An awful lot of you sent in this story about a proposed law in Florida that could put people in jail for taking a photograph of a farm without permission. Seriously. Not surprisingly, the "excuse" for this is that it is "needed to protect the property rights of farmers and the "intellectual property" involving farm operations." I'm not kidding. The bill was introduced by Florida State Senator Jim Norman from Tampa. It's apparently targeted at animal rights activists, who have been known to photograph questionable conditions of animals on farms. In other words, it has nothing to do with "protecting intellectual property." It's to avoid criticism for treating animals poorly. And, of course, if animal activists are trespassing to get these photos, there are already laws against that. But this is what you get in this kind of society, where people seem to project the idea that anything can be redefined as "property" and locked up -- people use "intellectual property" as an excuse for simply ridiculous legislative proposals such as this one. Even if such a law passes, it won't take long for it to be declared unconstitutional, but it could waste Florida taxpayer money to fight this in court.

Last week, there were student protests in the UK, concerning massively increased fees, and apparently on the fringes of the protests there was some violence, which of course the press picked up on, because "if it bleeds, it leads." Or, in this case, if it "kicks in a glass window, it leads." Apparently a whole bunch of newspapers all carried the same photo on their front covers. I've posted all nine such covers after the jump, but here are a couple just to give you the idea: However, as some have noted, what may be more interesting is that if you look at a wider lens version of a similar image, you see that the guy kicking in the glass appears to be surrounded by a ton of photographers. In fact, the whole thing almost looks like a setup, with every single newspaper cropping out the photographers: It looks like the wide angle shot was taken either seconds before, or seconds after the shot used by all the papers, but it's pretty close. Of course, with so many photographers, it does seem a bit odd that the newspapers all seemed to use a single photograph for their covers. What happened to the images from the others? Anyway, see the nine covers after the jump.

Every so often we hear of groups or organizations taking a rather expansive view of copyright law, but English Heritage, a UK gov't-backed organization to (you guessed it) promote English heritage and manage various historical sites, may have pushed the extremes to new levels. Boing Boing has the story of how it has sent a letter to a bunch of photosharing and stock photo sites claiming that all images of Stonehenge "can not be used for any commercial interest" and that "all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage." Of course, that's blatantly ridiculous.

One recipient of the letter, the site FotoLibra, is trying to figure out on what legal basis English Heritage is making this claim, noting that Stonehenge "has been their responsibility for 27 of the monument's 4,500 year old history." Of course, just about the only thing this will probably serve to do is make people a lot less interested in visiting Stonehenge, photographing Stonehenge and getting others to go to Stonehenge.

We recently wrote about how social mores can often handle situations of copying or lack of credit much more effectively than copyright law. In a perfect example of that happening, Chris Tolles points us to a long comment thread on a Groupon deal, where a bunch of photographers expose another photographer for claiming others' images were her own. Assuming you're one of the six or seven people in the world who still hasn't heard about Groupon, the group buying site offers special deals from local merchants each day, where the deals require a certain number of buyers before the deal kicks in.

Over in Atlanta, the deal for Wednesday was supposed to be a $65 1-hour photography session with a photographer named Dana Dawes. If you follow the comment thread on the deal, Dawes is quite responsive for the first few answers, working over time to answer any questions she can. Somewhere in the middle, however, someone notes that it appears that photographs on Dawes' website portfolio appear to be slightly edited versions of others' photographs (with a Dawes watermark added to them). Some of the photographs are traced back to their original photographer, and then the thread goes somewhat crazy, with lots of folks calling Dawes out, yelling at GroupOn for allowing this, and people demanding refunds. Dawes tries to defend herself for a while, but doesn't do a very good job -- sometimes claiming that she's taken photos in Europe (which is something of a non sequitur) and then later trying to blame a webmaster for causing the problem (though, others point out that the same photos appear on her Facebook page as well).

Eventually, Groupon closed down the deal and refunded everyone's money, which makes sense.

