Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Are panoramic photos derivative works?

Expand Messages
  • Perry Joseph
    I have to believe a couple of you pano pros here have delved into these questions about copyrights. If one copyrights all of the images that make up a
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I have to believe a couple of you pano pros here have delved into
      these questions about copyrights.

      If one copyrights all of the images that make up a panoramic image, is
      the panoramic itself considered to be "derivative works", and as such,
      require another registration with the copyright office as "derivative
      works"?

      Couldn't the panoramic be also registered as new works by itself?

      And what is the rule if one later applies further alterations without
      changing the composition of the image i.e. tonemapping, conversion to
      black and white, etc.? Are these kind of alterations considered to be
      derivative and require registration?

      Any workflow notes from those who like to copyright "unpublished
      works" are also welcome.

      pj
    • Chris Thomas
      A pano is a new work. Copyright automatically falls to the creator . unless you are working for hire and have signed away your rights. You do not have to
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        A pano is a new work.
        Copyright automatically falls to the "creator".
        unless you are "working for hire" and have signed away your rights.

        You do not have to register with the copyright office to "have copyright"
        but it greatly increases the penalties that you can extract from
        "infringers" in court.

        Chris Thomas
        Photographer
        cell... 403-615-1212
        In North America
        call... 1-800-870-5110
        http://www.christhomas.com

        -----Original Message-----
        From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Perry Joseph
        Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:48 AM
        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Are panoramic photos derivative works?

        I have to believe a couple of you pano pros here have delved into
        these questions about copyrights.

        If one copyrights all of the images that make up a panoramic image, is
        the panoramic itself considered to be "derivative works", and as such,
        require another registration with the copyright office as "derivative
        works"?

        Couldn't the panoramic be also registered as new works by itself?

        And what is the rule if one later applies further alterations without
        changing the composition of the image i.e. tonemapping, conversion to
        black and white, etc.? Are these kind of alterations considered to be
        derivative and require registration?

        Any workflow notes from those who like to copyright "unpublished
        works" are also welcome.

        pj
      • Daniel M German
        ... The copyright of a derivative work only extends to the parts that are independent from the original works, and does not supersede the copyright of the
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          > Posted by: "Perry Joseph" probe@... scannerist
          > Date: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:48 am ((PDT))
          >
          > I have to believe a couple of you pano pros here have delved into
          > these questions about copyrights.
          >
          > If one copyrights all of the images that make up a panoramic image, is
          > the panoramic itself considered to be "derivative works", and as such,
          > require another registration with the copyright office as "derivative
          > works"?
          >

          The copyright of a derivative work only extends to the
          parts that are independent from the original works, and does not
          supersede the copyright of the originals either.

          I cite the US copyright Act 103b:


          The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
          the material contributed by the author of such work, as
          distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
          and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting
          material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does
          not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or
          subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
          material.


          But the Canadian Copyright Act does not define the term explicitly!


          The concept of copyright of a derivative work is subject to
          interpretation, and such interpretation is usually jurisdiction
          dependent (this is a tricky issue with software, where different
          regions of the US, for example, have different interpretations on how
          to determine if a program is a derivative work of another).

          To illustrate the notion of interpretation: some might cosider that
          there is not sufficient originality in a panorama to grant further
          copyright from its composing photographs (for instance, a case in
          which a program can create the panorama from the component photographs
          without any creative user intervention). For a derivative work to be
          copyrightable it needs to have some added original expression to the
          works upon it is based.

          as an example consider that in the US copies of paintings are not
          copyrightable as derivative works because they don't add any original
          work to the original painting. Their copyright is owned by the
          copyright owner of the original only, and if the original is in the
          public domain, the photos are in the public domain too.


          Furthermore, the concept of registration is jurisdiction dependent
          too. Some do not even have any means to register works (the UK is the
          best example, if I remember correctly).

          The quick answer is yes, a panorama is a derivative work of its
          component images.

          > Couldn't the panoramic be also registered as new works by itself?

          Ask a lawyer that understands your jurisdiction.

          > And what is the rule if one later applies further alterations without
          > changing the composition of the image i.e. tonemapping, conversion to
          > black and white, etc.? Are these kind of alterations considered to be
          > derivative and require registration?

