Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I am arguing that people should not get their expectations up as to the nature of the protection that copyright registration provides, the ease of enforcement, the extent of the costs of insuring against copyright protection in terms of time and money, and what they anticipate by way of punitive damages and regular damages or other sanctions from infringers. (much cut) I see copyright regulation and enforcement like traffic lights. You sort of hope everyone follow them because the consequences of not doing so could be very messy, and being the one in the right is no guarantee that you'll be any less harmed than the person in the wrong. Art
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic)
Roger wrote: If the Copyright Office will accept CDs, many of us on this list would find if of great benefit since we already scan many of our photos and writing a CD is easier and cheaper than making contact sheets to send as a deposit. If their guidelines say anything about file formats and resolutions, that would be good too. I wouldn't want to have to send copies of all the full resolution scans I've done. Small (640x480 say) jpegs would be ideal because you could fit *stacks* on a single disk. I'll have to find out if there's any sort of registration of images in Australia. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:46:58 -0600 Stan McQueen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm concerned that the effect of your argument will be to convince people that it is not worthwhile to go to the effort of registering their images. For the avoidance of doubt : in most countries except the US, there is no concept of copyright registration. The fact of authorship is all that is required. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic)
Here's a further hint on the acceptability of CDs of scanned images. Take a look at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl107.pdf (Registration of Photographs). This indicates that Two or more unpublished photographs may be registered as a collection if: 1. The elements are assembled in an orderly form; 2. The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole; 3. The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection as a whole is the same; and 4. All the of the elements are by the same author... It does not specify the media in which the orderly form must be expressed, leaving open the possibility that CDs are acceptable. I left out one step in the process I follow. I also enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard that says something like: The stamp of the Copyright Office on this card indicates receipt of the following items, and upon the date noted: 1. Registration Form 2. Fee of $30.00 3. Photography by Stan McQueen, 2001 Volume 3 (CD containing scanned images) They stamp it with their official stamp and return it to me. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
Canada has some type of half-butt registration system. I have never been able to make much sense of it, or what value it has. I suspect, as with most matter of government, they'd rather not be bothered with it ;-) Art Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:46:58 -0600 Stan McQueen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm concerned that the effect of your argument will be to convince people that it is not worthwhile to go to the effort of registering their images. For the avoidance of doubt : in most countries except the US, there is no concept of copyright registration. The fact of authorship is all that is required. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
Stan wrote: What remedies are available in those countries that have no concept of copyright registration? AFAIK you simply have to be able to establish that you originated the work. With written material, a suggestion which I have received was to send a copy of the work to yourself by registered mail so that an official date is established. A cheaper and possibly less legally watertight method would be to send a copy to someone you trust and ask them to make sure they keep it. You then have some sort of corroboration to your claim from another party. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic) and Polaroid SS120 (on-topic)
AFA I recall from an earlier discussion on this list, it is not necessary to even to put a copyright notice -let alone the yearon/under your photos - you automatically own the copyright to the images you create. That said, it is always a good thing to do in order to prevent "misunderstandings":-) With regard to daisy-chaining Polaroids - I once daisychained two SS4000s. They came up in Silverfast under Scanners as Sprintscan 4000 ID:x and ID:y (SCSI ID NOs). You could thenselect which one to use.. If you would want to use them simultanously, you would probably have to install two copies of Silverfast or use one on PCI. Greetings Preben - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 July 2001 05:43 Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic) and Polaroid SS120 (on-topic) Rob, the copyright symbol in your notice should be followed immediately by the year, not your name. Stan, since when does the copyright office accept CDs for the required deposit? I was specifically told when I called them (US Copyright Office) about six months ago that they wouldn't accept CDs. They are studying the issue of digital registration of copyrights (with a particular concern for works of art "born digital"), but at the present time they still demand hardcopy photos (or a video tape of the photos). Maybe someday we'll be able to make our copyright application entirely via the internet, complete with digital signature, credit card payment, and digital deposits (such as scanned film or photos "born digital"). But right now, we still have to do it the