Scans versus photos

[rue_d_etropal]

Someone will probably point me to the actual document, but if I take a photo of someone's model, I own the copyright of that photo not the person who possibly spent many hours making the model and actually put a lot more effort into creating it than me pointing a camera at it and pressing a button.
If I take a photo of anything I still own that copyright, so if I use my computer to take a photo of something, do I own the copyright, or are scans not considered photos. I am not talking about photo copying because in most machines nothing is stored or created before printing, but if you scan a photo, then could it be argued you are taking a photo yourself.
I am sure someone must have thought of this. It is what the legal profession are so good at doing, especially when someone else is paying, but there have been some odd defenses accepted in totally different areas of the law, just because a loop hole has been found.

[Gerry Bullock]

Covered here Simon - if you scan someone else's photo you have infringed copyright.
https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/prot ... _copyright

[chris stockdale]

May I offer a slightly different perspective?

If you scan/capture someone else's work but only keep and view it for your own personal, private use I do not think there is any copyright infringement.

But the moment you offer such an image to others, in any way, without the originator's permission, you are in breach of copyright.

(Yes, I know the above is much simplified).

In my role as an 'umble moderator in here I have a strong preference for folk only posting their own stuff, that way it remains simple and we have no probs.

Want to highlight someone else's work? Pop in a link.

Cheers,

[Gerry Bullock]

Hi Chris.
The copyright text is actually more specific suggesting that ANY copying is an infringement:
"The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright."
GerryB

[rue_d_etropal]

If you take a photo of a photo, it might even be in background, then is it a copy. Is a scan a copy or is is another photo? Another way might be to use 'print screen' button on keyboard. This facility has been around since before I started in IT, and was a very useful tool till print spoolers and printing got better. It is in effect a photo of what is on the screen.
I suspect this is actually going to get more complicated with 3D scanning and 3D printing. Costs are going down, and quality is going up and it won't be long till someone can buy(or borrow) one wagon, scan, it, make the changes they want, and get it 3D printed, possibly even in colour. The world is changing very fast. I am not sure if some are ready for that, so before it gets even more complicated maybe the whole question of copyright, intellectual ownership needs to be looked at again. It is still based on ideas from 100 years ago but given how easy it is to create a photograph, and how cheap, then many of the original reasons are no longer valid.
Tim Berners-Lee is quoted as saying that he could have copyrighted/trade marked his ideas for creating the internet and worldwide web, but did not, because it would have not have let it develop the way it has. In IT , although some companies do try to protect their ideas, most people learn from others, share what they do, all for the benefit of everyone else. I am not sure what part I actually played, but I did do a few things which might have been picked up by others. Much of the software written for online is written for free, and those involved ant that. Without that attitude, we would not even be having this discussion online.
To counter the often used reasons that 'artists' have to make their money somehow, well what about all those creating computer code for free, and enabling the online world to get better. The recent case where one such programmer got fed up because some company wanting him to stop using a certain name in one of his programs, so when it all started to go sour, he decided to delete all the code he had written and many online sites started to have problems. It was not a complex piece of code, just 11 lines, but it showed how dependent we are on people who write code for everyone to use for free, no copyright etc.

[chris69]

Hi Simon,
a note about your original post. If you take the photo of someones work or the person and you do not have explicit permission to do so,
YOU DO NOT have any rights to that image. As someone that is actively involved in the entertainment industry I deal with this on a regular basis. There are very detailed and explicit regulations concerning this.
An exception exists if the picture is taken in an environment that has posted signs that photography is allowed and the participants (exhibitors, visitors) by purchasing tickets to the event agree to this with the purchase. still the use of such images may still be restricted, depending on how the general consent is worded. Rights to the pictures may only be for private use and not commercial applications.
It is a very slippery slope!
I have worked in situations where I may not own the rights to my own image, let alone the right to publicly display it, if there is the slightest reference or possibility of recognition of the circumstance etc the picture was taken.
JUST BE CAREFUL!
Best,
Chris

[chris stockdale]

Some interesting new info, thanks.

Since I will be at the big annual garden railway show at Peterborough on Saturday it throws up a point. I, and no doubt many of us, regularly take a bunch of photos of what we see and then share them in forums such as this.

Hmm.

Cheers,

[rue_d_etropal]

If you are in a private location, then there are rules that kick in. By buying a ticket for entry you are entering into a contract. It is a minefield of complex legislation, much probably could be challenged by skilled legal people. Maybe notices should be on each layout and model at an exhibition. Something I have thought of doing. Personally i have absolutely no objection of anyone taking photos of my models, just as long as they don't then tr to restrict their publication. For me it is about free publicity for me and my models/artwork.
I was using the examples of exhibitions to just give an example. Much in law often depends on wording and some get round existing rules by changing the wording. In practice if a big corporation wants something there is nothing an individual can do about it. What is now happening in the world, mainly thanks to people being able to share ideas and concerns online, is that this secret world of big corporations is starting to crumble. Even in USA there are campaigns against TTIP, but until people here in Europe started to shout about it, no-one was interested. People are waking up to what corporate greed is , and are starting to object to it .
It should be remembered that any legal system is transitory, and laws can and do change. It should also be remembered that big corporations are spending loads of money to make sure those changes suit them, often getting support by shifting the emphasis to such things as protecting an individual' s creative activities. My point is that these rules can change if people actually want them changing.
On the whole online forums take the safe route. A company might complain about a picture being posted, and possibly have the money and legal team to pursue it, whereas most online forums operate on a shoestring, so better to be safe. I only ever publish my own pictures which are on my own website(which I pay for) and link to pictures elsewhere.

Whatever laws say, the question about ownership of ideas, is in the area covered more my philosophy, and looking into consistences in supposedly logical argument and thinking. So asking about difference between a photo and a scan , when you start to pick it apart, can open up all sorts of ideas.