Online Gallery

topic posted Sun, April 15, 2007 - 6:20 AM by  Jon
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Online Gallery

Thought it might be fun to create an Online Gallery of our favorite photographs..

I guess we have the photos section, but there is that copyright thing...

Dorothea Lange

(this one is pretty powerful and disturbing, but beautiful too!)

www.cartermuseum.org/Inspiri..._big.jpg
posted by:
Jon
offline Jon
New Jersey
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Online Gallery

    Sun, April 15, 2007 - 9:05 AM
    if it is fair use it is ok to post esp if it is educational in the case of Dorothea Lange, most of the images are in Library of Congress, which is a Public domain. She and Walker Evans were WPA photographers.
    • Re: Online Gallery

      Mon, April 16, 2007 - 2:48 AM
      thanks. but I really still don't understand public domain.

      Is Dorothea Lange's work public domain because she has been deceased for so long? For a period of time?

      Is it like music copyrights? Don't they last like 70 years or something?

      For example, say I post a picture by a living photographer who is trying to make a living selling their photos.
      How would that not interfere with their right to their images and their right to sell those images?

      gets confusing for me I guess, but I also want to respect the artists and their right to make a living off what they do
      • Re: Online Gallery

        Mon, April 16, 2007 - 9:06 PM
        Jon I am not sure, Ms Lang and the other Work Progress Adminstration aka WPA photographers were paid by the US government.
        I know anyone can get a print from the feds for a nominal fee.

        Yes copyrighting generally follows the time period you mentioned, but someone could claim it or it is sold to another company.
        Most deceased photographer's work eventually will end up in an image archive, the largest one is controlled by Bill Gates, which is the Brettman Corbis archive located in Iron Mountain.

        Mageret Bourke White's work was a photographer who photographed for Time-life her work is not part of Corbis.

        Iron mountain was previously used as a nuclear bomb shelter during the cold war, now repurposed and running 24/7 in order to scan and save photographer's work in digital manner.
    • Re: Online Gallery

      Thu, April 26, 2007 - 5:30 PM
      "...most of the images are in Library of Congress, which is a Public domain."

      I have images in the Library of Congress. I assure you they are NOT public domain. Whether something is in the LoC or not has no bearing on its copyright status.
      • Re: Online Gallery

        Sat, May 5, 2007 - 10:30 AM
        Hero, Jon was referring to the Worker's Progress Adminstration which was funded by tax dollars, also I believe the original copyright holder has also been long deceased.
        • Re: Online Gallery

          Sat, May 5, 2007 - 2:35 PM
          Dorothea Lange never worked for the WPA that I know of. She was for a time employed by the federal Resettlement Administration, which was later called the Farm Security Administration. My understanding is that photos she took as part of her Resettlement Administration employment are in the public domain, but that not all photos she took while employed by the RA were considered part of her job, and that some of the other photographers employed by the FSA own or owned their own copyright. She also worked for the War Relocation Administration, and while these are also in the public domain and available online through the National Archives, her photographs taken around the same time under her Guggenheim Fellowship and as a freelancer, also available through the National Archives, are not - including some of the photos taken at Manzanar.

          Ultimately, the point here is just because a photograph is in the Library of Congress, or the National Archives, or was funded by tax dollars, or taken while employed by the government 70 years ago, doesn't mean it is necessarily in the public domain.
          • Re: Online Gallery

            Sat, May 5, 2007 - 4:11 PM
            Hero

            check out wikipedia I still believe I am correct:

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

            Fair use and fair dealing
            Main articles: Fair use and Fair dealing
            Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:
            the purpose and character of your use
            the nature of the copyrighted work
            what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
            the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
            In the United Kingdom and many other Commonwealth countries, a similar notion of fair dealing was established by the courts or through legislation. The concept is sometimes not well defined; however in Canada, private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In Australia, the fair dealing exceptions under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) are a limited set of circumstances under which copyright material can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (ie legal advice). Under current Australian law it is still a breach of copyright to copy, reproduce or adapt copyright material for personal or private use without permission from the copyright owner. Other technical exemptions from infringement may also apply, such as the temporary reproduction of a work in machine readable form for a computer.
            In the United States the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act Codified in Section 10, 1992) prohibits action against consumers making noncommercial recordings of music, in return for royalties on both media and devices plus mandatory copy-control mechanisms on recorders.
            Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
            No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
            Later acts amended US Copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner. An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.