          Again, this is juridiction dependent.

          >
          > Any workflow notes from those who like to copyright "unpublished
          > works" are also welcome.

          You do not need to copyright a work. Copyright is granted at creation,
          as long as

          * you're in one of the 184 members of WIPO,
          * the work is original.

          In some jurisdictions (and here I am citing WIPO) it is granted once
          it is fixed in a tangible or fixed form.

          Of course, who would the copyright owner be will depend on many
          factors, including jurisdiction.




          --
          --
          Daniel M. German
          http://turingmachine.org/
          http://silvernegative.com/
          dmg (at) uvic (dot) ca
          replace (at) with @ and (dot) with .
        • Perry Joseph
          ... copyright ... This is exactly why I m asking these questions. I want to get in the habit of copyrighting my images before I publish them on the net and /
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
            >
            > A pano is a new work.
            > Copyright automatically falls to the "creator".
            > unless you are "working for hire" and have signed away your rights.

            > You do not have to register with the copyright office to "have
            copyright"
            > but it greatly increases the penalties that you can extract from
            > "infringers" in court.

            This is exactly why I'm asking these questions. I want to get in the
            habit of copyrighting my images before I publish them on the net and /
            or before I distribute them to clients.

            I was hoping that I would be able to register the original images
            before I processed them into panos and then subsequently point to that
            first registration in any dispute.

            I had also considered that a pano might not be a derivative since
            there was nothing really added to the original works aside from them
            being stitched together. However, it might be questionable when HDR
            and other touchups come into play..

            And based on the other message here so far, there is some question on
            jurisdiction albeit my attorney didn't make any notes about that. He
            feels the pano is a derivative, for whatever that's worth.

            I'm starting to conclude that if I'm not "publishing" the individual
            photos and only the pano, then I shouldn't bother registering the
            originals; rather I should just register the pano.

            I would still like to hear from anyone else here who is in the habit
            of registering their panos before they are published.

            Thanks for the notes!

            pj
          • Eric O'Brien
            These are all very interesting questions that have come into my mind too. :) As to color and tone changes, I d guess that one copyright is sufficient,
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              These are all very interesting questions that have come into my mind
              too. :)

              As to color and tone changes, I'd guess that "one copyright" is
              sufficient, unless the images is so changed as to be unrecognizable.
              For example, a remapping to "small world" might be considered to have
              created a new image.

              If someone published a monochrome version of your copyrighted color
              image, I think they'd still be infringing. (I would certainly,
              however, assert copyright ownership whenever I displayed ANY
              "treatment" of the original image. [Hmm... I wonder what exactly
              constitutes the *original* image nowadays? Should you copyright the
              raw image? CAN you copyright a raw image?? Is it really an "image"?]

              As far as the "derivative" question... not only can you derive
              panoramas from multiple images, you can derive (extract) multiple
              unique views from a panorama! I don't think you can copyright
              multiple images as a single item, so the collection of images that
              are GOING to be made into a panorama are not the same thing as the
              panorama itself... "image 1" may well have no part of "image 2"
              visible in it.

              What fun!

              eo

              On Sep 25, 2007, at 1:47 AM, Perry Joseph wrote:

              > I have to believe a couple of you pano pros here have delved into
              > these questions about copyrights.
              >
              > If one copyrights all of the images that make up a panoramic image, is
              > the panoramic itself considered to be "derivative works", and as such,
              > require another registration with the copyright office as "derivative
              > works"?
              >
              > Couldn't the panoramic be also registered as new works by itself?
              >
              > And what is the rule if one later applies further alterations without
              > changing the composition of the image i.e. tonemapping, conversion to
              > black and white, etc.? Are these kind of alterations considered to be
              > derivative and require registration?
              >
              > Any workflow notes from those who like to copyright "unpublished
              > works" are also welcome.
              >
              > pj
            • dmgalpha
              ... copyright ... My understanding (I am not in the US) is that registration is required to file a copyright infringement suit. It does not increase penalties
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
                >
                > A pano is a new work.
                > Copyright automatically falls to the "creator".
                > unless you are "working for hire" and have signed away your rights.
                >
                > You do not have to register with the copyright office to "have
                copyright"
                > but it greatly increases the penalties that you can extract from
                > "infringers" in court.
                >
                > Chris Thomas

                My understanding (I am not in the US) is that registration is required
                to file a copyright infringement suit. It does not increase penalties
                per-se, it actually allows you to _get_ penalties.

