Anyone ever use your images without permission?

[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.