie" character. So Disney, being the cheap, evil corporation they have become, decided to scrap the character in order to not have to pay royalties (pretty silly, IMO).Re:Jungle Book (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2001-0
Disney's most creative employees these days are in legal, claiming to only owe royalties for selling soundtracks, not the full movie.
http://www.savedisney.com
Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:5, Interesting)
If it is not a breach of copyright to re-publish electronically such as on CD, then that could be taken to mean that mirrors of sites would not be subject to copyright issues - which here, considering the
Only problem I see is that National Geographic had paid copyrights for all of the images once alredy, whereas nothing of the sort will have happened if this appliation...
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:2)
Where it does matter is with the older stuff, and as the article mentions thier have been different rulings on this same topic.
As for the mirroring this case has no ruling on that since the case was disagreement on if a CD was a new media(in which case the original contract between the magazine and photographer did not cover and they would have to pay more to use th
Re: Mirrors ?? You're KIDDING me, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it's printed on Dead Trees(tm) or pitted into polycarbonate discs, as long as it's the same content, then they're just publishing the magazine.
So, as long as it is:
- same content
- same publisher (ie the one who's already paid for the right to publish)
The fact that it's purely a different physical medium is totally irrelevant.--------
So back to your point about mirroring websites.... Well, this all centers around an existing right-to-publish. Do you have that? If so , then sure, mirror the website. If not, they you're in flagrant breach of copyright, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Re: Mirrors ?? You're KIDDING me, right? (Score:2)
Get your royalties as a function of per usage rather than flat fee. Also, be very explicit in terms of publication format and media.
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
It's rare for photogs to simply sign over their copyrights to images they've created; instead their photos are likely covered under a use agreement, which very specifically states what the photos are to be used for. It may have been that these guys weren't specific enough in their paperwork.
This ruling will go through the photo community like an earthquake if not reviewed or overturned; pro photogs are paranoid^H^H^H very protective of misuse of their images, and rightly so (it's their livelihood, after all).
Disclaimer: IANAL... I have talked to pro photogs who outline the procedure they go through when copyrighting and distributing an image.
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:1)
As I see it, once I've purchased something I've bought it and it's mine.
If I hire a carpenter to build me a garage shop, then later on decide to make that shop into a retail store I don't have to pay the carpenter again for the work he did building the structure for me before I can put a new sign on the front of the building.
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:3, Informative)
You can do a lot of things to that building, but under today's physics laws, short of building a second (employing a carpenter), there's no way to duplicate that building. The work of that carpenter (and of the field of carpentry) is protected by the virtue of the physical nature of the output.
A photo, however, can be easily reproduced en masse, with very little effort on the part of the copier. In order for the photographer (and the photographic profession) to maintain a
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:2)
Basicly it's a money grab by the photographers...Although the same thing has happened in gaming recently too. Look what happened to Wizards of the Coast...they had to "buy-out" a bunch of artist contract too. Note that old cards have image copyright artist and new ones are Wi
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:2)
That's why the right that a creator has in their reproducible creation is called copyright -- the right to control how the creation is copied. When a magazine 'buys' a picture from a photographer, they aren't buying the photograph; they're buying a license to use the image in a particular way, with the limits to that use defined in the contract between the magazine and the publisher. The photographer can narrow down what part of thei
Re:Interesting Use of this ruling - Mirrors (Score:1)
Obvios? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvios? (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Because they get nothing out of this, instead of the extra paymanets they were asking? From the article:
Re:Obvios? (Score:2)
Need a lupe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Need a lupe (Score:1)
Re:Need a lupe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Need a lupe (Score:2)
I haven't seen it in other browsers because to be honest I don't like any others, I was IE until I went to Firebird as default.
Another shining example of what copyrigh laws do (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law allows publishers to issue revisions of published works without permission from contributors, but not new works. The distinction is at the heart of all the lawsuits.
So, to resume, if the CD had been just a dumb directory full of jpegs from the NG, the publisher would have been in the clear. But instead, he tried to add a search engine, and as a result the CD qualifies as a "new work".
New work? wtf?
A search engine is a feature that I would expect from a multimedia CD. But it should be considered an ancillary function, something that's expected on such a medium, that's not the core of the product. The core stays the pictures.