old fashioned way. They probably threw your CDs away. Of course, they throw just about all deposits away after two years, so what difference does it make? Anyway, this is not the place for a long thread on this topic but I wanted to warn you that you may not have a legal copyright registration. By the way, all US photographers who register copyrights should checkout http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ for the latest forms, instructions, etc. Now for an on-topic request for info on the new Polaroid SS120 medium format scanner: I currently have a PC with Me operating system (firewire ready, from what I understand, but no firewire card installed). I currently have a Polaroid SS4000 installed via a SCSI card. If I buy an SS120, can I have both it and the SS4000 connected at the same time so that I can use either one as the mood strikes me? The SS120 can be used with either firewire or SCSI, but does not come with a card for either. I would like to connect it to the back of my SS4000 so that they form a SCSI daisy chain. Will that work? And what complications will I have with two sets of software? Or maybe four sets since I want to use both Insight and SilverFast with both scanners. Has anyone installed these two scanners on a PC simultaneously, and can they be made to coexist together? In a message dated 7/21/2001 9:36:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 12:07 AM 7/22/2001 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: On the larger images I've put "(c) Rob Geraghty 2001" where the (c) is the proper copyright symbol. Rob Finally, I register all my images with the copyright office by periodically sending a CD containing JPEGs to them. This allows me to recover actual plus punitive damages plus attorney's fees in the event of infringement (more than $100,000). This is really important, because without registration you can only recover actual damages, .. Stan
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic) and PolaroidSS120 (on-topic)
Title: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic) and Polaroid SS120 (on-topic) If I buy an SS120, can I have both it and the SS4000 connected at the same time so that I can use either one as the mood strikes me? Yes! It is a simple matter of selecting in either Insight Pro or SilverFast (if you get it) which scanner you wish to use. If one is connected to SCSI and the other Firewire you don't even need to worry about device ID's. Daisy Chaining them on the SCSI bus is also fairly easy in so far as all you need ensure is that each uses a different ID. Ian Lyons http://www.computer-darkroom.com
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
Laurie wrote: Like locks, copyright notices and the like are basically only for the honest and should not in and of themselves be regarded as practical protection against deliberate infringements - actual or potential. I don't think anybody who's in or near the business can disagree with *that* statement (or the rest of Laurie's post, FTM, which I'm not including here). It seems to me that the latest US Copyright Law (and other IP decisions) as convoluted and in places compex as they are, favor the pickpocket and locksmith (to extend Laurie's metaphor) more than the person who created the property in the first place. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
Rob, Registering a copyright in one country first gives you copyright protection in that country even if you do not live there or are not a citizen there and second may give you some legal standing in other countries if you should wish to bring legal action against someone who has infringed on the copyright in that other country. In the later case, the copyright registration in the US for example provides a prima facia case for common-law legal claims in another country like Canada, UK, Australia, etc. even if one has not formally registered the copyright in those countries and may not be fully entitled to the complete copyright protections or punitive damages and sanctions furnished under that copyright laws of that country. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright Stan McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. What protection does registration with the *US* Copyright office offer if the person who infringes your copyright is in another country? Conversely, what good does the US copyright office offer myself as an Australian citizen? Presumably I can't mail CDs of pictures to the USA for registration. I don't know of such a service in Australia. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. Correct. If your image is registered, even the casual image buyer will have much to fear from you, because he will have to pay your court costs. You will, in all likelihood, end up owning his business. Even if logically true, this is not practically so. The casual image buyer often has little or no knowledge or understanding of copyright laws or the consequences of violating them so they do not typically serve as an effective deterrent in the case of that class of buyers. Those in that class of buyers who do regularly infringe on copyrights or are prone to will continue to do so playing the laws of averages which favors their not getting caught or having legal action being pursued against them. Having said that, one also has to recognize that the monetary fines and legal penalties associated with the criminal aspects of copyright infringement depend on the decisions of the judge who often takes into consideration such things as the deliberateness of the infringement and any potential fair use aspects that might apply when deciding on penalties and sanctions. Moreover, such penalties and sanctions (i.e., criminal sanctions and costs as opposed to civil) go to the state and not the copyright owner who in criminal cases is not the plaintiff. The copyright