            How long copyright lasts
            Copyright subsists for a variety of lengths in different jurisdictions, with different categories of works and the length it subsists for also depends on whether a work is published or unpublished. In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is generally the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. Copyright in general always expires at the end of the year concerned, rather than on the exact date of the death of the author. (The right to reclaim a copyright--or "terminate the transfer" of a copyright--commences and ends on the anniversaries of exact dates in the United States.)
            So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, under § 105[2] of the Copyright Act, all works created by the U.S. Government (other than works of standard reference data produced by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce under the Standard Reference Data Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 290e[3]) are not subject to copyright. Note, however, that the U.S. Postal Service is a quasi-public corporation wholly owned by the U.S. Government[4], and is not part of the U.S. government, per se. Therefore, works of the Postal Service are not "works of the U.S. government" for purposes of § 105 and are generally subject to copyright. See the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 206.02(b)[5].
            But if the intended exploitation of the work includes publication (or distribution of derivative work, such as a film based on a book protected by copyright) outside the U.S., the terms of copyright around the world must be considered. If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries. In Italy and France, there are wartime extensions that could increase the term by approximately 6 years in Italy and up to about 14 in France. Some works are covered by copyright in Spain for 80 years after the author's death.
  • Unsu...
     

    What's Fair About Stealing?

    Mon, September 24, 2007 - 4:37 PM
    As a photographer, I have a copyright lawyer, who told me if anyone uses my image(s), we would sue them. I think the educational meaning of stealing is that: A. You don't understand what it took to make the images. B. When you go to work do you expect to get paid? C. Why can't you make your own damn images?

    I am very sorry if I come across as pissed, but when you work for some 10 years on one project and someone comes along and distributes the images as if they were theirs, I just don't see how someone could confuse the issue of the artist having a copyright (the right to copy), public domain or otherwise.

    As a photographer who has to promote what are basically the negatives of the medium itself, I find almost nothing positive about hacks claiming to be teachers or blind, thoughtless critics claiming to have an inside track.

    Please keep in mind the following:

    The purpose and character of your use
    The nature of the copyrighted work
    What amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
    The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    Furthermore,

    As a member of Tribe, you are solely responsible for all materials, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, that you upload, post, e-mail, transmit, or otherwise make available on Tribe. By posting your content on Tribe, you grant us a license to copy, distribute, modify and publicly display content that you post on the service. The purpose of this license is to serve the mechanical and electronic requirements of maintaining the website and its associated syndication technologies. This license does not extend to any use outside of this scope. This license is granted and in force as long as the content exists on the site.

    If you believe that your work has been used in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please notify Tribe at help@tribe.net or Utah Street Networks Inc, 208 Utah Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103. Provide all of the following in writing: identify the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed (or if multiple copyrighted works, then a representative list of such works); identify the content on the Service that you claim is infringing with enough detail so that we may locate it; provide a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; provide a statement by you declaring that the notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that you are the exclusive owner of the copyright interest involved or that you are authorized to act on behalf of the exclusive owner; provide information reasonably sufficient to permit Tribe to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and email address; and your physical or electronic signature.

    Upon receipt of notice as described above, Tribe will take whatever action, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate, including removal of the challenged use from the Service or termination of the posting account.

    I like how Jon links to the works. That way the images are of the work are not taken from where they were posted. This is an important distinction. Thank you Jon.
  • Re: Online Gallery

    Sun, November 25, 2007 - 8:51 PM
    Another thought on the subject is try checking out

    www.photosig.com

    Not only are there some very good photographers there you also get the benefit of constructive criticism in order to improve your work. Admittedly there are some jerks who like to slam work and there are some works that aren't "art" per se. But all in all it's a pretty good site.
    • Re: Online Gallery

      Mon, December 3, 2007 - 11:25 AM
      thanks for the good links and the nice compliment Trina..

      glad you enjoyed them!

      +++++++++++++++

      this photo is not necessarily the best photography or anything, but these mountains are amazing!

      www.citscanada.com/cities/i..._copy.JPG

      (not my photo)

      I wrote a haiku for this picture:

      Chinese Mountain Haze
      Pull And Take Me Full Beyond
      Heaven Touches Earth

Recent topics in "PHOTOGRAPHY"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
This tribe sux total ass. Mr. M 2 December 14, 2009
Wedding Photography... Steve 0 December 14, 2009
where to print my digital photos? dasha 4 December 14, 2009
Making a Living Lazee River 17 December 7, 2009
Camera recommendation, NEED HELP ♫♫♫•♥•♫♫♫ 6 November 30, 2009