Similarly, suppose the publisher could release 3D versions of the NG photos, in the form of a 3D viewing box : wouldn't you expect knobs to turn the photo around left and right, and up and down, on the viewing box? should that be considered a new work just because the 3D versions of the same photos have knobs? I don't think so, the core of the work is still the original photos, the viewing knobs are just accessories that should be expected given the type of medium the photos are on.
The basic idea is that photos released on paper, CDs, microfiles,
Therefore, the only thing I have to say is, this "new product" decision is grotesque. Another shining example of why copyright laws aren't adequate for modern media (it's called being multimediocre) and should be revised.
Re:Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time you modify anything about an existing product, it's "a New Product" (at least, in the marketing sense). How many times have you seen ads for "New and Improved" something-or-other in which the "new" thing is essentially (ie to anyone but a marketing droid) trivial. (can anyone say "concentrated" dishwashing detergent - geez people "we put less water in it, QUICK spin up the marketing machine")
If that's the attitude pushed by product managers, and swallowed by the general population on a daily basis, why should it not apply in this case?
That's basically what it is. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL... Creating 3D version of existing photo would be considered a new work. You are taking the work of somebody and creating a derivation of it.
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:5, Insightful)
(snip)
The basic idea is that photos released on paper, CDs, microfiles,
That the photos are the same is not what is at issue here - the freelance photographers sold the right to use them in NG magazine, and only the magazine. If the NGS wants to use them in a different work than the magazine, then they need to pay for that right. The photographer, not NGS, owns the rights to the photograph.
The basic idea is that photos released on paper, CDs, microfiles,
What is at issue here is not wether the phot is a new work, but wether a CD compilation of a magazine is - no one is claiming the photo is a new work, rather taht publishing them in a different medium with new capabilities is a new work. Now, whether a compilation on CD is a new work is a point on which the courts obviously disagree, and is one that should be resolved because it clarifies what is a new work.
Arguing that the CD is the same as the magazine is akin to saying since my subscription entitles me to all issues of the magazine for a certain period, I am owed the CD because it is no different than the magazine and contains the issues that covers my subscription - something I think NGS would disagree with and point out the Cd is a different beast.
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, "owed" is a bit strong a term. For example, if you own one copy of a magazine, you're not owed a second copy -- whether or not it's in a different for
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:3, Informative)
Not at all. Suppose NG were to publish their magazine in paperback and hardback format every month: I find it hard to believe someone could argue that the har
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, American Heritage used to do that very same thing! And you're exactly right, you could subscribe to one or the other, or both, if you wanted. I don't know, however, if there was any differentiation between the formats when it came to paying the authors, though.
Just because they bundle a swiss-army knife with one version or some search tools with another version shouldn't suddenly make the two v
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:2)
NGS can sell the magazine on microfilm within case law, or they can sell the large print edition, but that doesn't mean you get those unless you pay for them
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:1)
There may be *some* but for the most part, the vast majority of magazines do not give you the printed magazine AND the digital/cd version of their magazine without some additional charge. I have seen cases where it is one or the other but not both.
Is it a new work?
If it were just the ONE magazine being placed on cd with a search engine and being availab
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:1)
Ah, but it is the magazine. It may be distributed in a non-paper format, but that is an implementation detail and hardly worth considering.
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:2)
The digital storage medium that we all know as Compact Disc does not necessarily as an inherent function of the medium include either an index or even the abil
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:1)
At least it isn't like '60's TV shows where people got paid nothing for later syndication even though some shows are still being played (over and over and over...) to this day. It was
Re:Another shining example of what copyrigh laws d (Score:2)
Remember that the majority of the photos (and articles, for that matter) came from the days before anyone had imagined electronic republication. National Geogr
I sympathize with both sides... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if I were a creator of material published on such a magazine, I'd want to be properly compensated if it became part of a lucratively-marketed collected work; I'd probably have been paid a relatively small amount in the first place based on its use being ephemeral (in the context of a periodical) rather than the larger amount I'd expect for permanent rights to something that would remain in print.
This issue is really one which needs to be addressed via contract, and it probably is for new freelance material these days now that publishers have such uses in mind and probably have a clause specifically about them. This, however, doesn't settle the issues regarding past material created before either the creator or the publisher had any idea of modern electronic uses, hence all the litigation. Similar issues occur with DVD collections of TV series, where it's often in doubt who requires permission and compensation for everything from actors' residuals to music rights.