                Perhaps you are confusing the use of "Copyright by XYZ, Year". It is
                suggested to be added to any copyrighted work so the infringer knows
                in advance they are using a copyrighted work and can say they did not
                know.

                --dmg
              • Sacha Griffin
                Hmm this looks be actually correct upon my research into refuting you.. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr Another link..
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hmm this looks be actually correct upon my research into refuting you..



                  http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr



                  Another link..

                  http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register





                  Sacha Griffin
                  Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                  www.southern-digital.com
                  www.seeit360.net
                  www.ezphotosafe.com
                  404-551-4275
                  404-731-7798

                  _____

                  From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Behalf Of dmgalpha
                  Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:11 PM
                  To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?



                  --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
                  Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > A pano is a new work.
                  > Copyright automatically falls to the "creator".
                  > unless you are "working for hire" and have signed away your rights.
                  >
                  > You do not have to register with the copyright office to "have
                  copyright"
                  > but it greatly increases the penalties that you can extract from
                  > "infringers" in court.
                  >
                  > Chris Thomas

                  My understanding (I am not in the US) is that registration is required
                  to file a copyright infringement suit. It does not increase penalties
                  per-se, it actually allows you to _get_ penalties.

                  Perhaps you are confusing the use of "Copyright by XYZ, Year". It is
                  suggested to be added to any copyrighted work so the infringer knows
                  in advance they are using a copyrighted work and can say they did not
                  know.

                  --dmg





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • dmgalpha
                  ... Hi Sasha, is this a way of saying I was right? :) Here is a quote from the link you provided http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html: Use of the notice
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Hmm this looks be actually correct upon my research into refuting you..
                    >
                    >

                    Hi Sasha,

                    is this a way of saying I was right? :)

                    Here is a quote from the link you provided
                    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html:

                    "Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public
                    that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright
                    owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the
                    event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright
                    appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a
                    copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given
                    to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent
                    infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as
                    provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent
                    infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work
                    was protected. "


                    --dmg

                    >
                    > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Another link..
                    >
                    > http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Sacha Griffin
                    > Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                    > www.southern-digital.com
                    > www.seeit360.net
                    > www.ezphotosafe.com
                    > 404-551-4275
                    > 404-731-7798
                    >
                    > _____
                    >
                    > From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                    > Behalf Of dmgalpha
                    > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:11 PM
                    > To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
                    yahoogroups.com,
                    > Chris Thomas <chris@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > A pano is a new work.
                    > > Copyright automatically falls to the "creator".
                    > > unless you are "working for hire" and have signed away your rights.
                    > >
                    > > You do not have to register with the copyright office to "have
                    > copyright"
                    > > but it greatly increases the penalties that you can extract from
                    > > "infringers" in court.
                    > >
                    > > Chris Thomas
                    >
                    > My understanding (I am not in the US) is that registration is required
                    > to file a copyright infringement suit. It does not increase penalties
                    > per-se, it actually allows you to _get_ penalties.
                    >
                    > Perhaps you are confusing the use of "Copyright by XYZ, Year". It is
                    > suggested to be added to any copyrighted work so the infringer knows
                    > in advance they are using a copyrighted work and can say they did not
                    > know.
                    >
                    > --dmg
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • Chris Thomas
                    Registration is not required to initiate a copyright infingement case. Chris Thomas Photographer cell... 403-615-1212 In North America call... 1-800-870-5110
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Registration is not required to initiate a copyright infingement case.



                      Chris Thomas

                      Photographer

                      cell... 403-615-1212

                      In North America

                      call... 1-800-870-5110

                      <http://www.christhomas.com/> http://www.christhomas.com



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                      Behalf Of dmgalpha
                      Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:11 PM
                      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?



