Greenberg v. National Geographic

[wpettit]

Hi folks,

I suggest you all may be interested in the court decision in favor of National Geographic regarding its rights to republish photographs, etc. in its CD-ROM edition.  This decision will have quite an impact on intellectual property issues.


http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/enbanc/index.php

Bill

[Bob-3]

Uhhhh, which of the entries are we interested in?

Bob

wpettit@... wrote:

Hi folks,

I suggest you all may be interested in the court decision in favor of National Geographic regarding its rights to republish photographs, etc. in its CD-ROM edition.  This decision will have quite an impact on intellectual property issues.


http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/enbanc/index.php

Bill


  

[David Dyer-Bennet]

On Thu, July 3, 2008 14:20, Bob wrote:
> Uhhhh, which of the entries are we interested in?


I believe
<http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/enbanc/issues/eb05-16964letter&order.pdf>
(he gave the name of the case in the subject, and searching for that got
to this link).

But it doesn't say anything beyond that the court will rehear the case,
and vacates the lower court decision.

Since I don't remember how it was decided the first time around, it
doesn't actually tell me anything.  I could probably google that pretty
easily -- but it would have been useful for him to just tell us the
information, rather than giving a link that requires figuring out which
sub-entry to read and then having to know the history to make any sense of
it.

This has got to be a classic example of the orphan rights problem.  I
think it's a *really good thing* for the historic run of NG to be
available on DVD.  If they had to track down every single contributor's
heir and individually negotiate rights for this, I'm quite certain it
would never have happened.  And if it never happened, there would be no
benefit to any rights holders.  For that matter, even for the ones they
could *find*, the chances of working out a decent deal with all of them
are minimal.

(I'm not so sure the remedies Congress is looking at are good ones.  It's
a hard problem; but pointing out the cases where it would have inhibited a
good thing from happening seems relevant to me; there's a real problem
there.)



--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Bob-3]

Your second paragraph explains why I was confused.....

Thanks,

Bob

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

On Thu, July 3, 2008 14:20, Bob wrote:
  

Uhhhh, which of the entries are we interested in?
    

I believe
<http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/enbanc/issues/eb05-16964letter&order.pdf>
(he gave the name of the case in the subject, and searching for that got
to this link).

But it doesn't say anything beyond that the court will rehear the case,
and vacates the lower court decision.

Since I don't remember how it was decided the first time around, it
doesn't actually tell me anything.  I could probably google that pretty
easily -- but it would have been useful for him to just tell us the
information, rather than giving a link that requires figuring out which
sub-entry to read and then having to know the history to make any sense of
it.

This has got to be a classic example of the orphan rights problem.  I
think it's a *really good thing* for the historic run of NG to be
available on DVD.  If they had to track down every single contributor's
heir and individually negotiate rights for this, I'm quite certain it
would never have happened.  And if it never happened, there would be no
benefit to any rights holders.  For that matter, even for the ones they
could *find*, the chances of working out a decent deal with all of them
are minimal.

(I'm not so sure the remedies Congress is looking at are good ones.  It's
a hard problem; but pointing out the cases where it would have inhibited a
good thing from happening seems relevant to me; there's a real problem
there.)



  

[James Schenken]

Bob:

Here is the opinion.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516964.ENB.pdf

I've read some of it ( it's quite long ) and my take on the gist of it is that a publication that make and electronic copy of its own publication that is electronically identical to the original ( contains the complete context, allows the user / viewer to page back and forth etc. ) is completely within the current copyright law.  A publisher can make as many copies of the original work ( here : Magazine issue ) as desired unless there is some limitation in the original contract with one or more of the contributors.

This decision merely clarifies that this rule applies to electronic copies as well.

Cheers,
James

At 02:20 PM 7/3/2008 -0500, you wrote:

Uhhhh, which of the entries are we interested in?

Bob

James Schenken

[Bob-3]

Thanks. 

For a while I was the regional photographer for my employer.  Ir was always my understanding that since I was being paid by them and they were covering all my costs the photos I took were theirs to do with as they pleased.  We had no formal contract but the job description I agreed to included "other duties as assigned."

