picture/copyright question

[2200fan]

 I was cleaning out an old desk and found 4 issues of Motor Coach Age magazine. These were published between 1999-2002. There are articles with lots of cool pictures of CTA buses and a few streetcars.from 1927 to 1982. If there's interest, can I legally scan and post these here?

[briman94]

You should be fine under fair use, if you cite the magazine correctly.

[Busjack]

You should be fine under fair use, if you cite the magazine correctly.

​No he isn't.

Copyright does not mean giving credit, but the owner's right to control who uses is.

Since this is still copyrighted material, as a minimum the owner has the right under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that it be removed.

Fair use is excerpting something, not copying it.

I don't know where the community guidelines are in the new software, but they covered the issue. While I don't have much use for Wikipedia, the agreement, when the community guidelines was posted, was that this correctly stated the applicable law.

[Juniorz]

And that also goes for anything else that is posted!!!!!!!! Read the fine print before you post! That includes PHOTOS!!!!! If you are using another's PHOTO'S, take the courtesy to ask the person before using their PHOTO'S for reference. There are individuals that actually work hard and take time out of their busy schedule to produce work product. Kevin, can you post or create guidelines for photo's, I have one made that i can send to you and hopefully collaborate on an "official" photo guidelines

[briman94]

​No he isn't.

Copyright does not mean giving credit, but the owner's right to control who uses is.

Since this is still copyrighted material, as a minimum the owner has the right under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that it be removed.

Fair use is excerpting something, not copying it.

I don't know where the community guidelines are in the new software, but they covered the issue. While I don't have much use for Wikipedia, the agreement, when the community guidelines was posted, was that this correctly stated the applicable law.

​I wasn't implying simply crediting was "fair use," but for historic articles (I don't remember the specific time period) which are used for journalism (e.g. a forum like this), as long as the source is credited, it is under "fair use." The main points here being 1) historic, 2) used for journalism, and 3) credited.

[Busjack]

And that also goes for anything else that is posted!!!!!!!! Read the fine print before you post! That includes PHOTOS!!!!! If you are using another's PHOTO'S, take the courtesy to ask the person before using their PHOTO'S for reference. There are individuals that actually work hard and take time out of their busy schedule to produce work product. Kevin, can you post or create guidelines for photo's, I have one made that i can send to you and hopefully collaborate on an "official" photo guidelines

​I know you are concerned about photos. Copyright law doesn't distinguish between the type of information, but is based on that someone copied something that belonged to someone else and put it on a server. Thus, it doesn't matter if someone used copy and paste to get something off the Tribune, scan text, or post an image.

As was brought up with respect to the Muslim bus, someone took a photo from here, doctored it, and then got the Tribune to publish it, which was a copyright violation. I suggested at the time that Kevin protest to the Tribune, but I don't know if he did.

I don't know what other specific concerns you have. Also, since Garmon is now the photo editor for the chicagobus.org site, I suppose that the two of you should confer.

The other thing you should take into consideration is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act deals with posting copyrighted information on a server. There is nothing wrong with using image tags or the social media methods Kevin has described to embed photos, tweets, or video here.

[Busjack]

​I wasn't implying simply crediting was "fair use," but for historic articles (I don't remember the specific time period) which are used for journalism (e.g. a forum like this), as long as the source is credited, it is under "fair use." The main points here being 1) historic, 2) used for journalism, and 3) credited.

​Doesn't mean you are allowed to copy it. First there is the question whether the photos within the magazine are copyrighted, or old enough that the copyright had expired. Second, the magazine is engaged in journalism; this site is not (one can argue about the CTA Tattler*). Third, somehow 2200fan took it to mean that he could copy the magazine, which itself is not a historical work (having been copyright in 2000). Fourth, fair use consists of using something for criticism, education or parody, but not appropriating it. For instance, it is o.k for the Tribune and the CTA Tattler to use to illustration of the new seating arrangement on the 7000s and say that it is great or it stinks, and in any event, CTA does not claim copyright in its press releases, since the purpose of a press release is to get someone to publish it.

___________

*Even there, someone else on chicagonow.com asked me why his administrator said that certain illustrations had to be deleted, and I had to explain the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to him.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

And that also goes for anything else that is posted!!!!!!!! Read the fine print before you post! That includes PHOTOS!!!!! If you are using another's PHOTO'S, take the courtesy to ask the person before using their PHOTO'S for reference. There are individuals that actually work hard and take time out of their busy schedule to produce work product. Kevin, can you post or create guidelines for photo's, I have one made that i can send to you and hopefully collaborate on an "official" photo guidelines

​Take it easy please. 2200fan wasn't going to post the photos quite yet, he went here for the copyright question and got it from Busjack, who knows about this issue.

But you're right about asking. As much as I'd like to see the photos, I'd like it more if people respect copyright laws, as 2200fan is still doing.