                      --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
                      Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > A pano is a new work.
                      > Copyright automatically falls to the "creator".
                      > unless you are "working for hire" and have signed away your rights.
                      >
                      > You do not have to register with the copyright office to "have
                      copyright"
                      > but it greatly increases the penalties that you can extract from
                      > "infringers" in court.
                      >
                      > Chris Thomas

                      My understanding (I am not in the US) is that registration is required
                      to file a copyright infringement suit. It does not increase penalties
                      per-se, it actually allows you to _get_ penalties.

                      Perhaps you are confusing the use of "Copyright by XYZ, Year". It is
                      suggested to be added to any copyrighted work so the infringer knows
                      in advance they are using a copyrighted work and can say they did not
                      know.

                      --dmg





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Sacha Griffin
                      The link that I posted states this clearly, unless you have other conflicting documentation. Copyright Registration In general, copyright registration is a
                      Message 10 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The link that I posted states this clearly, unless you have other
                        conflicting documentation.




                        Copyright Registration


                        In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a
                        public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However,
                        registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though
                        registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides
                        several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make
                        registration. Among these advantages are the following:

                        * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is
                        necessary for works of U.S. origin.





                        Sacha Griffin
                        Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                        www.southern-digital.com
                        www.seeit360.net
                        www.ezphotosafe.com
                        404-551-4275
                        404-731-7798

                        _____

                        From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                        Behalf Of Chris Thomas
                        Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:19 PM
                        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?



                        Registration is not required to initiate a copyright infingement case.

                        Chris Thomas

                        Photographer

                        cell... 403-615-1212

                        In North America

                        call... 1-800-870-5110

                        <http://www.christho <http://www.christhomas.com/> mas.com/>
                        http://www.christho <http://www.christhomas.com> mas.com

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
                        [mailto:PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
                        On
                        Behalf Of dmgalpha
                        Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:11 PM
                        To: PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?

                        --- In PanoToolsNG@ <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
                        Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > A pano is a new work.
                        > Copyright automatically falls to the "creator".
                        > unless you are "working for hire" and have signed away your rights.
                        >
                        > You do not have to register with the copyright office to "have
                        copyright"
                        > but it greatly increases the penalties that you can extract from
                        > "infringers" in court.
                        >
                        > Chris Thomas

                        My understanding (I am not in the US) is that registration is required
                        to file a copyright infringement suit. It does not increase penalties
                        per-se, it actually allows you to _get_ penalties.

                        Perhaps you are confusing the use of "Copyright by XYZ, Year". It is
                        suggested to be added to any copyrighted work so the infringer knows
                        in advance they are using a copyrighted work and can say they did not
                        know.

                        --dmg

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • dmgalpha
                        ... Hi Chris, what jurisdiction you are talking about. Of course, anybody can initiate an infringement case! even somebody who is not the copyright owner. The
                        Message 11 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Registration is not required to initiate a copyright infingement case.
                          >
                          >

                          Hi Chris,

                          what jurisdiction you are talking about.

                          Of course, anybody can initiate an infringement case! even somebody
                          who is not the copyright owner. The question is whether it can
                          proceed! and if the initiator has any chance to win!

                          If you are talking about the United States, read section 401 of its
                          copyright act. It deals with these issues.

                          --dmg

                          --
                          daniel german
                          http://turingmachine.org/
                        • rogerhoward@rogerroger.org
                          ... Yes but this is also a minor formality as copyright must only be registered before filing a suit with the courts; which, if you re filing a lawsuit, an
                          Message 12 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Sacha Griffin wrote:

                            > Copyright Registration
                            >
                            > In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to
                            > make a
                            > public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However,
                            > registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though
                            > registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law
                            > provides
                            > several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to
                            > make
                            > registration. Among these advantages are the following:
                            >
                            > * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is
                            > necessary for works of U.S. origin.
                            Yes but this is also a minor formality as copyright must only be
                            registered before filing a suit with the courts; which, if you're
                            filing a lawsuit, an extra $35 and a two-sided copyright reg form
                            isn't much extra work. You do NOT have to have a registered copyright
                            on or before the date of infringement to file suit, only on or before
                            the date of filing the suit.