Bob

James Schenken wrote:

Bob:

Here is the opinion.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516964.ENB.pdf

I've read some of it ( it's quite long ) and my take on the gist of it is that a publication that make and electronic copy of its own publication that is electronically identical to the original ( contains the complete context, allows the user / viewer to page back and forth etc. ) is completely within the current copyright law.  A publisher can make as many copies of the original work ( here : Magazine issue ) as desired unless there is some limitation in the original contract with one or more of the contributors.

This decision merely clarifies that this rule applies to electronic copies as well.

Cheers,
James

At 02:20 PM 7/3/2008 -0500, you wrote:

Uhhhh, which of the entries are we interested in?

Bob

James Schenken

[Mark Blackwell]

Bob there is a big difference between a licensed use for an image, and a work for hire.  Work for hire is an entirely different cup of tea.


--- On Fri, 7/4/08, Bob <w8imo@...> wrote:

> From: Bob <w8imo@...>
> Subject: Re: Greenberg v. National Geographic
> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@...>
> Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 11:15 AM
> Thanks.
>
> For a while I was the regional photographer for my
> employer.  Ir was
> always my understanding that since I was being paid by them
> and they
> were covering all my costs the photos I took were theirs to
> do with as
> they pleased.  We had no formal contract but the job
> description I
> agreed to included "other duties as assigned."
>
> Bob
>
> James Schenken wrote:
> > Bob:
> >
> > Here is the opinion.
> >
> >
> http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516964.ENB.pdf
> >
> > I've read some of it ( it's quite long ) and
> my take on the gist of it
> > is that a publication that make and electronic copy of
> its own
> > publication that is electronically identical to the
> original (
> > contains the complete context, allows the user /
> viewer to page back
> > and forth etc. ) is completely within the current
> copyright law.  A
> > publisher can make as many copies of the original work
> ( here :
> > Magazine issue ) as desired unless there is some
> limitation in the
> > original contract with one or more of the
> contributors.
> >
> > This decision merely clarifies that this rule applies
> to electronic
> > copies as well.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > James
> >
> > At 02:20 PM 7/3/2008 -0500, you wrote:
> >> Uhhhh, which of the entries are we interested in?
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> > James Schenken
> >
>
> --
>                            /////
>                           ( O O )
> --------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de
> w8imo@...------
>              I plan to live forever.  So far, so good......

     

[PhotoRoy6]

In a message dated 7/4/2008 10:20:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jds@... writes:

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516964.ENB.pdf

I get a blank box when clicking on this but I searched the decisions and it is a little bit more complicated as the origanal three assignment granted NG the right to republish but later on Greenburg asked for and got the copyrights returned. This being the case unless the photographers asked for the copyrights back most of the earlier NG magazines probably can still be published electronicly

Roy

 

From the Court

Photographs from the first three assignments were published in the January 1962,
February 1968, and May 1971 issues of the Magazine, respectively. The terms of Greenberg's employment
for these assignments were set out in a series of relatively informal letters. Greenberg received compensation
consisting of a daily fee, a fee based on the number of photographs published, and payment of expenses, and
in return the Society acquired all rights in any photograph taken on the jobs that was ultimately selected for
publication in the Magazine. In 1985, at Greenberg's request, the Society reassigned its copyrights in the
pictures from these three jobs back to Greenberg. Greenberg's fourth hire for the Society appeared in the July
1990 issue of the Magazine, but the agreement for this job was more detailed than its predecessors. The
principle terms of the fourth agreement were similar to those of the first three; however, in this agreement
it was explicitly provided that all rights that the Society acquired in the photographs from the job would be
returned to Greenberg 60 days after the pictures were published in the Magazine..

---

Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.

[PhotoRoy6]

In a message dated 7/4/2008 11:42:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mblackwell1958@... writes:

Bob there is a big difference between a licensed use for an image, and a work for hire.  Work for hire is an entirely different cup of tea

Apparently in the Greenburg case they were works for hire but National Geographic returned the copyrights to him in 1985.

Roy

---

Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.