Anyone ever use your images without permission?

[slidekellyslide]

I guess the city of Lincoln felt it was okay to raid my photobucket account to make their PDF slideshow of Lincoln baseball. I most definitely would have told them it was okay to use whatever they wanted but a little bit irksome that they didn't even feel the need to ask...I noticed in the comments section that they credit me for the photos. I only found this because I do an occasional search of Google for "Lincoln Chiefs".

http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/CITY/parks...otohistory.pdf

[Leon]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I guess the city of Lincoln felt it was okay to raid my photobucket account to make their PDF slideshow of Lincoln baseball. I most definitely would have told them it was okay to use whatever they wanted but a little bit irksome that they didn't even feel the need to ask...I noticed in the comments section that they credit me for the photos. I only found this because I do an occasional search of Google for "Lincoln Chiefs".

http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/CITY/parks...otohistory.pdf

Yes, I have had lots of my images used before...even on other forums, with no credits. They should ask first, and if granted permission, should give credit. That would be the correct way to do it but almost no one does it that way. regards

[cfc1909]

i have also seen my cards in other places. I have not owned my cards for 100 years so in some of the cases (not all) I am not sure if the scans were before or after I owned them.

[Rob D.]

If they ever Archive those photos, you could threaten to sue.

[GoldenAge50s]

Dan---

I believe you can make your PhotoBucket acct Private--If it isn't the whole world can have access to whatever you put in there!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

Dan---

I believe you can make your PhotoBucket acct Private--If it isn't the whole world can have access to whatever you put in there!

Fred, I have my family photos on photobucket private, but I keep my collection photos available for viewing by anyone...as said I have no problem with them using them, but common courtesy would be to ask first.

[Exhibitman]

I have and I don't care. The items aren't really mine anyway, philosophically speaking--I am just the current owner of some of them. I figure as long as the info is out there people who are interested will google the item and find my site anyway and in the meantime people learn from it. As Emil Faber said "Knowledge is good."

[egbeachley]

Doesn't bother me. The image is not mine, it's the property of the photographer, lithographer, artist, publisher, etc. or whoever has since purchased their rights.

[bmarlowe1]

....but common courtesy would be to ask first.[/quote]

I agree it is a matter of good manners and being polite - especially for an organization like a city.

All must bear in mind that most of the stuff discussed in this forum was effectively "published" a very long time ago, and is not subject to copyright protection.

[GoldenAge50s]

Dan---

I certainly agree on the common courtesy point---It goes down much better if someone just asks!

[brianp-beme]

I have only used one photo of a card that was not mine...and it is my avatar. At the time I had a new computer, no scanner, and no saved images. So I don't even know what 1921 Zeenut I have as an avatar...but I have Dennis King's website to thank...can I please still use it Dennis?

Brian

[shammus]

As many of you know, I designed and built my own website and have built many card-related websites over the years. A few years back, for my own site, I had designed a larger graphic for my sites homepage that contained the images of several prewar players in kind of a "collage". The text on the collage read "Shammus' Prewar Cards". I had one person, who I believe is a board member still, steal this artwork, crudely airbrushed out the word "Shammus" and replace it with "Richard's" or something like that. He then proceeded to use my art on his own homepage as well as copied and pasted content directly off of my site and on to his own.

Stealing someones artwork in that manner is a little different since you're actually taking work the other person created and using it for your own purposes. Anyway, I wrote him a couple times, the first time politely, the second time not so politely and told him to quit stealing other's work and to take my art off his site which I believe he finally did.

Edit....I got curious and went out to look at his site. I just noticed the content he pasted from my site originally is still there. Jeez...

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have and I don't care. The items aren't really mine anyway, philosophically speaking--I am just the current owner of some of them. I figure as long as the info is out there people who are interested will google the item and find my site anyway and in the meantime people learn from it. As Emil Faber said "Knowledge is good."

I tend to agree with this, but if they had contacted me then they would have found out that three of the photos they used have nothing to do with Sherman Field which is the title of the site...I've got a feeling they put this together as part of their fundraiser to fix up Sherman Field.

[Cat]

I have had many of my card scans used too, but the only time I get pissed is when they show up on EBay.

[Dean's Cards]

I was told by a copyright lawyer that photos placed on the internet were considered public domain. If you do not want people using the photos, then you can watermark them.

