FREE ESSAY ON THE 411 ON COPYRIGHT FOR NET PHOTOS

THE 411 ON COPYRIGHT FOR NET PHOTOS

Introduction Wow - who owns all these pretty pictures? 
Net Photog's See me, feel me, touch me, pay me. 
Net Agencies Service with a click of a mouse. 
Net Publishers All is fair in love, war and publishing. 
Net Users Free ride! 
INTRODUCTION 
If Francesca were alive today she could track her lover's photos from his homepage
instead of schlepping to the Piggly Wiggly to purchase the latest National Geographic.
Even if you are stuck in Peoria,[1] the family can gather around the key board, open up
your Happy Meals and view some of the Best Photography in the world. 
You want pictures? Boy do we have pictures, click onto the Photo Net Index for a
inventory of photographers portfolios, galleries, and museums. Who owns the copyrights to
all these cool Net photos? This paper presents a sampling of opinions and predictions
about the application of copyright law to Net photos in relation to contemporary
photographers; stock photo agencies; publishers; and Net users. 
THE NET PHOTOG ENTREPRENEUR 
NET ADVANTAGES 
Contemporary Photographers are creating homepages to display portfolios on the Net to
advertise for jobs, learn new skills, network with colleagues, and provide pleasure to
the viewing public. Stacy Rosenstock's portfolio is an example of the excellent photo art
available for viewing on the Net. 
Photographer/author/adventurer Philip Greenspun uses photos to accompany text in Travels
With Samantha Mr. Greenspun says that viewer response is one of the rewards for
publishing on the Net.[2] 
The Net is a unique medium for photographers, offering one-on-one feedback from viewers,
fellow photographers and critics on a scale not available from the typical art gallery or
magazine venue. The scale is larger in terms of the number of potential viewers and the
boarderless international viewing audience who may choose to browse. 
A computer savvy photographer may create a homepage portfolio or seek display with one of
the on-line galleries such as that Digital Wave Gallery, or that On Line Gallery. 
A photographer choosing the Net as a display venue can also use the net to learn about
copyrights. The American Society for media Photographers offers easy to read copyright
information in the that Copyright Guide for Photographers . 
INFRINGEMENT ENFORCEMENT 
When a photographer discovers a photo has been published without authorization, the
photographer maybe able to secure an injunction, recover actual damages and lost
profits.[3] Mr. Weisgrau and Mr. Remer point out the legal advantage to writing a
copyright notice on the photograph consisting of (c)1995 Artist's Name.[4] That advantage
is possible elimination of the innocent infringer defense.[5] Innocent infringers may
only be liable for a fair licensing fee.[6] 
An order to sue an infringer the copyright holder must register the photo.[7] In order to
register the photo, the photographer must possess the photo. Traditionally this is not a
problem because the photographer would have a negative, or a print or a slide or some
tangible object as a photo. If the photographer has scanned the photo onto a home page or
provided the photo to a gallery then there would be no problem if the photographer
retains the original. See Philip Greenspun's FAQ on photo scanning. Similarly a CD disk
photo would also be tangible to register. However when a photographer uses a filmless
camera this projects images directly onto a computer for real-time adjustment.[8] If a
photographer were to upload this kind of photo, some tangible print would still be
required for registration.[9] 
The problem of ``fixation'` as it relates to photo's on the Net will usually arise in the
context of whether or not a photograph was ``copied'` by an infringer.[10] Certain
ephemeral artworks like the type produced by Christo, have been the subject of
controversy in terms of the fixation requirement for copyright protection.[11] 
In the context of copyright protection for computer programs the Ninth Circuit held in
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc., that ``copying for purposes of copyright law
occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a
computer's RAM [random access memory].'`[12] The court described fixation as
``sufficiently permanent or stable to permit [them] to be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.'`[13] This decision
as it relates to photos on the net may be a practical problem of proof. Net photos, like
Christo's sculptures, may be here today, gone tomorrow. Consequently the problem will be
a whether a ``copyright claimant will be able to provide a court documentary evidence of
the copyrightable subject matter.'`[14] 
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION 
