Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift 1951 COLORIZATION

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Pearl

If you search the original via Google pretty much every link goes back to Alamy who seem to own it and they all show a cost for its use.

---

I agree.. finding an image on google does not automatically grant a licence to use.

However...don't you think Zaks work would be considered a derivative work under US Copyright Office Circular 14 : Derivative Works?

Where:To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work"

I think so...I am not a lawyer but I reckon Zak created a new work..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Ekins

I agree.. finding an image on google does not automatically grant a licence to use.

However...don't you think Zak' work would be considered a "Derivative work" under US Copyright Office Circular 14 : Derivative Works?

Where:To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work"

I think so...I am not a lawyer but I reckon Zak created a new work..

---

Good point.

Duchamp drew a moustache on the Mona Lisa and that was accepted as "Derivative work"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Ekins

I agree.. finding an image on google does not automatically grant a licence to use.

However...don't you think Zaks work would be considered a derivative work under US Copyright Office Circular 14 : Derivative Works?

Where:To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work"

I think so...I am not a lawyer but I reckon Zak created a new work..

---

Can't comment on US law but when I did a Google search Alamy seemed to be the originating site for this image and they class it as stock with a cost associated with its use.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-mon...-88995001.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zkogut

The way I figure it is the original photographer is dead. How long can they milk a photo?

---

The quote shown below is excerpted from this website about U.S. copyright law as it applies to photography. As for making a derivative, notice that the answer to the first question at that website explains that you have to obtain permission from the copyright owner of the original work to be able to legally make the derivative.

"For photographs created after 1988, you (or your heirs) own the copyright for 70 years after your death (unless you have transferred it in writing). After that time, the copyright falls into the public domain; anyone can use the photos in any manner that they choose. For a period of time before 1988, copyrights expired 50 years after the copyright owner’s death. Before then, the laws dealing with the length of copyright protection changed quite frequently. The chart found at http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm may be helpful in determining the applicable duration of copyrights for works established at various times."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Ekins

I am not a lawyer but I reckon Zak created a new work..

---

If he had changed one of your color photos to black-and-white, would you also feel that he had created a new work?

I don't know the nuances of copyright as interpreted and applied in the US. However, if this company Alamy is the copyright holder, I'd suggest to them that they want to make a contract with Zak and pay him handsomely to colourise a lot more of their B & W stock images, for which they could then charge a lot more.

As far as I know, Zak doesn't make any money doing this... I think that the moral and legal ramifications would be quite different if Zak were selling his colorizations...

This is from a guy who feels quite protective regarding ownership and rights to images...

I like Donald's idea. Hopefully, I'm contacted and they want to pay me "handsomely."

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

This is complicated stuff. Chances are that Alamy is not the copyright holder, but a licensor of the digital image in its possession. Zak would potentially be running afoul of Alamy if he was using their version of the image with the embedded accreditation to Alamy removed.

So many terms and definitions to sort out: derivative, personal use, royalty-free, rights-managed, and more.

This site contains some potentially useful info: https://stockphotolicense.com/faq/

Interesting footnote: The US Copyright Office has apparently ruled that colorized films are new work, but not individual colorized frames.*

Coincidentally, on the topics of accreditation, copyright, and derivative works, this was in the news yesterday: http://www.salon.com/2017/04/24/chic...ge-as-his-own/.

Edit: By the way, Zak, I love your work, but do kind of cringe at your dismissiveness of the original photographer. I can only hope that you expect no more from some future manipulator of your own work.

*Correction: I'm pretty sure I drew the wrong conclusion from what I read; what the Office says is that a film in which only some frames are colorized is not a new work. A still that is used to promote the film is no doubt a different animal.

Apology: I believe the word is not "accreditation", but "attribution". I am slowly losing all my words; I fear I am going to have to retire soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

As far as I know, Zak doesn't make any money doing this... I think that the moral and legal ramifications would be quite different if Zak were selling his colorizations...

---

I'm confused, Richard. You didn't seem to feel that way, at least not by my understanding, when you wrote the following a couple of weeks ago in this thread: "What would get me riled is that you would have the audacity to steal my image (or anyone's image) and then edit it! That is just morally not right - never mind if it is legal or not legal." There was no mention in that thread that the person you were complaining about was making money editing the photos. Exactly the opposite, the person you were complaining about implied that he was not redistributing any of the edited images, much less making any money.

It might be helpful to be reminded of CiC's Code of Conduct regarding intellectual property: "Members should respect the rights of other artists, and are responsible for checking with an artist’s terms of use when posting their images. This normally just means crediting any image when it’s not your own."

Based on:

For a period of time before 1988, copyrights expired 50 years after the copyright owner’s death. Before then, the laws dealing with the length of copyright protection changed quite frequently. The chart found at http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm may be helpful in determining the applicable duration of copyrights for works established at various times."

The chart shows

Published from 1923 - 63 When published with notice3 28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain.

The worst case there is 67 years which would make a 1950 image out of copyright in 2017 and that is provided that notice was made in 1950 and subsequently renewed.

It would also depend on whether or not the work was being sold for profit which leads to the whole concept of fair use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saorsa

The worst case there is 67 years which would make a 1950 image out of copyright in 2017 and that is provided that notice was made in 1950 and subsequently renewed.

---

That's not how I interpret it. I interpret it that the maximum total renewal period is 67 years. So, 28 initial years + 67 renewal years = 95 years. That being the case, the maximum copyright period would end in 2045. Unfortunately, the chart doesn't seem to be written clearly enough for me to be certain of whether your or my interpretation is correct.