[Jacklitsch]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I have only used one photo of a card that was not mine...and it is my avatar. At the time I had a new computer, no scanner, and no saved images. So I don't even know what 1921 Zeenut I have as an avatar...but I have Dennis King's website to thank...can I please still use it Dennis?

Brian

I believe your avatar is Syl Johnson of the Portland Team.


Major League info:

Syl Johnson
Sylvester W Johnson
Born Sylvester Johnson Bats: Right , Throws: Right
Height: 5' 11" , Weight: 180 lb.
Born: December 31, 1900 in Portland, OR
High School: Portland (Portland, OR) (All Transactions)
Debut: April 24, 1922
Final Game: September 26, 1940
Died: February 20, 1985 in Portland, OR

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Dean's Cards

I was told by a copyright lawyer that photos placed on the internet were considered public domain. If you do not want people using the photos, then you can watermark them.

Dean,

You may be talking legality. Dan was talking about common courtesy.

[jmk59]

I think I would be a little upset by this one. First off, we are collectors and part of what is fun about collecting is the occasional ability to show off items in our collections. When someone else shows an item without mentioning that it came from our collections, it may feel a little like a loss or a slight. This is true regardless of whether it is technically or legally "correct" to use posted images.

But the one that gets me here is how many of them were used. I think if someone used one of my images for a minor this or that, I might not mind as much. This looks more like they raided Dan's whole collection and used images to compile this publication. There is little else in the thing besides Dan's images - no text, no commentary, etc. I don't know exactly which drawings, etc, came from Dan, but from the photos I recognize it looks his collection is a significant portion of this.

So now it's not just the images they've used, but it's also the time, money, dedication, ebay searches and everything else that it took Dan to compile them. Yes, no doubt the author here could have dug around the internet and found some of the same or maybe different images. But the fact is that he didn't have to. Dan had already done that work for him.

And if Dan hadn't mentioned that he was actually named in the comments, I would never have known to look for the comments and find them.

Joann

[Zach Wheat]

I started cataloguing a lot of card images without regard to where I got the images. At this time I had only intended to use the images for my personal use - i.e. reference. Now I wish I had paid better attention to which sites I got the images from in the event I want to use them for other purposes.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I started cataloguing a lot of card images without regard to where I got the images. At this time I had only intended to use the images for my personal use - i.e. reference. Now I wish I had paid better attention to which sites I got the images from in the event I want to use them for other purposes.

I've done the same thing Zach. I think the difference here is that Dan's images were used for a quasi-commercial activity, but a public municipality. That's the part that would frost me. He did the work. You have to scour the site to find the credit. They stand to make the money (or raise the money.)

[FrankWakefield]

Dean, either you misunderstood what that attorney said, or he mistakenly advised you as to the law. What you have posted there is not correct.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Dean, either you misunderstood what that attorney said, or he mistakenly advised you as to the law. What you have posted there is not correct.

Frank,

What is the correct interpretation? Thanks.

[egbeachley]

I think Dean may have written it wrong. Placing an item on the internet does not mean the copyright becomes public domain.

But a non-copyrighted image can be used by others, or something of that effect.

[slidekellyslide]

I'm not even sure how they knew my name to attribute the images to in the first place because it's not on my Photobucket account. The only thing I can think of is they contacted the local minor league club (Lincoln Saltdogs) and asked for old images of Lincoln baseball...The Saltdogs contacted me last year through the American Association forum and I gave them the link to my photobucket...they may have passed that info on to the city??

And again, I would have let them use anything they wanted..it was just a bit of a shock to run across a website I didn't even know about where 90% of the images are mine.

[Bridwell]

I hesitate to post images on this forum, because of potential use on other sites. One issue is that a rare item seems more common if everybody has seen it a few times. You might think there are several out there when it is virtually one-of-a-kind. If you ever decide to sell, the item might sell for a lot less.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Bridwell

I hesitate to post images on this forum, because of potential use on other sites. One issue is that a rare item seems more common if everybody has seen it a few times. You might think there are several out there when it is virtually one-of-a-kind. If you ever decide to sell, the item might sell for a lot less.

Ron -
What you are saying seems strange to me. Anyone interested in paying high $ for a rare card or photo ought to know if it's really rare or not. Countless re-productions of an image of the T206 Gretzky Wagner have not made anyone think it's less rare (though it is otherwise controversial).