owner is the plaintiff only in the civil aspects of the case where court costs, legal costs, and damages are granted to the copyright owner under the provisions of the copyright law. But here again, it is up to the judges discretion as to how much within the range permitted by the law will be allowed. The judge does not have to grant the full amounts stated in the copyright law's statutory statement of penalties and damages but only has to grant a reasonable amount given the circumstances within those statutory limits. I don't believe the incorporation status matters. Incorporation cannot shield one from illegal acts. Since most copyright law violations and infringements are civil matters and not criminal violations, incorporation does furnish a great deal of protection to the individuals within the corporate structure. If the violation was a criminal one rather than a civil violation under the law, you might be right. However, incorporation also typically affords protections in that commercial violators often are corporations owned by corporations who are subsidiaries of corporations that are owned by layers of holding companies. This is one of the reasons why mail order scams never result in the arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing of individual perpetrators who are the main beneficiaries; it is only the small fish that get caught and punished. If an individual uses your copyrighted images on their website (and you find out), you can notify the ISP of the infringement. Since they don't want to hand their business over to you, they will generally cooperate, or so I'm told by those who have done it. Once again the effectiveness of this action depends on the ISP. Many ISPs claim and argue that they are mere conduits for information and data transfer and not policemen. They will take action only after the courts have deemed the infringement legitimately an infringement in violation of the law (i.e., after the legal action has be resolved by the courts). If the general effectiveness of the suggested approach were high, I would suggest that we would see similar effectiveness in the impact of complaints on ISPs controlling spam and pornography that flows over their portals and/or via hackers utilizing their networks and addresses. The fact is that any effort on their part at preventing copyright infringement tends to work with only the honest violators who have done so without malice of deliberate intent and not on those who knowingly and deliberately use images in violation of copyrights. It is for these reasons that I say you might be overly optimistic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. I have never experienced infringement myself. I am getting my information second hand from the EP and StockPhoto lists. I should have mentioned that the people who have told me this have all experienced the infringement at the hands of (otherwise) legitimate publishers who would normally have licensed the image, but probably didn't due to some administrative foulup. If your image is registered, even the casual image buyer will have much to fear from you, because he will have to pay your court costs. You will, in all likelihood, end up owning his business. Of course, if the defendant
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
At 02:16 AM 7/22/2001 -0500, you wrote: It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. Correct. Then what are you arguing about? And why? I'm concerned that the effect of your argument will be to convince people that it is not worthwhile to go to the effort of registering their images. That would not be a Good Thing would it? Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic)
Stan, you may be correct in your belief that the US Copyright Office will accept CDs as a deposit when registering photographs. All I can say is that I was told otherwise when I talked to them via telephone. I just completed a search of the Copyright Offices web site and couldn't find the answer there. I did find a comment that "Circular 96, Sections 202.19, 202.20, and 202.21 ... contains the deposit regulations of the Copyright Office." So I have written for a copy and will report back here if it answers the question. I'm suspicious of the answer I was give by the Copyright office because I've read that ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) was instrumental in getting them to accept a video tape of photographs and slides as a deposit, but the woman I talked to wasn't aware of that either; she insisted on hardcopies. Sorry for this being off-topic, but it is an important issue and I'll try to end any long-thread speculation by getting an answer directly from the Copyright Office. If the Copyright Office will accept CDs, many of us on this list would find if of great benefit since we already scan many of our photos and writing a CD is easier and cheaper than making contact sheets to send as a deposit. I know, because I spent an entire day in the darkroom doing just that just a few months ago even though all images had previously been scanned. In a message dated 7/22/2001 3:51:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stan, since when does the copyright office accept CDs for the required deposit? I was specifically told when I called them (US Copyright Office) about six months ago that they wouldn't accept CDs. They are studying the issue of digital registration of copyrights (with a particular concern for works of art "born digital"), but at the present time they still demand hardcopy photos (or a video tape of the photos). Maybe someday we'll be able to make our copyright application entirely via the internet, complete with digital signature, credit card payment, and digital deposits (such as scanned film or photos "born digital"). But right now, we still have to do it the old fashioned way. They probably threw your CDs