|Scanned copy of image from 10yr old magazine|
I own an old hobby magazine and within it is an article similar to one I am writing now. At the bottom of the article is the PERFECT picture to go with my article, so perfect in fact that I'd like to scan the magazine image and display it with my article.
Things to keep in mind...
~ It's a low quality scan of a magazine section, not an existing jpg image.
~ Google books displays this magazine, complete with their own scans of entire page.
~ The article is not to promote a product or full of affiliate links, etc.
I know the first reaction, at least mine, is to ask for permission but I own my copy of the magazine and would use a scan of my making with full credit given. No no ?
I am sorry but this is plainly and simply a copyright infringement. You would need to ask for permission.
I'm on a roll, I took a picture of the restaurant across the street and posted it to my blog last week. Did I infringe the rights of the sign maker/owner too?
Also, if a scan I make myself from an old magazine, and give full credit to the source for, is illegal can I just copy Google's copy and credit Google instead? Google didn't ask either.
update: Forget the scans, I don't have time to waste. I snapped a picture of the magazine while holding it in my hand instead, you can see my thumb on the bottom corner, you can clearly tell it's someone holding up a magazine, it is what it is.
Do you want to know if you're legally allowed or do you want a defense in case you get caught? For the former, I believe you got your answer.
I'd like to know if I'm legally allowed to take a picture of me holding a magazine for use in a blog article, yes. And perhaps what the distinction is between a scan and a photograph from a legal standpoint.
example: Are you allowed to take a picture of yourself leaning on your car to show off on your blog if the car logo happens to be in frame? (I hear those are extremely copyright)
or can you snap a picture of a newspaper review and post it on your Facebook for a friend to see?
If you were standing outside my window, or across the street eating a bagel, I can take a picture of you and print it, if you like it or not. If you happen to be reading my magazine and that ends up on my blog too... I don't see how it's different.
There just seems to be a line of silliness involved, one that Google has solved by simply copying and posting ALL images but that doesn't work for the small bloggers out here, does it?
Doesn't matter how you spin it. It is still an infringement.
I have been close to this for the last four or five years. I got a bill from an imaging company for £2,400 for using a shopping cart icon that was not mine but it's your call if you want to risk it.
Instead of frittering away your energy to raise straw man arguments, contact the magazine saying that you'd like permission to use the photo and explain your intended use. They might need to put you in touch with the photographer.
You'll either get permission or you won't.
Another option would be to spend a few bucks at a stock photo site for a different image that suits your needs.
Does the magazine credit the photographer? You have the contact you need.
Its not what you or I think the law should say that matters, but what the law says (not what it should say). Do you really want the hassle? Do you want to use it and have to remove it?
Your Facebook example is an infringement (albeit one you can get away with because its less public) the others are not for specific reasons that are not relevant here.
|Google has solved by simply copying and posting ALL images |
Google has deals, it sometimes uses fair use exemptions (e.g. thumbnails in image search), they are not liable fo UGC unless they fail to respond to a DMCA notice, and it can spend on lawyers to argue the fine points of all of them.
While you own the magazine you do not own republishing rights to that image.
You can copy it, frame it and hang it above your mantel, but you can't republish it.
|I took a picture of the restaurant across the street and posted it to my blog last week. Did I infringe the rights of the sign maker/owner too? |
No because your work is transformitive. To be transformitive you have to offer/be something that the original didn't/wasn't and it has to have a different purpose than the original.
If you copied the sign and made a new sign for a restaurant then you could be in trouble, but when you took the picture you created a new piece of work and you used it for a blog, not the intent of the original. Also, you didn't just take a picture of the sign, the lighting, the framing, and all the other things in the photo made up the new content you created.
|I'd like to know if I'm legally allowed to take a picture of me holding a magazine for use in a blog article, yes .... what the distinction is between a scan and a photograph from a legal standpoint. |
This is trickier, I would say yes, but it depends how visible the image from the magazine is. The difference between taking a photo and scanning the image is; when you take a picture of yourself holding the magazine it is a new piece of work because a picture of you holding mag is is different then just the image in the magazine.
Remember to be transformitive your use has to differ from the use of the original work. This is why Parody qualifies because the intent of a parody is to mock the original. The intent of the original is rarely to mock itself.
Since the original intent of the original image is to be a graphic for a news story and you use your image for a graphic for a news story you haven't transformed from the intent of the original, so it may not qualify as such. I would say it would come down to how much you new photo focuses on the photo in the mag.