Copyright question

[David H. Bebbington]

Having recently rediscovered an interest in photomicroscopy, I have bought several boxes of ready-made specimen slides of subjects such as plants, small animals, etc. and intend to photograph these and offer the results for sale. The slides have no copyright notice on them and do not of course feature any creative input by their maker (except for slicing the specimens up and staining them), so I presume as the outright owner of the slides I can photograph them or otherwise use them in any way I want. Does anyone have any view on this?

Regards,

David

 

[copake_ham]

Having recently rediscovered an interest in photomicroscopy, I have bought several boxes of ready-made specimen slides of subjects such as plants, small animals, etc. and intend to photograph these and offer the results for sale. The slides have no copyright notice on them and do not of course feature any creative input by their maker (except for slicing the specimens up and staining them), so I presume as the outright owner of the slides I can photograph them or otherwise use them in any way I want. Does anyone have any view on this?

Regards,

David

David,

I think you're okay on something like this. While it is possible nowadays for a lab to patent genetically-manipulated critters - if your specimens are "natural" I cannot see what rights anyone else would have to your taking pictures of them.

Do, however, obtain model releases from the amoebae - they are notoriously litigious!

 

[gr82bart]

Does anyone have any view on this?

Assuming the copyright laws in England are the same in the US, technically, as you indicated you are not the copyright owners, I would assume that you can't just do 'anything you want with them'.

On the otherhand, it appears maybe the original copyright owner may have waived his copyright rights so that the greater good of knowledge could be spread. Afterall these are more doumentary images - scientific recordings - versus artistic images, so this is entirely plausible.

I remember when I traveled with my parents to various scientific museums and planetariums, there would always be a showcase of slides for sale on everything from the stars to plants and animals. The obvious intent of these slides was to show them - we the buyers as license holders - and to spread scientific knowledge. I would assume the same intent here.

Regards, Art.

 

[juan]

One copyrights creative works - not things. I don't know what creative work could be claimed in a specimen slide. The photograph, however, is a creative work and subject to copyright. Again, I'm in the US, not the UK.
juan

 

[copake_ham]

Assuming the copyright laws in England are the same in the US, technically, as you indicated you are not the copyright owners, I would assume that you can't just do 'anything you want with them'.

On the otherhand, it appears maybe the original copyright owner may have waived his copyright rights so that the greater good of knowledge could be spread. Afterall these are more doumentary images - scientific recordings - versus artistic images, so this is entirely plausible.

I remember when I traveled with my parents to various scientific museums and planetariums, there would always be a showcase of slides for sale on everything from the stars to plants and animals. The obvious intent of these slides was to show them - we the buyers as license holders - and to spread scientific knowledge. I would assume the same intent here.

Regards, Art.

Art,

I think there is a semantic confusion here.

I believe what David is referring to is microscope "slides" (i.e. two glass plates in between which is an animal, mineral or vegetable speicimen). You seem to be referring to photographic slides sold at souvenier counters in museum shops.

As was pointed out by juan, one cannot copyright "natural things".

 

[gr82bart]

I believe what David is referring to is microscope "slides" (i.e. two glass plates in between which is an animal, mineral or vegetable speicimen).

Oh, I see what you mean. If that's the case, than I would concur ... unless one would argue a specimen slide is a work of art.

So, just to be a bit provocative (me?) ... whereas, I couldn't copyright the specimens contained within the lides, could I copyright the entire work itself where the specimen is one material that forms part of the completed work? So what's the difference between this scientific work - using dead animals and glass as raw materials - and an artistic one - which uses dead animals and glass as it's raw materials? The orginal owner of the slides spent time and effort to put these together - like an artist, obviously was educated or experienced to do so - like an artists, used appropraite materials and tools to do so - like an artist, had a vision of the completed work - like an artist, probably tried to make a statement - like an artist, etc ... can the slides be copyrighted? Dunno ...

Regards, Art. (Popcorn machine at the ready ... )

 

[juan]

I think, Art, upon reflection that the specimen mounted in glass could be presented as art and if a copyright were claimed, it would probably be valid. But I think the maker would have to take the step of presenting it as a creative work, not selling it as a scientific specimen. I'll point out that I have not researched this issue.
juan

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Thanks to all for comments!

Regards,

David

 

[Ray Heath]

Oh, I see what you mean. If that's the case, than I would concur ... unless one would argue a specimen slide is a work of art.

So, just to be a bit provocative (me?) ... whereas, I couldn't copyright the specimens contained within the lides, could I copyright the entire work itself where the specimen is one material that forms part of the completed work? So what's the difference between this scientific work - using dead animals and glass as raw materials - and an artistic one - which uses dead animals and glass as it's raw materials? The orginal owner of the slides spent time and effort to put these together - like an artist, obviously was educated or experienced to do so - like an artists, used appropraite materials and tools to do so - like an artist, had a vision of the completed work - like an artist, probably tried to make a statement - like an artist, etc ... can the slides be copyrighted? Dunno ...