Re:I sympathize with both sides... (Score:2)
You know, as a creator, in light of this court decision, you would add an article in your co
Re:I sympathize with both sides... (Score:2)
Since the publisher is generally in the stronger position ("you want to publish, sign this contract or there's the door"), the creators are pretty much screwed unless they have a big enough name.
magazine pdf archives (Score:1)
If this would mean that there will be less pdf republishing magazines, this is a bad thing.
Not so clear cut (Score:5, Insightful)
The same people who would order the collection in printed form with a printed searchable index would probably prefer to have the collection in electronic form with an electronically searchable index. To me that is the same market.
Since adding a printed searchable index to an existing publication is considered a revision, and not a new product, and a CD collection that retains the exact same context as its original printed version is also considered to be a mere revision, then I have to agree with Kaplan that adding an electronically searchable index to a CD collection that retains the same context as the original printed version is also just a mere revision.
I don't think NGS did any wrong in this case.
Re:Not so clear cut (Score:1)
The article stated that the photographers would have a case if their work was removed from context. It would seem to me that if their articles were simply PDF'd there'd be no problem. However, what if the search engine allows you to search for individual components of articles.
You might have a much different idea of a photographer's work if you can't s
I'm biased on this subject (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this a good ruling. New technologies don't inherently create new copywrite issues at law. A CD republication is just a republication and the current trend to get all weird about it being a digital republication is a bit daft.
We like taking pictures. We sell them. We're perfectly willing to make more money by selling new photographs. The right to publish and republish is the thing the magazine publishers gives us money for. It's a fair deal.
And the added profits obtainable by republication makes the purchase of such photographs more of a viable commercial venture for the publisher in the first place.
On the whole I think a client base with loose purse strings is preferable to one who resents opening it up.
Not to mention the fact that it makes a better deal for the consumer as well, which can only help everyone in the long run.
KFG
I am not a photographer, so.... (Score:2)
The photographers wanted compensation....
Was this because their compensation is fixed, as opposed to being based on number (of magazines) sold?
ie they had no knowledge that their fixed price would include republishing the magazine on different media (eg CDs)
Or was it simply thay they felt they deserved more (eg they realy didn't negotiate their original deal all that well)
Re:I am not a photographer, so.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I am not a photographer, so.... (Score:4, Funny)
The key factor is that it is the magazine that owns the copyright to the finished publicly distributed work. The collection. Everyone knows the rules to the game here. No one objects. It works. It's profitable. For everybody. You sell a photo or an article to the New York Times, you get your check. If they reprint the story you don't get more money.
If they print a new story and wish to use your photograph to illustrate it they need to pay you again because that is a new overall work for which they must establish their own new copyright.
The photographers in this case were trying to argue that publication to the CD established the need for a new publishers copyright. Frankly, they just wanted more money for work they were already legitimately payed for.
The argument, as the court confirms, is flawed. The publisher has already established the right to copy the original article. It doesn't matter if they Xerox it, photo engrave it, carve it to a rock or trace it in crayon. The inclusion of an index (or searchability) doesn't imply the orginal work has been altered and neither does the mere media of publication.
So long as it remains an obvious copy of the orginal work they have the right to make that copy, and sell it.
Just as in the old days (when you had to actually register to be granted a copyright) you didn't have to file seperate copyright applications for a sound recording that was released on tape and vinyl. One copyright on the work covered all the various media.
Copyright covers the work as a logical construct, not the physical means of transmiting that work.
You want to know what really scares the piss out of professional print photographers though?
Right click-Save Image as. .
KFG
Re:I am not a photographer, so.... (Score:2)
Too many people confuse the two. The medium doesn't matter anymore, only the message between people matters. Copyright law has long since lost sight of its foundations anyway... and needs a major overhaul [jerf.org].
Right click-Save Image as. . .
Well then, somebody needs to tell those photographers to stop putting their print resolution scans online then, right? Me saving a crappy 1024x768 image to my desktop backgr
Re:I am not a photographer, so.... (Score:1)
What the photographers were arguing was that the original contract did not include the use on CD (in most such cases the contracts simple pre-date the tech). Because they did not grant
Re:I'm biased on this subject (Score:2)
We like taking pictures. We sell them
are you "selling" the photographs though ? or are you selling a license to use them ?
which are two different things
is your "product" the photograph or the license ?
Re:I'm biased on this subject (Score:2, Interesting)
That means that if an architecural magazine takes a picture of a living room with one of my photos hanging in it they have to arrange a license with me to publish their own photograph.
Interesting, no?
