Thanks for the link. I also googled up a couple of other discussions. I'm not so sure about your conclusion. The additional questions would be great to discuss... but in another thread. Has little to do with the original topic.
Thanks for the link. I also googled up a couple of other discussions. I'm not so sure about your conclusion. The additional questions would be great to discuss... but in another thread. Has little to do with the original topic.here you go.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267214
its not plagiarism .. or personal opinion. its art history + critical theory
but since you mentioned plagerism ....
is it plagiarism when someone finds someone else's tripod holes and retakes their photographs?
or when someone asks how a print was made so they can do it themselves?
Your welcome.Thanks for the link. I also googled up a couple of other discussions. I'm not so sure about your conclusion. The additional questions would be great to discuss... but in another thread. Has little to do with the original topic.
And that is where John Maloof had a problem - he never owned the copyright.
No, it isn't a matter of everyone having their opinion. It is a matter of what the common law, statute law and case authority has determined how much that should be.But Maloof did make an attempt to find relatives and could find only one who he made a deal and paid them $5000. So he did his "due diligence" although everyone can have their opinion of how much that should be.
The cousin didn't own anything at that stage, other than at best an undetermined claim against the estate. Until the estate is legally vested in a lawfully appointed administrator, no one can sell any part of it, because they don't own any part of it.Didn't he track down a distant cousin, who at the time he believed was the legitimate/only beneficiary of her estate. and buy rights? What did he buy in that transaction - copyright or usage rights?
Which, in a nutshell, describes everything I've posted about Mr. Maloof in this thread.Got it… it wasn’t his to sell.
Got it… it wasn’t his to sell.
I have him on ignore at the moment, since he claimed I had no idea what I was talking about (when I said to register one's work at the copyright office) ...So as he suggested, it is a really, really, really good idea to register copyright
So how does a photographer register their photos.?
Even amateurs have hundreds.
Does each photo get a separate registration number.?
Do you get a "Mater Number" that you can apply to all of your Photos/Negs.?
Thank You
https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.htmlI'm curious - is there a table of registration fees?
Holy Cow.............750..!!!You can register a group of unpublished, or a group of published, photographs. See the information here, especially at the left side-bar.
https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/
Yeah Yeah YeahIt never ceases to amaze me how simple it is to answer questions. I found the answer quicker than it took you to type the questions!
https://www.copyright.gov/registration/
It was just what one sees when one opens the “registration “ pull down.Yeah Yeah Yeah
The poster below you gave additional info that includes a video i linked to.
No, did not look at Fees.It was just what one sees when one opens the “registration “ pull down.
Did you see the link to fees? I’m sure someone expects it to be free.
we are living in a post truth ... world
As Duceman posted, you do not have to register the work to obtain many of the remedies available - often the most important ones.
As Duceman posted, it is a really good idea to register, because registration means you can claim additional, statutory remedies that are cheaper and easy to access.
Most important of all, if you find yourself aggrieved by someone appropriating your interests in copyright, but realize that you neglected to register, do not assume that all is lost. There are other, very important remedies that remain - injunctions being particularly important ones - although they are more difficult and expensive to access.
What benefits did the estate and Maier's relatives lose to Maloof because Maier didn't copyright her photos?Your welcome.
I think it's referred to as "thread drift" ... very few people are talking about VMs work in this thread anyways, they are just badmouthing the author or her biography, and Mr Maloof.
My conclusions: Maloof did his best but unfortunately there are always people who claim he didn't; that the world is a better place that we are able to see VM's work; that I don't listen to people who tell me not to register my work at the copyright office because they have no idea what they are talking about; that copyright protection is useless in a variety of instances ( like the making of art ); and that people who search for tripod holes or information about how to make other people's images might be considered plagiarists by some but darlings of the art world by others; and most people on this website don't talk bout photography they talk about anything but photography.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?