Is there any real value to photos...
Johnson3591@aol.com (Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:15:22 PST)

Hi,

This is a good question for the casual Web user, many folks do not understand
or appreciate the reasoning behind copyright law.

Actually, the truth is that there is value to Web photos, but it may not be
known, per se. This is why the bulb nursery in question has not taken the time
and expense to create/take/produce its own photos. Each photo might be easy
to produce if a camera is available at the right time, etc. However, making
20, or 50, or 100 photos is a lot of work and has value. Photos have value
even if only in time spent, and effort to correctly identify them, etc. This is
the basis of copyright law, writing, and photography have value and cannot be
used or appropriated indiscriminately.

Copyright law is clear. When any photo or writing dated and known to be
associated with a creator, then the material is copyrighted (even if copyright is
not claimed). The important matters are to date, and to identify an author.
Web lists and pages that identify photos by author are suitable to establish
copyright, newspapers and magazines are suitable. Even mailing the photo or
written work to yourself is acceptable because the postmark establishes date.
Even if you don't know a piece is copyrighted (writing or photo, etc.), it may
be copyrighted.

There are some exceptions to copyright law. For instance, educational
purposes are allowed (a teacher may use a Web photo of a bulb in flower to
illustrate a botanical concept for a class). Almost without exception, a person may
not infringe upon copyrighted material in order to make a profit; this is
important and the courts give "profit" a great amount of weight. So, if a bulb
company improperly uses copyrighted material to illustrate a Web catalog, they are
almost certainly in violation of copyright law. Enforcing copyright is more
problematic and entails time and money, as well as (probably) copyright
registration.

One informal means (often cost free) is to notify others (via a list such as
the PBS list) that copyright is being infringed. Often such announcements
help to establish a pattern and boycotts can occur. If people (e.g., hobbyists)
are upset about businesses taking photos without permission or payment, they
may choose to spread the word or boycott a business. The principle (to me)
seems similar to a clothing company "cutting and pasting" catalog pages and
photos from a competitors catalog, without paying the graphic design artist, the
camera man, or the model. It is not high on the list of crimes against
humanity, but the net effect is that is may cause some to stop posting their beautiful
photos on the Web, we can all stand to lose should that happen.

LINK 1. Copyright Law FAQ
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht

LINK 2. Copyright Registration
http://www.copyright.gov/register/