But the principle of first sale applies to the physical photograph. The person I sold it to owns it. I don't have any control as the a
Re:I'm biased on this subject (Score:2)
Re:I'm biased on this subject (Score:1)
All to arrive at the conclusion, "Maybe, but quite possibly not."
The Picasso heirs alone have generated a mountain of case on this issue in just about every jurisdiction imaginable. They're quite rapacious about making a living off their famous, dead ancestor.
Key factors are that this is a private dwelling, not a public space, the photographs are being taken for commercial gain, the art is an original and not
Re:I'm biased on this subject (Score:2)
And that's one of the main problems with modern copyright -- the ability for people (or corporations) to derive ludicrous benefit long after the act of creation (and in this case, even the creator) is gone.
No, it's not that simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not daft, and a CD is not simply a republi
Re:No, it's not that simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I don't choose to warp my point of view on the logical and legal issues involved based simply on how they might effect my livelyhood.
Copyright is the right to copy. You have that right or you don't. The ease with which you might make these copies is completely irrelevant to the issue of ownership and rights.
If I write a haiku for publication in my local arts paper the fact that anyone with a piece of paper and ballpoint pen can violate my copyright in a matter of seconds does not in any way effect the rights to copy I have assigned to the paper.
Who have every right, and should, print their copies as fast and easily as technology will allow them.
Similarly if I sell that same haiku for publication to Salon.com for publication in their net magazine the fact that anyone else can cut and paste it does not effect the rights of Salon.com. Anyone who does violates my copyright, but they are the infringer, not Salon.com.
Photography is inherently a copy medium. It is never any more difficult to make a copy of a photograph than it was to make the original in the first place. Usually less so. It goes with the territory. Such issues are inherent in choosing the field as a way to generate personal profit.
There's always plumbing. If you can't make a living selling something that can be copied make a living selling something that can't. Nothing, not even copyright law, grants you the inherent right to make a living at a particular pursuit.
KFG
Re:No, it's not that simple. (Score:2)
We gotta get you in a room with Jack Valenti and Cary Sherman....
Re:No, it's not that simple. (Score:1)
I'm also a working musician (yes, I do a lot of different things).
Re:No, it's not that simple. (Score:1)
--
A copy medium? (Score:2)
Have you ever tried taking a good photograph. I've tried hauling my 4x5" wooden view camera up into rocky mountain national park and nothing that comes back looks remotely like the equivilent shot by Ansel Adams. Sure it migh
Re:A copy medium? (Score:1)
Indeed. I've crawled on my belly through a tropical rainforest to get a shot. Crawling through a Coral Snake infested priest hole at the ruins of Monte Alban was worse though. I was younger and stupider at the time.
My mother is not so young and far more traveled than myself. She has photographed on al
Re:A copy medium? (Score:2)
If everything were standardized then NG could at least look at a photograph and work out their costs of republishing it.
Let photographers decide on the pricing but
Re:A copy medium? (Score:1)
We'll get some idea a couple of hundred years down the line, at which time the Mouse will still be under copyright.
Re:No, it's not that simple. (Score:2)
It's not that hard to copy microfilm. Yet periodicals have been available on microfilm for decades...
If I license a photograph to someone for use in a print advertisement or brochure, I know that's the only place that image will be used.
This isn't what the photographers in question did. They licenced their work to publishers of a periodi
Re:No, it's not that simple. (Score:1)
Re:No, it's not that simple. (Score:2)
Good Idea (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yes, just imagine if they had published all their issues on CD since 1888
Seriously though, NGM doesn't have much interest in creating NG photo CDs for 2 reasons:
- They're an old publication, therefore more likely to get away with sticking to dead tree publications
- They print high quality photo, so it's understandable that they're not so excited about digital copies, since it would take a full
Re:Good Idea (Score:2)
This judge also ruled against 2600 in DMCA case (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone seeing a pattern hear (read: "Hi I am Lewis Kaplan and I love big corporations.")
Re:This judge also ruled against 2600 in DMCA case (Score:2)
Considering (IIRC) that he used to work for Time-Warner, I really question his objectivity in copyright cases. It might be interesting to investigate his financial records to see if there is a conflict of interest.
Other than the unfortunate fact that he is a Federal judge, he's someone that would be best ignored.
Supreme Court, Here We Come (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that this one's going straight to the Supreme Court, and I think it's likely that Tasini will prevail, and that this decision will be overturned.