                            That said, you can basically expect to recoup actual damages if you
                            don't have a registered copyright on or before date of infringement,
                            whereas if you do have a registered copyright prior to infringement
                            you can go for actuals plus much greater amounts in punitives.
                          • Perry Joseph
                            ... Sacha s right on this. I sued a large name brand ISP for copyright infringement for software I had developed.(Short story: a member of the forum hosted
                            Message 13 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin" <sachagriffin@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > The link that I posted states this clearly, unless you have other
                              > conflicting documentation.

                              Sacha's right on this. I sued a large name brand ISP for copyright
                              infringement for software I had developed.(Short story: a "member" of
                              the "forum" hosted by the ISP in quetion uploaded my program to the
                              "library" and the library they uploaded to was "moderated" so the
                              provider was liable for the number of downloads prior to removing it
                              from the server -- about $4K. Before they would talk about settlement,
                              they wanted us to provide proof of registration, so I registered the
                              software, and once I got the certificate, we sent it to them and
                              settled. We did not get attorney's fees, and since then, I'm more
                              diligent about keeping up with my copyrights. It was an easy case --
                              basically had to push a few papers around and make a few calls.)

                              pj
                            • Perry Joseph
                              If I register a color image with the copyright office and then subsequently publish that same photo in black and white instead of color, is it a derivative?
                              Message 14 of 23 , Sep 25, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                If I register a color image with the copyright office and then
                                subsequently publish that same photo in black and white instead of
                                color, is it a derivative? Does it need to be registered again?

                                Based on what I've read relative to "derivative", here's my
                                interpretation as a non-lawyer: It's already protected and doesn't
                                need to be registered again. And even if it is a derivative, common
                                inspection would tell you they are the same photo.

                                pj
                              • Perry Joseph
                                Dry reading, but seems to address some of what we re talking about: http://www.oblon.com/Pub/HudisSullivanCopyrightArticle.html pj
                                Message 15 of 23 , Sep 26, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dry reading, but seems to address some of what we're talking about:

                                  http://www.oblon.com/Pub/HudisSullivanCopyrightArticle.html

                                  pj
                                • Chris Thomas
                                  Yes, technically this is true. It would be the first step your lawyer would request of you.. if you are suing in the United States. My point is.. It doesn t
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Sep 26, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Yes, technically this is true.

                                    It would be the first step your lawyer would request of you..

                                    if you are suing in the United States.



                                    My point is.. It doesn't have to be part of your "workflow".

                                    You can register a work, just before litigation.



                                    Regards

                                    chris





                                    Chris Thomas

                                    Photographer

                                    cell... 403-615-1212

                                    In North America

                                    call... 1-800-870-5110

                                    <http://www.christhomas.com/> http://www.christhomas.com



                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                                    Behalf Of Sacha Griffin
                                    Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:44 PM
                                    To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?



                                    The link that I posted states this clearly, unless you have other
                                    conflicting documentation.

                                    Copyright Registration

                                    In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a
                                    public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However,
                                    registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though
                                    registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides
                                    several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make
                                    registration. Among these advantages are the following:

                                    * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is
                                    necessary for works of U.S. origin.

                                    Sacha Griffin
                                    [Chris Thomas] snip




                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Perry Joseph
                                    ... This is true, however you would not be able to sue for statutory damages nor recover attorney fees. At that rate, if one wants to register unpublished
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Sep 26, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > My point is.. It doesn't have to be part of your "workflow".
                                      > You can register a work, just before litigation.

                                      This is true, however you would not be able to sue for statutory
                                      damages nor recover attorney fees.

                                      At that rate, if one wants to register unpublished works so they can
                                      sue for statutory damages, the "workflow" might call for delivering a
                                      filing registration to the copyright office within ninety days of
                                      publication. The copyright office allows for a 90 day grace period
                                      after an image is published so one can still enjoy the rights of
                                      filing the image(s) as unpublished works.

                                      In practical terms, this would call for making some simple notes of
                                      what images are published and then being sure they are registered in a
                                      timely fashion. Paying the post office to provide a delivery
                                      confirmation is suffice according to my attorney -- signature not
                                      required. All the copyright office requires (as I understand it) is
                                      "receipt" within 90 days.