But, of course, what struck me most was, yet again, how the group dynamics and social mores solved this issue in the course of just a couple of hours. Many photographers can be notoriously pro-copyright (and, frankly, when I've discussed photography issues, pro-stronger copyright photographers have often been the most... aggressive in angrily commenting here on Techdirt) and there are a few "that's copyright infringement!" claims in the thread from photographers. And while it's true that some of these may be copyright infringement, the bigger issue for most isn't the infringement, but the passing off of others' photographs as if they were Dawes' own. It's the difference between "plagiarism" and "infringement," to some extent. For example, say that Dawes had actually taken many of these photographs, but had assigned the copyright to others. In such a scenario, I would imagine most Groupon users wouldn't have been that offended if she posted such photos to her portfolio to demonstrate her work. Instead, the issue that gets people upset is the passing off of the photos as her own, which is separate from the copyright issue.

But, in the end, it wasn't copyright that fixed the situation, it was the overall social pressure of the group. In exposing what appears to have been a passing off of others' works, users quickly started demanding refunds, warning others, and alerting Groupon administrators to kill the deal and automatically issue refunds. And this wasn't a case of some hugely well-known photographer being copied either. In our last post, some insisted that social mores only work when the wronged party is well-known, ignoring just how much the internet will amplify the message of someone who has been wronged.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that such situations can backfire. You can certainly envision scenarios where social mores border on "mob rule" -- and pitchfork wielding mobs have certainly been known to make a mistake or two over the years. But at some point, people need to recognize that there are many other methods for dealing with these sorts of issues than immediately falling back on "copyright infringement!"

Michael Scott points us to the news of a guy arrested in India for using his cameraphone to take a photo of a woman at a train station. He's accused of "insulting the modesty of a woman, by word, gesture or act" as well as "intruding upon the privacy" of the woman. To be fair, the article makes it clear that the woman and the police felt this guy was a "stalker" who had followed the woman on the train for months. However, it also said the woman didn't mind until he took that extra step of taking her photograph, which is apparently considered a privacy violation:

According to the police, the act of taking a photograph of a woman without her consent amounts to "intruding upon her privacy". An officer said: "The woman concerned has mentioned in her complaint that she had objections to (the person) taking her photograph. So we arrested him," an officer said.

The article quotes a lawyer who suggests this case is a slam dunk... as well as another who said there's no way the case gets anywhere, as there's nothing wrong with taking a photo of someone in a public place.

Well, well. A few weeks back, we wrote about the story of a guy who had bought some old glass negatives at a garage sale, and recently had them authenticated as being done by Ansel Adams. What interested us was the question of whether or not the guy, Rick Norsigian, could legally sell prints from the negatives. It seemed quite clear that doing so would almost certainly be copyright infringement. Purchasing negatives does not give you the right to print the works, unless you separately buy the associated copyrights. So, at first, I wondered if Ansel Adams' heirs would even let the guy sell prints. Of course, soon after the news came out, the Ansel Adams trust insisted the whole thing was a fraud -- and given some of the recent stories questioning the validity of certain art authentication practices -- perhaps their argument has merit.

Either way, it appears that Norsigian has barged forward with a plan to sell prints from the negatives, and reader Tom sends over the news that the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust is now suing him for it. While I haven't seen the actual lawsuit, the reporting on it notes that it covers: "trademark infringement, false advertising, trademark dilution, unfair competition and other claims." Missing from the list? Copyright. Making a copyright claim would be tantamount to admitting that they believed the images were legit. The Trust does make an argument that could leave it open to a copyright claim down the road, should the negatives be declared from Adams', but it may somewhat undermine their own argument in that:

The lawsuit further says that even if they were Adams' negatives, the prints and posters being created from them aren't the photographer's works, "but are derivative works at best."

"Mr. Adams was fond of likening a negative to a composer's score and the prints to its performance -- each performance differs in subtle ways," the lawsuit said. "The photographic prints and posters offered for sale by defendants ... are not an Ansel Adams 'performance.' "

While derivative works can be infringing, by saying they're "derivative at best," you could make an argument that such prints are fair use transformative works, rather than copies -- though it might not fly.