away. Of course, they throw just about all deposits away after two years, so what difference does it make? Anyway, this is not the place for a long thread on this topic but I wanted to warn you that you may not have a legal copyright registration. By the way, all US photographers who register copyrights should checkout http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ for the latest forms, instructions, etc. I can only hope your source is wrong about this. Here is the information I have been basing my registrations on (snippet from message posted by Fred Ward on the EditorialPhoto list): I spent the day yesterday in the copyright section of the Library of Congress in Washington. I was looking for some infringements where others may have copyrighted my work. While there I sat with two copyright specialists and asked a number of questions that relate to photographers and registrations. 1. My latest registration technique is to place images onto writable CDs. Here are the rules related to registering multiple images or collections of pictures: Photographs on CDs are fine if all the included works have NOT been published. You cannot register published pictures on a CD. This is because the LofC requires a physical copy or photocopy of the published material to accompany your registration form; Image size and resolution are not important. The specialists said to make them large enough to clearly be seen and recognized; No written description is needed on the CD or on the images inside or on the registration document. You can just put "unpublished pictures" if you like. MAC and PC CDs are accepted; Stan
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
At 12:07 AM 7/22/2001 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: I note there's been some discussion of copyright lately. I just uploaded a stack of new pictures to my website, and it's taken quite a while to process them all. On the larger images I've put (c) Rob Geraghty 2001 where the (c) is the proper copyright symbol. I've also marked each picture using Digimarc watermarking, which is built into Paintshop Pro. The watermarking works OK on larger images (like 1024x768) but makes smaller images (320x200) really poor. It makes the images look like they've used a higher level of compression than they have. I guess 320x200 is so small that nobody could do much with it, but it's also too small to put the text copyright message in. Has anyone else tried this sort of thing? If you want to see what the images look like they're on http://wordweb.com and click on the Stories link in the index at the top, then the link to the story about Airlie Beach. They've all been scanned using a Nikon LS30 scanner with Vuescan. This is the argumentative film which Vuescan's dust and scratch filtering doesn't seem to work on. I'd be interested to hear the comments of others on the subject of copyrighting images for web publication. Rob I do something similar on my website ( http://www.smcqueen.com ). I wrote a Perl script that takes the original TIFF file, plus a text file with info for the database, and produces two JPEGs--one for a thumbnail and a larger one to display when someone clicks on the thumbnail. Both images are produced in 72ppi density. The larger one has some framing that contains a copyright notice. The thumbnail doesn't, because as you've noted, there really isn't room. Although I use PSP, also I don't bother with the Digimarc watermarking, because it is not that hard to break (or so I've been told) and I think degrades the image somewhat. With small (200x200 or 400x400) images at 72ppi I'm not too worried about someone stealing the image and producing a magazine spread or calendar layout. In addition to the copyright notice on the larger image, there is a copyright notice on the entire site noting that all images are copyrighted by me unless otherwise marked. (For example, I have a picture of me taking a picture on the front page. That photo was taken by friend and fellow photographer Gary Hall. I have his copyright notice on it and a link to his website.) Finally, I register all my images with the copyright office by periodically sending a CD containing JPEGs to them. This allows me to recover actual plus punitive damages plus attorney's fees in the event of infringement (more than $100,000). This is really important, because without registration you can only recover actual damages, which are like to be fairly small--just the income you lost by the perpetrator stealing your photo rather than licensing it from you. I haven't experienced infringement yet, but I'm told by those who have that virtually all infringers will gladly pay your triple licensing fee in accordance with ASMP and EP practice rather than chance a suit over a registered image. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
I'm told by those who have that virtually all infringers will gladly pay your triple licensing fee in accordance with ASMP and EP practice rather than chance a suit over a registered image. This statement is slightly over-optimistic and a little lacking in qualifications. First, it probably is truer of legitimate established picture buyers, who would probably pay the licensing fees anyway, than the average man on the street or the causal image buyer who is running a personal home office operation. The latter do not understand, like, or support copyright rights and reject notions of having to pay to use things on the web, for starters; they also are willing to play the odds against getting caught since they often are engaging in relatively small and narrowly focused distribution of the used images. Moreover, they often count on the costs in time and effort as well as the monetary expenses of the copyright owner undertaking proceedings against them legally to dissuade any such action from being taken against them since they