Showing posts with label Copyright Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright Law. Show all posts

Monday, May 30, 2016

PHOTO RIGHTS | Copyright Law (Updated Oct 18, 2016)

The Copyright Office administers
changing copyright laws.
I am on both sides of the copyright issue. On one side I am a rights manager. On the other I am a user of works that are or were under copyright or are protected by common law.

As my mother's executor, I am managing copyrights for her published writing that expire in 2056, rights to her unpublished writing, copyrights to her published illustrations that expire in 2076, and rights to her unpublished art. I am approached by museums to allow reproduction of my mother's art, by publishers who want to reprint her books, and by movie-makers seeking to turn books into television shows or movies.

As a publisher, I need to protect the intellectual property that I publish while making sure that we don't infringe on the rights of others.

As a blogger and writer, I am often looking for artwork to include with my writing and usually want something quickly and free. The "Fair Use" provisions of copyright law allow me some leeway because my blog posts represent commentary.  Here's one summary of Fair Use:
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Source: What Is Fair Use? - Copyright Overview by Rich Stim. 
Increasingly, I am getting into the habit of checking on the "Visit Page" option when I look up Images on Google, and only using an image when there is no copyright attached or a liberal policy of fair use is announced or implied. I seek to acknowledge sources for every image I use as well as quotes or paraphrases.

Recently I came across a summary of the basics of copyright law as applied to photos that I found useful. What goes on in the real world is that there is a lot of appropriating of other people's work in the name of commentary and hommage. If the system is to work, we need a higher level of understanding of and compliance with the law. It doesn't help, however, that copyright law is so complicated. Here are the basics from the Copyright Office.

If you know of other good sources, please comment.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

CITYECONOMIST | June 2, 2015–170K Pageviews; Most Popular

Thank you for reading and have a good month.
The CityEconomist Blog reached 170,000 Page Views today, June 2. That's 10,000 Page Views in five weeks, or 2,000 per week.

I appreciate your clicking on this blogsite.

The most-viewed posts in the last month, in order of number of Page Views are:

May 22, 2015

May 5, 2015

May 18, 2015

May 21, 2015

May 11, 2015

Jan 26, 2015

May 30, 2015

Jan 29, 2015

May 29, 2015

May 8, 2015

Monday, May 11, 2015

LAW | Not Copyright's Finest Hour, 1939

We think of the copyright law as a blessed compromise between the need of the public for access to literature and the need of writers for revenue.

But David Post, via the Volokh Conspiracy on the Washington Post blogsite, today reminded us that the copyright law has been used to suppress speech.

In 1938, Alan Cranston (1914-2000) - then a correspondent for the INS just two years out of Stanford, later to serve with distinction in the U.S. Senate - violated the copyright of a world-famous person in the public interest.

The person whose rights were violated - according to a U.S. court decision - was Adolf Hitler and the book was an English translation of
Mein Kampf. 

Cranston said his public purpose was  to “wake up the Americans to the Nazi threat.” Here is Cranston's story from an interview dated 2000, the year of his death:
I read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the book he wrote while he was in prison before he became the dictator, outlining his plans for Germany and the terrible things he intended to do in the world. There was no English language version of it. [O]ne day in Macy’s bookstore in New York I saw a display of Mein Kampf, an English language version, which I’d never seen before, which hadn’t existed. I went over to look at it out of curiosity and as I picked it up, I knew it wasn’t the real book. It was much thinner than the long book that I had read, which is about 350,000 words. So I bought it to see how come. And delving into it I found that it was a condensed version, and some of the things that would most upset Americans just weren’t there as they were in the version I had read, the original, in German.
So I talked to an editor friend of mine in New York, a Hearst editor named Amster Spiro, and suggested that I write and we publish an anti-Nazi version of Mein Kampf that would be the real book and would awaken Americans to the peril Hitler posed for us and the rest of the world. So we did that. I spent eight days [compiling] my version of Mein Kampf from the English language version that I now had, the original German language version, and another copy that had just appeared.
[Hitler’s] book was then selling for around three dollars a copy. Hitler was getting forty cents royalty for each copy that somebody bought … We proceeded to print in tabloid the version that I wrote, with a very lurid red cover showing Hitler carving up the world, and we sold it for ten cents on newsstands. It created quite a stir. Some Nazis went around knocking down newsstands that displayed it in St. Louis and the German part of New York and elsewhere in the country. We sold half a million copies in ten days and were immediately sued by Hitler’s agents on the grounds we had violated his copyright …
David Post adds that Hitler won his copyright case in the U.S. District Court, Second Circuit. His German publisher, Eher-Verlag of Munich, and the US publisher to which it had assigned the US copyright, Houghton Mifflin, persuaded the court to enjoin further publication of Cranston’s version in the United States and to order destruction of existing copies. Houghton Mifflin v. Stackpole, 104 F.2d 306 (2d Cir., June 9, 1939).

Hitler got to continue to receive royalties, and to control publication of his book, 10 weeks before he marched into Poland.