...

I don't know where the community guidelines are in the new software, but they covered the issue. While I don't have much use for Wikipedia, the agreement, when the community guidelines was posted, was that this correctly stated the applicable law.

​The community guidelines seem to have been copied over to the new site. There should be a link at the bottom of this page for them.

[briman94]

If it were posted here, even if it is still under copyright, it should be considered "nonprofit educational usage." It's understandable that Kevin has to watch out for DMCA, and if he simply doesn't want it hosted to be safe, that's fine, but it is technically fair use.

EDIT: Upon reading the community guidelines, he would be fine if he uploaded them elsewhere and linked them with image tags, as the guidelines only state "uploading an attachment".

Edited April 30, 2015 by briman94

[Busjack]

​...

​The community guidelines seem to have been copied over to the new site. There should be a link at the bottom of this page for them.

​Kevin send me a pm that he had added the link as a footer, but that it had been under the More drop down in the header. In any event, you are correct that they are there.

[Busjack]

If it were posted here, even if it is still under copyright, it should be considered "nonprofit educational usage." It's understandable that Kevin has to watch out for DMCA, and if he simply doesn't want it hosted to be safe, that's fine, but it is technically fair use.

​This is not a nonprofit educational organization. I don't think any teacher edited the materials, nor asked for permission to use them, which is customary.

[briman94]

​This is not a nonprofit educational organization. I don't think any teacher edited the materials, nor asked for permission to use them, which is customary.

​I don't think it has to be an educational organization, so long as it is nonprofit (yes) and for "educational use," which would be informing us of the article snippets. I recently protested an automatic copyright claim on one of my YouTube videos, and my protest was successful because it was fair use, even though I'm not an "educational institution."

[Busjack]

​I don't think it has to be an educational organization, so long as it is nonprofit (yes) and for "educational use," which would be informing us of the article snippets. I recently protested an automatic copyright claim on one of my YouTube videos, and my protest was successful because it was fair use, even though I'm not an "educational institution."

​I replied on pm, and you seem to be making conclusions of law based on divergent facts, which is a fallacy. You didn't disclose what the facts of the YouTube situation was, and clearly they are not relevant to the issue presented on this forum.

[Juniorz]

I apologize for my "excited" response, but i had to just address that issue because there are a lot of great photo's out there that are being used without the discretion of the owner, which (under my personal opinion) I frown upon because some photos are next to impossible to recreate. Regardless if the photo's are used for a "non-profit" or "educational-use", the work should be acknowledged by their respected owner. And oh, I'm sure many of us know about the issue outside of Busjack (no pun intended). This is a topic that should be discussed often. 

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

I apologize for my "excited" response, but i had to just address that issue because there are a lot of great photo's out there that are being used without the discretion of the owner, which (under my personal opinion) I frown upon because some photos are next to impossible to recreate. Regardless if the photo's are used for a "non-profit" or "educational-use", the work should be acknowledged by their respected owner...

Oh yes, I agree!​ 

[Busjack]

I apologize for my "excited" response, but i had to just address that issue because there are a lot of great photo's out there that are being used without the discretion of the owner, which (under my personal opinion) I frown upon because some photos are next to impossible to recreate. Regardless if the photo's are used for a "non-profit" or "educational-use", the work should be acknowledged by their respected owner. And oh, I'm sure many of us know about the issue outside of Busjack (no pun intended). This is a topic that should be discussed often. 

​I think that your concerns are still copyright. If someone took one of your photos, put them on a server, and then said, "I did this because that Juniorz guy is a good/bad photographer, or knows/doesn't know what he is shooting" that would be fair use. But if he were palming them off as his own, that is ripping off your effort and work (known as intellectual property), and illegal.

I noted a gray area where someone was using chicago-l,org photos, but was trying to create his own artwork from them.

[Juniorz]

And trust, if i knew of such infringement, i would send a nice little cease and desist letter to warn them of that infringement. I work very hard for my work product, all i want is for individual's to ask, sign a usage agreement and use the work product with good faith and respect.

[sw4400]

Now here's a interesting monkey wrench that you may want to consider on getting permission from the author before posting copyrighted material...

Suppose I found a site that late forum member Wolfman had and it had a bunch of CTA Bus photos of Fishbowls, Flyers and Americanas and Artics from the '70's and '80's, and one of the pictures was a fleet of each series brand new at South Shops just delivered. How does one get permission from Wolfman to share an image he posted up when he's deceased, Busjack? Do you have a legal answer for this?

Sorry to bring the late Wolfman into this... R.I.P, but there has to be some way to use pictures in this instance if you know who took them, yet can't get his permission.