On the other hand, as time goes by, this will make less and less of a difference: In the wake of Tasini (indeed, even before Tasini), publishers have been changing their freelance contract terms to specifically include inclusion in future media collections. The main impact of these decisions, one way or the other, will continue to be on publications with considerable libraries of back issues which have some potential commercial value -- like National Geographic and The New York Times, of course, but also Sports Illustrated, Playboy, Time and Life, The New Yorker, and a few others (some of which may already have had freelance contracts structured in a sufficiently different way to leave them already in the clear, of course).
Contracts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, whether or not the people using the photos will agree is another story. But the main thing is that it would chill such behavior.
Doesn't the photographers have some sort of Gild that protects their intrests in cases like this? I am not saying that I agree with their position; I could actually care less. But it seems like a little creative laywering could stop cases like this from ever reaching the courts.
Re:Contracts... (Score:1)
That's all well and good for the future, but there is a huge amount of content that's been published over the past however-many years and in a lot of cases the original photographer (writer, illustrator, what-have-you) has moved or died. How do you find him to get his permission to reproduce content that was originally published in a magazine article printed in 1962?
What about web? (Score:1)
But what about the web? That's where are the republishing takes place these days. Every company out there is putting old newsletters, etc., online, and they all pay outside photographers.
I read the article mostly and I don't think it speculated about whether this applies to web republishing or not. I would have to guess that yes, it does apply.
I am selfish, it is good! (Score:3, Interesting)
First, think of the information that is "gone" from the normal person. How long does a library keep a magazine?
When a student can go to a primary source of information, like a news report of a historical event (with pictures), it is much more valuable than a liberal/conservation/sanitized/biased textbook.
Technically speaking, it is quite fun for electronic students to find Nuts and Volts, Popular Electronics, etc. It primes their brains for innovation.
Let knowledge be free! If you sign a new contract, make sure your lawyers are getting you what you deserve!
Re:I am selfish, it is good! (Score:2, Informative)
The Wayback Machine [waybackmachine.org]
Enter a website into its search engine and it will pull up snapshots of the website from several time periods. Looks like they've been getting into some other media, too, since last I looked.
SharkJumper
Re:I am selfish, it is good! (Score:2)
Broadcasting analogy (Score:3, Informative)
The medium is different, but the content is the same. Why should a radio station pay AGAIN and MORE to retransmit the same content on a different media? Why should the rates be higher over the wire vs. over the air? Conceptually, you could intercept the stream and record it straight to disk. So what? I did that as a kid with my portable stereo in my bedroom.
IANAL, but it looks like the exact same concept. I am inclined to agree with the ruling. BUT - as an earlier poster mentioned, the courts do seem to have a nasty habit of siding with the corporations on these issues.
I wish I had these problems (Score:3, Informative)
It's my opinion that the publications are definitely doing all they can to screw the working photographers, from little guys like me to the titans like Nachtwey and McCurry.
Re:I wish I had these problems (Score:1)
Umm. IANAL, but there's gotta be something legally wrong with that. That's the same as them taking your images and saying they took them themselves. At least, in my opinion it is.
There is no net gain in "oops, gotcha" (Score:5, Insightful)
The photographers are trying to take advantage of the historically loose business relationship with their customers (the publishers). For a long time, many newspapers and magazines bought freelance content without any sort of formal contract. This messy situation wasn't a problem until new media started dangling (mostly imaginary) riches in front of the freelancers, who responded by launching a series of legal maneuvers aimed at their customers (the publishers). No rights to republish on CD? Oops, gotcha. But playing oops-gotcha with your customers is no way to build a healthy business.
The fighting over residual rights that has emerged in the last couple of decades has had only one real, long-term effect: most publishers now require signed contracts that specifically grant open-ended rights to future/to-be-invented media so this ugly situation doesn't occur again.
But there are costs, for lawyers, for recordkeeping systems, for tracking down authors and photographers and negotiating new agreements, and not one cent of that money makes for better photography or better publications. It's a massive inefficiency and it's energy lost forever.
Contract law is more clear cut than this however.. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/e-books/748
Interestingly, the injunction was denied because Random House failed to show how there would be irreparable harm, but also, the judge believed that they would fail on the merits of their case. In short, he ruled that the rights to the works in question were held by the authors and that only those specific rights given to Random House were those applying to 'books' i.e. paper-based books. Advances in technology which opened new media, caused new 'rights' to be held by the authors, and not the publishing company which had previously purchased the rights to those same works.
