Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Against Photographers in Copyright Suit
An anonymous reader writes "Photo District News Online reports a Federal District Court in NY says that republishing Magazine content on a CD is the same as republishing the magazine itself. Photographers claim they should recieve additional compensation for images published on the CD that were published in the orginal magazine articles. IANAL but there is some additional interesting case history in the article as well."
...of these tech cases, and we might just see some legislative reform!
FLR
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
They should have published the Magazine on CD in the first place. Most magazines have back issues on CD.
Magazines and newspapers, because of their inherent nature as somewhat emphemeral collections of the works of dozens, or even hundreds, of contributors, works to somewhat different commercial standards than other print media, such as books by a single ( or a few ) contributors.
.
The key factor is that it is the magazine that owns the copyright to the finished publicly distributed work. The collection. Everyone knows the rules to the game here. No one objects. It works. It's profitable. For everybody. You sell a photo or an article to the New York Times, you get your check. If they reprint the story you don't get more money.
If they print a new story and wish to use your photograph to illustrate it they need to pay you again because that is a new overall work for which they must establish their own new copyright.
The photographers in this case were trying to argue that publication to the CD established the need for a new publishers copyright. Frankly, they just wanted more money for work they were already legitimately payed for.
The argument, as the court confirms, is flawed. The publisher has already established the right to copy the original article. It doesn't matter if they Xerox it, photo engrave it, carve it to a rock or trace it in crayon. The inclusion of an index (or searchability) doesn't imply the orginal work has been altered and neither does the mere media of publication.
So long as it remains an obvious copy of the orginal work they have the right to make that copy, and sell it.
Just as in the old days (when you had to actually register to be granted a copyright) you didn't have to file seperate copyright applications for a sound recording that was released on tape and vinyl. One copyright on the work covered all the various media.
Copyright covers the work as a logical construct, not the physical means of transmiting that work.
You want to know what really scares the piss out of professional print photographers though?
Right click-Save Image as. .
KFG