Regards, Art. (Popcorn machine at the ready ... )

g'day all
this is a very interesting point Art,

in Australia works do not need to be officially copyrighted, as soon as an artwork is created it is automatically covered by copyright and does not even need to have a copyright notice affixed to be valid

so in the above case would it depend upon intent and context?

if the specimen slides were presented as scientific material they would not have copyright protection but if they were presented in an artistic setting they would have copyright protection, i think

probably the creator of anything could claim copyright, it may then be up to the courts to decide

Ray

 

[johnnywalker]

I guess it's fun to speculate on how the law might apply, but realistically who is going to see the photo of a bug and say, "that's my bug!"

 

[Ray Heath]

I guess it's fun to speculate on how the law might apply, but realistically who is going to see the photo of a bug and say, "that's my bug!"

good point johnny

but we should, especially as practising artists, be aware of our rights and responsibilities

how would you respond if you saw an artwork and said "... that's my image"?

 

[copake_ham]

good point johnny

but we should, especially as practising artists, be aware of our rights and responsibilities

how would you respond if you saw an artwork and said "... that's my image"?

There have been many threads here dealing with copyright issues - including the differences b/w legal systems etc.

We could start unravelling that ball of thread once again, but let's not go overboard here.

The OP is talking about shooting pics of those "teeny tiny" lab specimen slides you buy at the local hobby shop. You know, slivers of gallenium crystals or squished fleas and fruit flies.

Like johnny said - who's to say "that's my bug!" ?

But remember what I said above about the litigious amoebae....

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I guess it's OK to say "I don't give a rat's ass" if the picture IS of a rat's ass?

Regards,

David

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I wonder if there might be a spectrum of claims about natural specimens.

For instance, consider the complex and meticulous dissections that sometimes appear in anatomy texts that require great knowledge and skill on the part of the preparer. Sometimes such specimens themselves are exhibited in museums, as in this case--

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/current_exhibitions.html

I would imagine that there would be a copyright issue, if someone photographed one of these specimens without permission for commercial use.

The bug on the slide is a much simpler preparation, but is it less deserving of copyright protection?

 

[tim_walls]

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice... This not-legal-advice pertains to the UK.

Copyright does not subsist in 'anything you do'. It only subsists in the following works:

• Original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.
• Sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes.
• The typographical arrangement of published editions.

In this instance, I suppose the assumption would be that the author was claiming it was an artistic work; that seems to be what Damien Hirst claims when he slaps a corpse in formaldehyde and calls it art. An Artistic Work is defined in UK copyright law as:

1. In this part "artistic work" means -
   • a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,
   • a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or
   • a work of artistic craftsmanship.
2. In this part - "building" includes any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure; "graphic work" includes -
   • any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and
   • any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work;
   
   "photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;
   "sculpture" includes a case or model made for purposes of sculpture.

On reading, that means the question you've got to ask is, are the slides (in the non-photographic sense of the word) "a work of artistic craftsmanship."

In truth, there is only one man who can tell you the answer - the judge, after it goes to court. No matter how much you pay a lawyer, all he's going to give you is "advice"; if there is a directly relevant piece of caselaw providing precedent, his advice is extremely useful - if not, it's probably about as much use as the next man's. What their advice - or any other research you get - can do is allow you to properly judge your risk and so sensibly evaluate the right thing to do, and it also gives you the appropriate confidence required for the lawyerly willy-waving match with them if they did threaten court action. (The majority of cases are in fact decided in the latter way - "my lawyer is more confident/louder/went to a better school than your lawyer, so you're going to back down.")


*Personally* I'd say you'd be fine; the differences between Mr Hirst's dip-and-dunk formaldehyde work and your slides, to my mind if I were involved in a case involving either, would be that

• Mr Hirst uses artistic judgement in the selection, composition & display of his samples - this is not true of a simple cross section or mounting of a bug.
• Mr Hirst's are one-off works hand crafted by him (or more likely the low-paid labourers who do it for him) not mass produced on a conveyor belt.

That's just my view though

 

[Ray Heath]

that's all very interesting Tim, but if Damien Hirst can call his work 'art' then any one can call their work art

isn't it a post-modern concept that anything is art if anybody says it is

 

[tim_walls]

that's all very interesting Tim, but if Damien Hirst can call his work 'art' then any one can call their work art

isn't it a post-modern concept that anything is art if anybody says it is

In practice, as far as copyright is concerned, anyone can call something art provided you can get a judge to agree with you!