Re: copyright

Gerry,

It's not even a grey area. He's completely within his rights - as best I
understand copyright law.

For one thing, you're not looking at The Gates /per se/ - you're looking
at */his photographs of The Gates/ *- a hugely important distinction.
(Different medium, includes people, shows the site, etc.) All of which
may have been intended in the Gates project, but are not a direct part
of it in the same way they are part of his images. He would argue this
is his unique take on what he saw on that afternoon.

It's very different from making a bootleg copy of the Sponge Bob movie
and showing it for $$$ in your living room. Reason being the Sponge Bob
movie would be an exact dupe. And even if he were to insert his images
into the Sponge Bob movie, it would likely be considered an infringement
of fair use because he would be showing the movie in it's entirety
rather than an excerpt.

The difference between a newspaper and a magazine is not relevant -
both are for profit. Tim would also say he is providing a news source
for photographers. You can decide not to buy his magazine, and the
advertisers can decide not to buy ads if they don't think it's a good
investment.

Most importantly, the images are his. He can print them where and when
he wishes.

Cheers,

Barry

Gerry Giliberti wrote:

> You've asked a lot of questions and I'm not sure if I can answer them
> all. The photos are the publishers (Tim Anderson). He shot them. You
> can view the photos on the website cameraarts.com. He has copy written
> the images so they are his.
>
> The reason I questioned why he printed them without permission (and
> that is the key here) was that I was under the impression that this
> was a work of art be it public or not, in the same sense as, for
> example, a movie. You can use it for you own enjoyment but if you
> invite people over your house and play it and charge them money,
> that's copyright infringement. (His publication is not a newspaper.
> He makes money when people come to view photographic art and use his
> advertisers.) I was just wondering how this type of art can be
> photographed and used to generate income without the artist's
> permission. This Gates thing seems like it falls into a gray area
> where copyright is concerned.
>
> Gerry G
>
> "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." Yogi Berra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Barry Kleider [mailto:bkleider@sihope.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:49 AM
> *To:* GGiliberti@controlotron.com
> *Subject:* offlist copyright
>
> Gerry,
> Could you provide a few more details for us?
>
> For instance, I'd like to see the images in question.
>
> I'd also like to know:
> Does he own the images?
> (If so, why are you questioning the decision to print them?)
> Does publication also include attribution?
> Who is the photographer, and how does he/she feel about this
> situation?
>
> Tim sounds a bit cold about the matter, but he's essentially right:
> if he owns the image (assuming no one else holds the copyrights)
> if it was shot on public land
> if the image is used as part of a news item
>
> it would likely be considered "fair use."
> He's also right in saying that it sometimes gets dicey.
>
> It would be courtesy for Tim to include the photographer's name on
> publication.
>
> (I used to work for a newspaper, and we ran into this sort of
> thing sometimes. If you need to talk to a lawyer about it, I can
> give you the name of the guy we used. Mark Anfinson represented
> the Minnesota Newspaper Association for a very long time and knows
> media law. I haven't talked to him in several years, but feel free
> to drop my name. Mark is a great guy and he can help you sort it
> out fairly quickly. His number is 612.827.5611)
>
> Regards,
>
> Barry Kleider
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 29 09:46:40 2005