Either way, I can't see any legal way that Norsigian can sell these prints: if they're not Adams', then calling them Adams' opens himself up to all those charges in the case, with false advertising being a big one. If they actually are Adams' negatives, then he has no copyright on them and again should not be able to sell them.

We recently wrote about the LA Times being barred by a judge from publishing a photo of murder suspect Alberd Tersargyan that was taken -- with permission -- in the courtroom. As pretty much every legal expert who commented on the case noted, there was almost no way the judge's ban would hold up under a First Amendment review, as it was clear prior restraint. And, indeed, it didn't take long for an appeals court to overturn the ruling and note that it was, indeed, prior restraint. The First Amendment wins again...

THREsq has an interesting story about how the guy, Louie Psihoyos, who won an Oscar for best documentary this year for The Cove, apparently has a pretty quick legal trigger finger against anyone using a photograph he took 15 years ago. He's sued a bunch of companies over the years, and the latest is the BBC and CBS. He claims that it cost him $100,000 to create the photograph, which can be seen here: And, yes, THREsq is showing the photo as well. In these two cases, it seems like clear fair use, since we're both reporting on the photo itself. However, where the BBC potentially got into trouble is in using the same photo to illustrate an article about Intel betting on TV and video content. What's odd, however, is that the reason CBS is being sued is "that CBS Marketing appropriated it for commercial display at the 2009 Intel Developers Forum." This makes me wonder if CBS Marketing used the image at the event that the BBC was reporting on, leading the BBC to believe it had the ability to use that image. That could make the legal fight a bit more interesting.

However, the article also notes that Psihoyos has sued a bunch of times in the past over this photo as well. For example, a year ago, he sued Apple for the second time over this photo. While that lawsuit was eventually settled, the details suggest that Psihoyos was barking up the wrong tree on that lawsuit. It wasn't a case of Apple using the image, but a random iPhone app developer. You would think that Apple would have a clear DMCA safe harbor response, which would protect it from such a lawsuit, so I'm a bit surprised they ended up settling.

Reader Ken points us to a "feel good" story of a guy, Rick Norsigian, who found a box of old glass negatives at a garage sale in 2000, which he bought for $45 (bargained down from the $70 the other guy wanted). It turns out that a bunch of experts have now agreed that the negatives are actually previously unpublished works by Ansel Adams. Most of the article focuses on how Norsigian got the negatives, why the experts seem pretty convinced the negatives are from Adams and even how the negatives might have ended up in Southern California. However, right at the beginning, the article says the negatives "may be worth $200 million." Oddly, this isn't elaborated on until the end, when they claim that sales of prints from those negatives could net Norsigian $200 million:

It could be a while before he sees the profits from the sale of prints from the negatives, but Streets estimates over the next 25 years it could mean over $200 million for Norsigian.

Ken wondered about that statement, since there may be some copyright issues here, and as far as I can tell, he's right. I can't see how Norsigian has any legal right to sell the prints at all -- though, perhaps some copyright scholars could chime in. The works are estimated to have been made in the 1920s, which could actually complicate things. However, from all of the indications, none of these works were "published," and as the handy dandy public domain tracker notifies us, unpublished works are given a copyright of "life of the author +70 years." Ansel Adams died in 1984, so it would appear that the copyright on the images would likely belong to his heirs, and will last until 2054.

Now, if the works were published (which seems unlikely) then it gets a bit complicated. If they were done before 1923 (and no one's exactly sure of the date on most of these negatives), then they're in the public domain. If they were done after 1923 and weren't registered at the Copyright Office then, again, they're in the public domain. If that's the case, then Norsigian actually could make prints, but once those prints were out there, others could most likely copy the prints and sell competing prints themselves legally, which could put a damper on the $200 million. Of course, there then could be things Norsigian could do, such as specially "branding" his prints in some manner, but it's a bit trickier.