                                      My attorney studied copyright law in school. I'm not saying he's a
                                      genius or is the ultimate authority either, but he has worked with me
                                      on the past on a few infringement cases and hasn't lost yet. He and I
                                      just haven't had to deal with a case that involved a panoramic or a
                                      derivative.

                                      As we've discussed this more, he does believe if I register the
                                      individual images that constitute the panoramic, I would not have to
                                      file the pano as a derivative. Why? Because nothing "new" of substance
                                      has been added to the original images. We could show a judge the
                                      individual images and clearly identify various aspects of the
                                      panoramic that show up in the individual frames.

                                      Where my attorney stops short is if I were to do something like
                                      "posterize" the image or turn it into faux piece of artwork. This he
                                      says is adding something substantially new to the image and would
                                      require additional registration as a derivative. Mind you, this is
                                      only if one wants to retain the right of statutory damages and
                                      recovery of legal fees. This does not mean you couldn't file suit if
                                      one hadn't registered the unpublished works and / or the derivate works.

                                      I was hoping perhaps someone here might have seen some case law that
                                      involved "derivatives" as they apply to panoramic images or images
                                      that involve multiple images previously registered that have been
                                      subsequently "stitched" together.

                                      One other sidenote... If one wanted to litigate for statutory damages,
                                      then it seems one needs to place a clear copyright notice on the image
                                      so the registrant can say the infringement was willful and intentional
                                      i.e. the violator cropped / removed the copyright notice.

                                      pj
                                    • Chris Thomas
                                      Hi Perry. Your attorney sounds pretty smart to me! This was my original point... when this thread started. Thank you for putting it more precisly. Just for
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Sep 26, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Perry.

                                        Your attorney sounds pretty smart to me!

                                        This was my original point... when this thread started.
                                        Thank you for putting it more precisly.

                                        Just for argument sake.

                                        I would suggest to your attorney; that the stitched Equirectangular image
                                        is a new and unique work that is actually ..."more than the sum of its'
                                        parts". The augument for this can be displayed in any number of spherical
                                        views.

                                        I suggest, we should register the Equirectangular image that contains all
                                        the "individual" images..... any copying..., even a small crop, is still an
                                        infringement.


                                        regards

                                        Chris Thomas


                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                                        Behalf Of Perry Joseph
                                        Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:29 PM
                                        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?

                                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > My point is.. It doesn't have to be part of your "workflow".
                                        > You can register a work, just before litigation.

                                        This is true, however you would not be able to sue for statutory
                                        damages nor recover attorney fees.

                                        At that rate, if one wants to register unpublished works so they can
                                        sue for statutory damages, the "workflow" might call for delivering a
                                        filing registration to the copyright office within ninety days of
                                        publication. The copyright office allows for a 90 day grace period
                                        after an image is published so one can still enjoy the rights of
                                        filing the image(s) as unpublished works.

                                        In practical terms, this would call for making some simple notes of
                                        what images are published and then being sure they are registered in a
                                        timely fashion. Paying the post office to provide a delivery
                                        confirmation is suffice according to my attorney -- signature not
                                        required. All the copyright office requires (as I understand it) is
                                        "receipt" within 90 days.

                                        My attorney studied copyright law in school. I'm not saying he's a
                                        genius or is the ultimate authority either, but he has worked with me
                                        on the past on a few infringement cases and hasn't lost yet. He and I
                                        just haven't had to deal with a case that involved a panoramic or a
                                        derivative.

                                        As we've discussed this more, he does believe if I register the
                                        individual images that constitute the panoramic, I would not have to
                                        file the pano as a derivative. Why? Because nothing "new" of substance
                                        has been added to the original images. We could show a judge the
                                        individual images and clearly identify various aspects of the
                                        panoramic that show up in the individual frames.

                                        Where my attorney stops short is if I were to do something like
                                        "posterize" the image or turn it into faux piece of artwork. This he
                                        says is adding something substantially new to the image and would
                                        require additional registration as a derivative. Mind you, this is
                                        only if one wants to retain the right of statutory damages and
                                        recovery of legal fees. This does not mean you couldn't file suit if
                                        one hadn't registered the unpublished works and / or the derivate works.