recognize that they are little fish and that, despite any court's orders, you cannot get more money from someone than they have - they also may be protected from personal penalties if they formed a corporation and acted under the cloak of that corporation. Second, it is up to the copyright owner to be vigilant in protecting his or her copyright, which means that you would have to be spending a lot of time and effort keeping track of your images and their potential and actual uses in the marketplace in order to be able to bring any action against an infringer. This is often more trouble than it is worth; and most infringers know that. Furthermore, they also know the speed of the courts in hearing and acting on cases, which is extraordinarily slow and tedious. Thus, they are prone to count on the copyright owner not pursuing the case to a legal conclusion but - at worst - settling out of court for pennies on a dollar of what they might have obtained if they had gotten the license fees or the legal penalty had been levied. Like locks, copyright notices and the like are basically only for the honest and should not in and of themselves be regarded as practical protection against deliberate infringements - actual or potential. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright At 12:07 AM 7/22/2001 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: I note there's been some discussion of copyright lately. I just uploaded a stack of new pictures to my website, and it's taken quite a while to process them all. On the larger images I've put (c) Rob Geraghty 2001 where the (c) is the proper copyright symbol. I've also marked each picture using Digimarc watermarking, which is built into Paintshop Pro. The watermarking works OK on larger images (like 1024x768) but makes smaller images (320x200) really poor. It makes the images look like they've used a higher level of compression than they have. I guess 320x200 is so small that nobody could do much with it, but it's also too small to put the text copyright message in. Has anyone else tried this sort of thing? If you want to see what the images look like they're on http://wordweb.com and click on the Stories link in the index at the top, then the link to the story about Airlie Beach. They've all been scanned using a Nikon LS30 scanner with Vuescan. This is the argumentative film which Vuescan's dust and scratch filtering doesn't seem to work on. I'd be interested to hear the comments of others on the subject of copyrighting images for web publication. Rob I do something similar on my website ( http://www.smcqueen.com ). I wrote a Perl script that takes the original TIFF file, plus a text file with info for the database, and produces two JPEGs--one for a thumbnail and a larger one to display when someone clicks on the thumbnail. Both images are produced in 72ppi density. The larger one has some framing that contains a copyright notice. The thumbnail doesn't, because as you've noted, there really isn't room. Although I use PSP, also I don't bother with the Digimarc watermarking, because it is not that hard to break (or so I've been told) and I think degrades the image somewhat. With small (200x200 or 400x400) images at 72ppi I'm not too worried about someone stealing the image and producing a magazine spread or calendar layout. In addition to the copyright notice on the larger image, there is a copyright notice on the entire site noting that all images are copyrighted by me unless otherwise marked. (For example, I have a picture of me taking a picture on the front page. That photo was taken by friend and fellow photographer Gary Hall. I have his copyright notice on it and a link to his website.) Finally, I register all my images with the copyright office by periodically sending a CD containing
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. I have never experienced infringement myself. I am getting my information second hand from the EP and StockPhoto lists. I should have mentioned that the people who have told me this have all experienced the infringement at the hands of (otherwise) legitimate publishers who would normally have licensed the image, but probably didn't due to some administrative foulup. If your image is registered, even the casual image buyer will have much to fear from you, because he will have to pay your court costs. You will, in all likelihood, end up owning his business. Of course, if the defendant is judgement-proof because of no funds, it doesn't matter what you do--you won't collect. I don't believe the incorporation status matters. Incorporation cannot shield one from illegal acts. If an individual uses your copyrighted images on their website (and you find out), you can notify the ISP of the infringement. Since they don't want to hand their business over to you, they will generally cooperate, or so I'm told by those who have done it. Finally, the point I was trying to make is that, in order to avail oneself of the fullest protection of the law, your image copyrights need to be registered with the Copyright Office. Otherwise, your rights of recovery are limited by law to actual damages, which are not usually worth pursuing. Stan At 12:25 AM 7/21/2001 -0500, you wrote: I'm told by those who have that virtually all infringers will gladly pay your triple licensing fee in accordance with ASMP and EP practice rather than chance a suit over a registered image. This statement is slightly over-optimistic and a little lacking in qualifications. First, it probably is truer of legitimate established picture buyers, who would probably pay the licensing fees anyway, than the average man on the street or the causal image buyer who is running a personal home office operation. The latter do not understand, like, or support copyright rights and reject notions of having to pay to use things on the web, for starters; they also