If the item has been sold in an online auction or printed in a catalogue, you can do nothing to prevent it's reproduction, nor can you prevent a previous owner from posting a scan.

Would posting photos of an un-refinished Federal era card table or other valuable antique make people think it is not rare?

[FrankWakefield]

What this fellow here says seems about right...


http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html


Most folks get what knowledge they have muddled up with trademark and patent law notions. And the Berne Convention and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have changed some of what folks have stuck in their heads.

I think reading the link above would get most folks on sound footing.

[frankb22]

Had image and entire auction description lifted and used
by someone who was flipping an item I sold them. It pissed
me off at the time and I blocked that person from bidding on
my items going forward. Guy is an active board member here
so he should know better.

[dani0100]

As a copyright and IP attorney, I am always fascinated when some issue arises, combining baseball cards and intellectual property. Here is my take on the legal issues involved with the use of sports card scans, community customs and courtesy notwithstanding.

As others have correctly pointed out, posting an image online does not in any way mean that such an image is in the public domain. It also does not somehow grant anyone a license to do anything in particular with the photo, other than perhaps view it in their web browser.

What is interesting to me is the question of whether someone who makes a scan of a baseball card has actually done anything that is protectable by copyright law. Most of the cards of interest to folks here are so old that the cards themselves are in the public domain. Anything first published in the U.S. before 1923 is now in the public domain, as are any works first published in the U.S. from 1923-1977 without a copyright notice.

So, assuming that a card itself is in the public domain, then is a mechanical scan of the card, which is intended to reproduce as faithful a reproduction as possible, actually protected by copyright? Copyright law requires that some "modicum of creativity" be evidenced in any protected work. Frankly, I am not at all sure that most card scans would meet this requirement. In a traditional camera photograph, there are lots of things like lighting, exposure, and composition, that can combine to create copyrightable elements in a photograph of even the most uncreative of subjects. With scanners, however, the card is pressed flat against the glass, and will almost certainly look exactly the same, no matter who does the scanning. Possibly if some post-scan retouching or optimization is done to the scan, then there would be a "thin" copyright interest in those aspects of the scan, to the extent that they are creative expressions of whomever made the scan. I'm not sure that much attention, however, goes into post-processing of card scans, if at all -- most will simply use an auto-exposure correction tool if they do any post-scan adjusments.

And so, I think it is safe to say that scans of baseball cards that are in the public domain are unlikely to yield their creator any valid copyright interest. If we're talking about scans of newer cards, for example Topps cards, which did feature copyright notices and likely are still protected by copyright, then I think the scan maker and the scan stealer are probably both better off concerning themselves with Topps' lawyers rather than each other.

Regards,
Miguel

[teetwoohsix]

This thread brings up things I've always wondered about,and thank you Miguel for responding.
Now,here's where I get confused(and I appologize if I'm taking this thread off-track)
If everything that was published in the U.S before 1923 is public domain,does that mean,for instance,you could take a scan of,say,Mordecai Brown-from 1909-1915,and print it onto T-shirts and sell them-is that legal?

[orator1]

Miguel, you stated that "Anything first published in the U.S. before 1923 is now in the public domain". When a pre-1923 scan of a card or team photo is ordered from the Hall of Fame or any library, they always require a signed agreement that restricts what you can do with that scan (personal use vs commercial use).

They make it appear like they are the copyright holder even for 19th century baseball cards. The scans are always identical reproductions of the original and they employ no "modicum of creativity" to the scan. If these pre-1923 items are all in the public domain, how can the libraries legally restrict their use if they don't own the copyright?

[teetwoohsix]

That's where I was trying to go with my question........

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by orator1

Miguel, you stated that "Anything first published in the U.S. before 1923 is now in the public domain". When a pre-1923 scan of a card or team photo is ordered from the Hall of Fame or any library, they always require a signed agreement that restricts what you can do with that scan (personal use vs commercial use).

They make it appear like they are the copyright holder even for 19th century baseball cards. The scans are always identical reproductions of the original and they employ no "modicum of creativity" to the scan. If these pre-1923 items are all in the public domain, how can the libraries legally restrict their use if they don't own the copyright?

The answer is they can't restrict you under the copyright law. However, they have provided you a service (they scanned a photo for you that's in their posession). They won't do that until you sign the agreement which is a contract between you and them.