                                        I was hoping perhaps someone here might have seen some case law that
                                        involved "derivatives" as they apply to panoramic images or images
                                        that involve multiple images previously registered that have been
                                        subsequently "stitched" together.

                                        One other sidenote... If one wanted to litigate for statutory damages,
                                        then it seems one needs to place a clear copyright notice on the image
                                        so the registrant can say the infringement was willful and intentional
                                        i.e. the violator cropped / removed the copyright notice.

                                        pj
                                        snip
                                      • Perry Joseph
                                        ... image ... spherical ... You make an interesting point, Chris. I m curious as to where the more than the sum of its parts is quoted from? My attorney is
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Sep 27, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:

                                          > Just for argument sake.

                                          > I would suggest to your attorney; that the stitched Equirectangular
                                          image
                                          > is a new and unique work that is actually ..."more than the sum of its'
                                          > parts". The augument for this can be displayed in any number of
                                          spherical
                                          > views.

                                          You make an interesting point, Chris. I'm curious as to where the
                                          "more than the sum of its' parts" is quoted from?

                                          My attorney is going to do some additional searches on LexisNexis in a
                                          few days to see if we can cull any additional references.

                                          He continues to key on the fact the pano has, relatively speaking, "no
                                          new information". This, as compared to a collage that might involve a
                                          number of images along with other added materials (imagery / graphics,
                                          etc.) which would be considered derivative works.

                                          pj
                                        • Jakob Norstedt-Moberg
                                          ... Perhaps I shouldn t get into this debate, since I know too little (nothing) about American justice. But I can t resist on commenting this about no new
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Sep 28, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Joseph" <probe@...> wrote:

                                            > He continues to key on the fact the pano has, relatively speaking, "no
                                            > new information".

                                            Perhaps I shouldn't get into this debate, since I know too little
                                            (nothing) about American justice. But I can't resist on commenting this
                                            about "no new information".

                                            I would argue that an equirectangular has new information, it has
                                            definite angular and perspective information that the single image
                                            don't have no matter how much you read about focal lengths and crop
                                            factors in the meta data of the image.

                                            By creating an equirectangular you fix the single image in space, you
                                            establish the point where it was taken and the direction the camera was
                                            pointing. This is new information which can only be derived from the
                                            sum of the images, not the single image.

                                            Jakob
                                          • Chris Thomas
                                            Hello Perry...& fellow listers For debates sake... I would suggest that copyright is not strickly confined to new information . Would one not copyright the
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Sep 28, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hello Perry...& fellow "listers"

                                              For debates' sake...

                                              I would suggest that copyright is not strickly confined to "new
                                              information".

                                              Would one not copyright the collage..... rather than it's individual parts?
                                              Thus my reference to the colloquialism "greater than the sum of its' parts".

                                              An Equirectangular image is designed to be displayed in a 3D viewer (I use
                                              the term loosly). It's a 3D interactive format, and as such, it's far
                                              removed from the 2D images that are mere pieces of the "collage". I don't
                                              see the Equirectangular image as derivative in the traditional copyright
                                              sense.

                                              I think it requires it's own copyright. Anything you might crop out of
                                              it...say, for making 2D prints, would be covered under "derivative".

                                              Theft of any part big enough to be recognisable would be covered.

                                              One last thought for discussion.... that relates.

                                              With so many talented Panographers contributing 2-4 mb compressed jpeg files
                                              onto the web, we must prepare for an onslot of copyright theft. These files
                                              are big enough for people to go to press with! And they often are
                                              outstanding as "stand alone" 2D art!

                                              Regards
                                              Chris Thomas

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                                              Behalf Of Perry Joseph
                                              Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:48 PM
                                              To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?

                                              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:

                                              > Just for argument sake.

                                              > I would suggest to your attorney; that the stitched Equirectangular
                                              image
                                              > is a new and unique work that is actually ..."more than the sum of its'
                                              > parts". The augument for this can be displayed in any number of
                                              spherical
                                              > views.

                                              You make an interesting point, Chris. I'm curious as to where the
                                              "more than the sum of its' parts" is quoted from?