If the works were published after 1923, registered at the Copyright Office and had that registration renewed, then they should retain the initial copyright until 95 years after publication, meaning, until at least 2018 (and, again, most likely remaining with Adams' heirs). But, if that were the case, it seems unlikely that these negatives would have been considered "lost," though it is possible.

And, for those of you wondering, no, owning the negatives does not give you the copyright on the images, even if that creates a weird situation where someone who owns a bunch of negatives might not legally be able to use those negatives (yay, copyright law!).

The most likely scenario remains the first one, which would suggest Norsigian might actually get into legal trouble for making prints. And, in fact, the managing director of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust, Bill Turnage, first says that Norsigian's claims are a "fraud" and he's actually considering suing over Norsigian's use of Ansel Adams' name for commercial purposes (the article claims "copyrighted name," but I believe the AP reporter gets that wrong -- at best there may be a publicity rights claim under California state law). Of course, that puts another twist on the situation as well. If the Adams' heirs deny the prints are Adams, but they've been authenticated as Adams', then could the Adams' heirs still then make a copyright claim on any prints? That could be fun.

Of course, Adams himself, were he alive, might find the whole debate amusing. As the article notes (and which is well known among followers of Adams):

"Ansel interpreted the negative very heavily. He believed the negative was like a musical score. No two composers will interpret it the same way," he said. "Each print is a work of art."

In other words, if Norsigian does make prints, they wouldn't be considered the same thing as a true Ansel Adams print. It might be more like a high school orchestra performing Beethoven.

Still, from a copyright perspective, there may be a very interesting legal battle brewing...

If you visited Google on Saturday, you may have noticed that the logo looked like the following: As happens regularly, Google had chosen to redesign its logo to mark a certain day. In this case, July 24, 1860 is the birthday of famous and influential Czech artist Alphonse Mucha and Google decided to memorialize Mucha with a logo designed in his style. Nothing special there, of course. But it got lots of people looking up Mucha, and one of our readers (who prefers to remain anonymous), quickly came across this recent interview with John Mucha, Alphonse's grandson, and the head of The Mucha Foundation, which "manages the legacy" of Alphonse Mucha, and helped set up the Mucha Museum in Prague a few years back. But what struck the reader was the following part of the interview:

I was reading that the copyright has expired on Mucha's works. What does that mean in practical terms? Does it mean that anybody can, I don't know, create a mouse pad with his images on it?

"It means that the rights are in the public domain, with two exceptions. Exception one are works that have not yet been photographed or seen. And there are quite a few of those. There, once we photograph them or we make the images available, those images have their own copyright.

"The other exception is, we have the biggest and possibly best quality archive of all the images. Because these images were created within the last five years with the latest technology, they all have their own copyright of 75 years.

That sounded wrong to our reader, who questioned how that could make sense, seeing as Mucha has been dead for over 71 years. Now, I'm certainly no expert on Czech copyright law, so anyone out there who is an expert, feel free to chime in. But I'm assuming that the situation is similar to one that we discussed a year ago. In the US, thanks to Bridgeman vs. Corel, it is mostly believed that a photograph of a copyrighted work does not receive a new copyright (technically, it only applies in the court where the ruling was made, but the ruling has been followed by other US courts as well). However, in Europe, I believe the question is more or less unsettled -- so many claim that a photograph of a work can itself get a new copyright.

This seems silly, if you think about it. Copyright is supposed to cover the creative work added. Photographs, in general, are given copyright protection on the basis of the idea that the composition involved some creative choices (framing, lighting, aiming, etc.). In fact, the copyright is technically supposed to just cover those creative choices. A direct photograph of an artwork involves no such creative questions. However, as it is "unsettled" law in Europe, then some like to claim that photographs of artwork create brand new copyrights. That seems to be what the younger Mucha is claiming here, though assuming this issue hasn't clearly been settled in the Czech Republic (and I can find no detailed info either way), then such a "new" copyright on a work so old could, conceivably, be challenged.