Hardly anyone really does, expecially in this day of the internet where anyone can get something out there right away.
I've had drawings used in publications, websites and even 2 books, without my permission. I have a friend who handles international copyright law and he's really jumped on those people and every time, they've whined that, "but I didn't know," or had some really flimsy excuse that held no legal water.

Please put your tin foil hats away. I was asked to pass along word to other photographers, for them to see if their photos had also been SUBMITTED to the website in question without permission. I was, and still am, very clear in asserting that nobody is accusing the website in question as being the responsible party. It is very likely they were an innocent bystander, who got caught up in someone else's shenanigans.

The thread would have died a very natural death, had nobody interjected the opinion that a photographer, whoever it may be, is being petty or egotistical for standing up for their rights.

It sounds like OP has a shockingly militant view on copyright. I think he overlooks the various laws involved in the long path to verdict. Nonetheless, he has a point: legally you have to make some diligent effort to enforce your copy rights if you want the legal system to protect them. You can't just indifferently allow everybody to brazenly rip you off, and then suddenly drop the hammer on one guy. This sabre-rattling at Ross does have the effect of showing diligence in that area.

I would achieve the same legal effect with a slightly different approach. "Hey, you're infringing, obviously I think you're awesome and don't want to hassle you, so I'm willing to absolutely clear your rights for $1 and credit. Here's a plain English contract to that effect, sign and mail back to me." But then my objective would not be drama, it would be to a) get credit and b) become a permanent and indispensible part of Ross's press kit. After all the entire point of taking pictures is for people to see them.


Here's what it suggests to me. The photographer spent perhaps two hours scouting out the photo site, planning his shot, framing it, catching good weather, scaring off other photographers that would be in shot, and pushing the button at just the right time. So congrats... two hours of his expert time.

Now let's tally Ross's contribution to that shot. Let's see, how many MILLIONS of dollars and years of his life committed, business risks taken, survival in THIS excursion market, labor taken to get that excursion to happen, for which the photographer paid --

-- oh, but I interrupted you. You were saying:



Edit: Cut "til the hammer drops" because I used hammer twice

I did not find Ross's remark to be snide and I agree with him that it's much ado about little. His web person was the victim of a misattributed photo. They took it down as the law requires and that should be that.

I myself have been victimized. I was startled a few years back when a major popular (as in it's on every newsstand) tech-oriented magazine published a photo I'd taken back in the 70's in a bio about a new higher up at a tech company. The magazine, owned by a major international publisher, said they'd gotten it from the tech company, which presumably helped themselves from a web page I'd posted. It was settled amicably and I got an additional payment when the Italian version of the magazine published the article.

Not so satisfactory was when a technical publication illustrated a story with an old ad I had posted on my webpage. I knew it was my scan because of certain glitches in it. I held no copyright to the image itself and not sure what rights merely making the scan might create (likely none) but felt they should have credited the source. The author dismissed that.

Steve

Along the lines of this topic..... I am aware that the St. Louis Steam Train Association trademarked the number plate "image" of the 1522 ( http://www.trademarken.com/trademark/73 ... SSOCIATION ) . Could this be done with a locomotive in it's entirety?

Using the 614 as a case study.....just for the sake of discussion.....is there something along the lines of trademark that could be filed preventing the commercial use of images of the locomotive? To define, the use of any images whether photographed or artist rendering of the locomotive, number plate, cab or tender lettering, etc. for the purpose of profit?

Interesting subject in my mind, Jason

Fair enough, Steve ... but would you not be at least a little bit irritated, if a representative of the magazine accused you publicly of being silly or petty for standing up for your rights?

It's not like the photographer was looking to make money on the photos. He simply wanted them removed. Why was it so difficult for people to simply respect his rights, and comply without offering an opinion on the matter?

If Ross doesn't understand why a photographer would be sensitive to having images used without permission, I get that. But, don't be dismissive about someone's rights and not expect a push back.

It would get rather convoluted, Jason. Trademark law can get extremely complicated when compared to copyright, and it doesn't preclude artistic use outright. For example, the famous Warhol painting of Campbell's Soup cans. Even though Campbell's was trademarked, Warhol was allowed to use them under Fair Use, and could sell the painting for a profit. Since he wasn't trying to sell soup, and there was no damage or dilution to the tradmark owner, there was no basis for an infringment.