Random House argued it placed an unreasonable burden to have to go back over all those old contracts and renegotiate new contracts based upon new technologies as they developed, etc. but the judge was unsympathetic, indicating that the fact that Rosetta Books had pursued negotiations with the authors (or their estates) to purchase these rights, indicated the authors had asserted their authority over their own rights and works in question.
Also interesting, was that Kurt Vonnegut was involved incidentally as Rosetta Books had purchased rights to his books, even though he doesn't like ebooks.
This ruling was upheld upon appeal.
http://patenting-art.com/clients/entlawrp.htm
I realise that this case involved interpretation of an existing contract, and it only applies to Random House because other publishers' contracts may be defined differently (and most certainly the language of those contracts may have changed after this case) but what if any, implications would it have in this case?
(Sorry the URLs aren't links, but I'm a bastard and prefer plain text.)
Changing economics of editorial photography (Score:4, Insightful)
Then budget-cutting media owners realised that someone was making money when pictures were resold, and it wasn't them. Today, editorial rates of pay for photographers are around what they were in the mid 1980s. If you can get expenses out of anyone, you're doing well. Contracts are becoming more favourable to publishers, effectively taking copyright from photographers without either granting them better rates of pay, or better working conditions, insurance etc.
I got back from the Middle East last month, at times it was hairy, had 5 pages in a magazine, just recovered my costs. I can resell these pics overseas, as I'd done the story freelance rather than on comission (I took all the financial risk), but what's really paying my way now is corporate work. The deal is that some corporation pays top dollar for all rights. So if you see those pics in magazines, that's the corporation that's paying for the photography, not the magazine. I could say a few things here for editorial independence, but I won't. Bottom line is, the market is taking control out of the hands of photographers, in a few years time, the only people still working magazines will be those best adapted to say "yes sir!" to their bosses - either in the media or industry, there isn't that much difference. When was the last time you saw pictures coming out of Chechnya or Sierra Leone? In the 70s you could make a career out of being an honest reporter. Now the cash comes from people with their eye on the next great cost-cutting measure. Magnum are still going, mixing in hard news with corporate work like the rest of us.
As for this National Geographic case, while NG are one of the best bosses in the business, it's sad to see bean-counters taking steps against their own photographers. Without the bean-counters, there's chaos. But without the photographers there's no magazine. And like the website is making money. Photographers won this round, but I doubt they'll win the war.
Very limited context (Score:1, Redundant)
Since then, publshers have resolved the "problem" simplyh by rewriting their standard agreement to clarify tha
How do articles and photographs differ? (Score:1)
Shouldn't the standard for the articles apply for the photographs... or is it the fact that their photos are now in a digital format that scares the photographers.
After all, these are the guys who use all kinds of javascript on their sites to try and prevent people from saving their images typically... disabling right-click, etc...
Alot of photographers are still very upset abo
The Heart of the Matter (Score:4, Interesting)
The judge in this latest case compared it to a book of multiple issues of the magazine, with each page printed as it originally had been, and also containing an index in the back to make it easy to find things.
The fact that the content has been digitized, and the fact that this convenient format makes the magazines attractive to a much wider audience, were found to be irrelevant.
That's a very interesting point, and one that I think I agree with. My first impression would have probably been that this is a new product, but I can definitely see how it's a new version of a product they already produced, and that National Geographic should be allowed to do this type of thing with their content. Of course, if they had to pay all the photographers again, or even get their permission, the consumer would lose because they would never be able to do this type of thing.
RP
Doesn't he mean... (Score:1)
Usage is not unlimited, thats where the courts... (Score:1)
So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Follow the money: The big money and their lackey lawyers go to court to keep from paying original copyright holders based on media type, but consistently sue buyers of their copyright permission for doing the same when the same legal principle is at stake. All this as they try -- and sometimes succeed -- to embed an illegal private-company tax on blank media to get "royalties" on everything that is put on all every type
Its a Fair Use issue (Score:1)
It is of no particular advantage to anyone that all groups want it all ways. It seems that the courts have consistently said (in most countries) that purchasers of content have the right to "fair-use" copying and preserving of that content. It also proves that "blank media taxes" v
Lets not forget; (Score:2)
It is an issue of context (Score:1)
Re:this is a non issue in the future (Score:2)
Why don't you guys log in? I would have modded this up and you would have Karma for it. *sigh*