are willing to play the odds against getting caught since they often are engaging in relatively small and narrowly focused distribution of the used images. Moreover, they often count on the costs in time and effort as well as the monetary expenses of the copyright owner undertaking proceedings against them legally to dissuade any such action from being taken against them since they recognize that they are little fish and that, despite any court's orders, you cannot get more money from someone than they have - they also may be protected from personal penalties if they formed a corporation and acted under the cloak of that corporation. Second, it is up to the copyright owner to be vigilant in protecting his or her copyright, which means that you would have to be spending a lot of time and effort keeping track of your images and their potential and actual uses in the marketplace in order to be able to bring any action against an infringer. This is often more trouble than it is worth; and most infringers know that. Furthermore, they also know the speed of the courts in hearing and acting on cases, which is extraordinarily slow and tedious. Thus, they are prone to count on the copyright owner not pursuing the case to a legal conclusion but - at worst - settling out of court for pennies on a dollar of what they might have obtained if they had gotten the license fees or the legal penalty had been levied. Like locks, copyright notices and the like are basically only for the honest and should not in and of themselves be regarded as practical protection against deliberate infringements - actual or potential. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright At 12:07 AM 7/22/2001 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: I note there's been some discussion of copyright lately. I just uploaded a stack of new pictures to my website, and it's taken quite a while to process them all. On the larger images I've put (c) Rob Geraghty 2001 where the (c) is the proper copyright symbol. I've also marked each picture using Digimarc watermarking, which is built into Paintshop Pro. The watermarking works OK on larger images (like 1024x768) but makes smaller images (320x200) really poor. It makes the images look like they've used a higher level of compression than they have. I guess 320x200 is so small that nobody could do much with it, but it's also too small to put the text copyright message in. Has anyone else tried this sort of thing? If you want to see what the images look like they're on http://wordweb.com and click on the Stories link in the index at the top, then the link to the story
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
Stan McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. What protection does registration with the *US* Copyright office offer if the person who infringes your copyright is in another country? Conversely, what good does the US copyright office offer myself as an Australian citizen? Presumably I can't mail CDs of pictures to the USA for registration. I don't know of such a service in Australia. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright (off-topic) and Polaroid SS120 (on-topic)
Rob, the copyright symbol in your notice should be followed immediately by the year, not your name. Stan, since when does the copyright office accept CDs for the required deposit? I was specifically told when I called them (US Copyright Office) about six months ago that they wouldn't accept CDs. They are studying the issue of digital registration of copyrights (with a particular concern for works of art "born digital"), but at the present time they still demand hardcopy photos (or a video tape of the photos). Maybe someday we'll be able to make our copyright application entirely via the internet, complete with digital signature, credit card payment, and digital deposits (such as scanned film or photos "born digital"). But right now, we still have to do it the old fashioned way. They probably threw your CDs away. Of course, they throw just about all deposits away after two years, so what difference does it make? Anyway, this is not the place for a long thread on this topic but I wanted to warn you that you may not have a legal copyright registration. By the way, all US photographers who register copyrights should checkout http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ for the latest forms, instructions, etc. Now for an on-topic request for info on the new Polaroid SS120 medium format scanner: I currently have a PC with Me operating system (firewire ready, from what I understand, but no firewire card installed). I currently have a Polaroid SS4000 installed via a SCSI card. If I buy an SS120, can I have both it and the SS4000 connected at the same time so that I can use either one as the mood strikes me? The SS120 can be used with either firewire or SCSI, but does not come with a card for either. I would like to connect it to the back of my SS4000 so that they form a SCSI daisy chain. Will that work? And what complications will I have with two sets of software? Or maybe four sets since I want to use both Insight and SilverFast with both scanners. Has anyone installed these two scanners on a PC simultaneously, and can they be made to coexist together? In a message dated 7/21/2001 9:36:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 12:07 AM 7/22/2001 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: On the larger images I've put "(c) Rob Geraghty 2001" where the (c) is the proper copyright symbol. Rob Finally, I register all my images with the copyright office by periodically sending a CD containing JPEGs to them. This allows me to recover actual plus punitive damages plus attorney's fees in the event of infringement (more than $100,000). This is really important, because without registration you can only recover actual damages, .. Stan