                                              snip
                                            • Perry Joseph
                                              ... parts? I agree, however I m not sure a panoramic would necessarily be comparable to a collage in the tradidional sense. And if the collage was just a
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Sep 29, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:

                                                > Would one not copyright the collage..... rather than it's individual
                                                parts?

                                                I agree, however I'm not sure a panoramic would necessarily be
                                                comparable to a collage in the tradidional sense. And if the collage
                                                was just a collection of photos without any new material added, I'm
                                                not so sure it would have to be registered as derivative works if it's
                                                the same author.

                                                I refer back to a link I mentioned previously. Part IV would be the
                                                part I'm specifically looking at:

                                                http://www.oblon.com/Pub/HudisSullivanCopyrightArticle.html

                                                Note I'm not saying this brief is a definitive answer, but it has a
                                                few compelling points and references.

                                                It's also inferred in the brief there may be differences of
                                                interpretation depending on the district as previously pointed out by
                                                Dan G.

                                                I'm waiting to see if my legal beagle sniffs anything further from his
                                                resources.

                                                For the record, I'm not satisfied the question has been answered yet:
                                                do panoramics need to be registered as derivative works if the
                                                originals have already been registered?

                                                In one sense, you might easily argue that if there's doubt and you
                                                want to be 100% sure you can sue for statutory and attorney fees, then
                                                you would register a pano as a derivative assuming you previously
                                                registered the originals.

                                                pj
                                              • Chris Thomas
                                                PJ & Listers. I read the article you referenced below. It s clear that various jurisdictions within the US have ruled in different manners. Near the end of the
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Sep 29, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  PJ & Listers.

                                                  I read the article you referenced below.
                                                  It's clear that various jurisdictions within the US have ruled in different
                                                  manners.

                                                  Near the end of the article is the following:

                                                  "The Murray Hill rule requires a corresponding registration for each
                                                  discrete work. The cautious practitioner, therefore, should register a
                                                  client's derivative work before pursuing an infringement case that may
                                                  involve any elements of that work"

                                                  This would seen to me to say..... even if you register each component of
                                                  your equirectangular image, you should still copyright the pano. It's
                                                  important to keep in mind that US copyright is only one (although an
                                                  important one) of perhaps 200 national jurisdictions and it is "all over the
                                                  place" on rulings.

                                                  As for myself.... I going with common sense.
                                                  I'll register what I show!
                                                  I have no intention of registering thousands of component parts that will
                                                  never be published as stand alone pieces.

                                                  I'm going to register my equirectangular images as original (discrete)
                                                  works. To use the music analogy....you can't copyright a cord but you can
                                                  copyright a combination of cords that consitute a particular melody.

                                                  Best regards.

                                                  Chris Thomas
                                                  Photographer
                                                  cell... 403-615-1212
                                                  In North America
                                                  call... 1-800-870-5110
                                                  http://www.christhomas.com

                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                                                  Behalf Of Perry Joseph
                                                  Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:10 AM
                                                  To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?

                                                  --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:

                                                  > Would one not copyright the collage..... rather than it's individual
                                                  parts?

                                                  I agree, however I'm not sure a panoramic would necessarily be
                                                  comparable to a collage in the tradidional sense. And if the collage
                                                  was just a collection of photos without any new material added, I'm
                                                  not so sure it would have to be registered as derivative works if it's
                                                  the same author.

                                                  I refer back to a link I mentioned previously. Part IV would be the
                                                  part I'm specifically looking at:

                                                  http://www.oblon.com/Pub/HudisSullivanCopyrightArticle.html

                                                  Note I'm not saying this brief is a definitive answer, but it has a
                                                  few compelling points and references.

                                                  It's also inferred in the brief there may be differences of
                                                  interpretation depending on the district as previously pointed out by
                                                  Dan G.

                                                  I'm waiting to see if my legal beagle sniffs anything further from his
                                                  resources.

                                                  For the record, I'm not satisfied the question has been answered yet:
                                                  do panoramics need to be registered as derivative works if the
                                                  originals have already been registered?

                                                  In one sense, you might easily argue that if there's doubt and you
                                                  want to be 100% sure you can sue for statutory and attorney fees, then
                                                  you would register a pano as a derivative assuming you previously
                                                  registered the originals.

                                                  pj

                                                  snip.
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.