 

 

[garmon757]

And that also goes for anything else that is posted!!!!!!!! Read the fine print before you post! That includes PHOTOS!!!!! If you are using another's PHOTO'S, take the courtesy to ask the person before using their PHOTO'S for reference. There are individuals that actually work hard and take time out of their busy schedule to produce work product. Kevin, can you post or create guidelines for photo's, I have one made that i can send to you and hopefully collaborate on an "official" photo guidelines

Yeah, just like BusHunter spotted some f'ing prick using one of my photos and posted it on Facebook last year.

[Juniorz]

Yeah, just like BusHunter spotted some f'ing prick using one of my photos and posted it on Facebook last year.

​A nice little cease and desist will do the trick. I have a letter on standby just in case of possible infringement. There is one thing to ask, there is another thing when you begin usage without permission

[Busjack]

Now here's a interesting monkey wrench that you may want to consider on getting permission from the author before posting copyrighted material...

Suppose I found a site that late forum member Wolfman had and it had a bunch of CTA Bus photos of Fishbowls, Flyers and Americanas and Artics from the '70's and '80's, and one of the pictures was a fleet of each series brand new at South Shops just delivered. How does one get permission from Wolfman to share an image he posted up when he's deceased, Busjack? Do you have a legal answer for this?

Sorry to bring the late Wolfman into this... R.I.P, but there has to be some way to use pictures in this instance if you know who took them, yet can't get his permission.

 

 

​Wolfman's name is neither here nor there in this sense. The answer is that the rights belong to his estate, so, in that case, his wife could give permission. Similarly, I had mentioned that CTA5750 owned the rights to his father's photos, and assuming that Elvis is dead, his estate (Priscilla or Lisa Marie) owns the rights to presentations of his work (in some senses, that's where it started). That, as opposed to apparently a small amount of money in bank accounts, is undoubtedly motivating the Ernie Banks probate mess.

The other thing to consider is that it could be a work for hire situation (the photographer was an employee for someone else) or an assignment (i.e.the photographer gave it to a collection, along with the copyright), which is the reason that many pictures in books about the CTA have photos courtesy of the CTA collection. You'll note, for instance, in baseball games, Howard Ankin comes out and says that the rights are owned by the Chicago Cubs.

Another issue (brought up by Wikipedia) is licensing. If you post there, you have to select a license that says anyone can use it. Hence I no longer post there. To get it back to Juniorz, I don't see anything in the Community Guidelines about that someone who posts here licenses the work and his work is labelled "(c) All Rights Reserved," so he is within his rights in sending a cease and desist letter if someone copies it for another site.

That finally gets to the question of your pictures on your roster pages. Since those photographers have already given this site permission to use their work, you aren't appropriating anything. You would be if you were keeping a mirror site on Yahoo! forums. Google has its own legal staff to defend its indexing, although in the video sections there are legends that certain search results have been deleted due to DMCA.

[2200fan]

Wow, I had no idea this would start a s---storm! I want to mention something in hopes of clarifying this situation. The pictures in the magazines were not taken by the writer or publisher. Most are from the Krambles-Peterson archives and are credited accordingly. Does this change anything? I imagine I would have to get permission from the archive owner to post. I obviously deleted my previous postings as I wish no trouble for this site.

Edited April 30, 2015 by 2200fan

[Busjack]

Wow, I had no idea this would start a s---storm! I want to mention something in hopes of clarifying this situation. The pictures in the magazines were not taken by the writer or publisher. Most are from the Krambles-Peterson archives and are credited accordingly. Does this change anything? I imagine I would have to get permission from the archive owner to post. I obviously deleted my previous postings as I wish no trouble for this site.

​As I indicated in the pm, what set off the fire alarm was having a thread entitled "picture/copyright question" and then you posting copies immediately after someone said that something was o.k.

Motor Coach Age may have obtained permission from Peterson, or their use might have been fair use at least as Briman conceived it. Copying Motor Coach Age wasn't.

Now, if I were doing this, I would have done something like "I have this Motor Coach Age, which explained this about two buses," and then paraphrase the article.You probably could have found pictures of the buses somewhere on the web, and then use links or image tags for those images. For instance, Tom's Trolleybus has pictures of before and after 8499.

 

[strictures]

Well, I just went to the Motor Coach Age website & it hasn't published for three years.

Now that doesn't invalidate the copyright, but it does put into into a legal limbo, as I doubt that the still extant Motor Bus Society probably can't afford a legal fight & would grant publication rights with proper notice of ownership.

[Busjack]

Well, I just went to the Motor Coach Age website & it hasn't published for three years.

Now that doesn't invalidate the copyright, but it does put into into a legal limbo, as I doubt that the still extant Motor Bus Society probably can't afford a legal fight & would grant publication rights with proper notice of ownership.

​But do you really want to put the administrators of this site at that legal risk?

As indicated in my discussion with sw, somebody still owns the intellectual property and would have the power to give consent, which you seem to acknowledge.