I would venture to say it would likely work in a similar way. Trademarking would only keep someone from marketing another locomotive as C&O 614. It wouldn't bar all artistic uses of the trademark.

A good comparison may be a vintage aircraft. I couldn't trademark a P-51 Mustang outright ... but if I have original or distinctive artwork, or identifying markings on the airplane, I could trademark those. If someone used them in an artistic manner, I would have to prove damage or dilution for trademark infringment to occur. Even then, it could get complicated. If I use one image of the aircraft in a calender of various different vintage airplanes, it might not be considered infringement. If I do a single calender ONLY of that aircraft, with 30 different images of the same airplane, I would likely be found in violation of the trademark for not obtaining a license to use it.

Doesn't sound like you were victimized in that case. It sounds like your marketing department was more effective than you knew :)


Depends. If the original work is <1923, it is in the public domain, and you can't copyright it simply by moving it to another medium, which is kind of a shame if serious Photoshop restoration work was involved. If the original work is >=1923, it is copyright by someone else, you have unclean hands to claim any rights of your own. The copyright owner would want you to put your name on it, also, an address at which you can be served ;)

Either way, in this latter case your conduct was indistinguishable from that of a copyright troll (who contrives copyright claims for the express purpose of extortion, see Righthaven), and you were treated lightly compared to how copyright trolls should be treated.

I totally get that you didn't roll out of bed and go "La La La, I think I'll be a copyright troll today, hear my evil laugh"... it just goes to show how easily "copyright mentality" can lead people to ... mistakes.

Not least, those brilliantly described here: http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.shtml
By which I mean, there's no percentage in getting undie-bunched about IP.

What could be done in the rhelm of protecting merchandising profit? Pins, shirts, post cards, videos, coffee mugs, etc.... with the idea that the sale of such items by others does infact dilute the potential for profit by the owner of the "614" (again, just being used as a case study).

Thanks all, Jason

Those would all likely be protected by tradmark law. Just like it is nearly impossible to make a Coca Cola, UPS, John Deere, or any other product without an official license.

No, in the 2nd instance cited I never made any claim of ownership whatsoever only the common courtesy of asking before taking and crediting "from the collection of." No copyright trolling.

Steve

Discussions like this are why there is such a gulf sometimes between "Railfans" and "Railroaders." Having been on both sides, I can say that I've found each to be a mixed bag of good and bad. Though I understand the photographer's concerns and also Ross' perceived annoyance (are we maybe reading a little too much into his words here?), the fact remains that there is a symbiotic relationship here. The 614 has to be at the place and time desired in order for the artist to work their magic. This is why I sometimes struggle to hold photos in the same light as painting or poetry.

I think we need to give Ross a break here before he decides to will the 614 to Luther Diggs as a retirement gift.

And what about something like this (see attached pic). A local "artist" in NJ, has been taking images of the Whippany Railway Museum's equipment, structures, etc. For several years he has been producing trinkets (mugs, t-shirts, mouse pads, etc.), as well as large framed artwork (costing hundreds of dollars). Permission was not given by the organization to this individual to enter private property for commercial purposes, and nothing so much as a donation was ever sent to the group, even though he had been contacted several times. Nice work and all, but very frustrating to be sure. His website shows other material: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/trai ... savad.html

And you have just given this guy who has no respect for the preservation community a huge advert and a link to his website..... I suppose now we all know who he is...
This whole thread is typical of RYPN these days ...when a post about copyright infringement of photographs gets way way more viewers than a post on restoration of railway equipment

Very sad

Mike Pannell

Did you're organization build and design the rolling stock? It seems any "trademarks" would belong to ALCO and Bethlehem Shipbuilding, and even then it is still hard to back up a trademark/copyright clam. as for someone making t-shirts and mouse-pads of c&o 614 I think the same would apply if any trademark was owned it would be by Lima Locomotive Works or whoever owns the rights of that company now. Now if Mr.Roland made an artistic sculpture of c&o 614 then a trademark and or copyright clams could be filed agenest the T-Shirt mouse pad company.