International copyright protection is of special importance to Net photogs. The Berne
Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention address copyright in the international
market.[15] Mr. Cinque outlines the three policies supporting copyright protection:
incentive/dissemination; morality/fairness; natural law.[16] Incentive/dissemination is
the tradeoff that society benefits from the work of creative artists while the artist may
reap economic benefits.[17] Morality/fairness is the commercial aspect of rewarding the
worker and punishing unauthorized appropriations.[18] Natural law embodies the concept
that the author owns her work and may do with it as she sees fit.[19] 
Considering these policies, Mr. Cinque argues that under the Berne Convention a copyright
may be infringed when a work is copied or stored into a computer system because it is
considered a reproduction.[20] The Berne Convention provides a minimum of 25 years
protection for photographic works and member states may provide additional
protection.[21] Mr. Cinque presents the case for and against increasing global
enforcement of copyright protections in the digital world and concludes that
international enforcement is necessary to continue to encourage artists to share work
on-line.[22] 
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES 
Mr. Cinque's view supports the widely held assumption that artists require broad
copyrights with strong enforcement in order to motivate the production of new,
copyrightable works. The copyright act is aimed at protecting an artists' economic
rights.[23] Economic theory is based on the concept that individuals are ``rational,
profit-maximizing creatures.'`[24] But economic theory when applied to artists doesn't
explain their full range of motivation. ``[I]t would be difficult to explain why
intelligent, presumably rational people ever become artists, a word more often associated
with the adjective 'starving' than with 'wealthy.'`[25] 
Net photogs appear generous with fellow internetters when it comes to non-commercial use
of photographs. On the other hand, no one likes someone else making money of their work.
Photographer Philip Greenspun describes his frustration with unauthorized use of his
pictures in, The Somewhat Nasty Copyright Notice . As an artist he not only wants to get
paid, but desires a certain quality level for his photos. On the other hand, Mr.
Greenspun embraces the camaraderie of ``fellow internetters'` by authorizing
redistribution of his text for non commercial purposes and requesting a source
attribution and hyperlink for photos. 
SHARING RESOURCES 
The camaraderie among photographers is further evidenced by the wellspring of resources
for photographers on the Net. The Michigan Press Photographers Association brings
photographers together to share information, as does the Atlanta Photo Journalism Seminar
and numerous other resources. 
One suggestion to assist photographers in protecting copyrights and collecting royalties
is a centralized photo bank. Mr. Franklin presents the case for creating a centralized
service to license photos, collect and distribute royalties, and engage in license
enforcement. [26] The centralized service would include a copyright notice and computer
code with the photo in order to track use.[27] A similar system was recently established
and is called United Image Royalties.[28] 
EMPLOYERS 
A special note to photographers establishing homepages from work. Two authors warn of
creating works using an employer's Internet connection because work-related products may
be determined to be the property of the employer.[29] For example, Allen Rose, Ordinary
Photographer is employed by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Mr. Rose's weekly photo series
is copyrighted to the newspaper. In a related matter, notice that Mr. Rose chose the
location ``arose'` rather than something like ``telestar'` for his homepage locator.
Employees should be careful in choosing web locators so as to avoid trademark problems
similar to MTV v. Curry, see Trademarks Along the Infobahn. 
STOCK PHOTO AGENCIES 
Many photographers use stock photo agencies to sell photos. News magazines purchase a
tremendous amount of published photos from stock agencies.[30] For example in 1980 Time
purchased 56.88% of their published photos from stock agencies and freelance
photographers.[31] 
A traditional stock photo agency publishes catalogues with thumbprint photos which
customers view and then purchase camera ready prints.[32] Stock agencies publicize photos
and also negotiate licenses in exchange for royalties.[33] See the STOCKPHOTO web site to
learn about stock agencies. One advantage of an on-line agency may be the capacity to for
customers to download photos immediately. Another advantage to on-line agencies may be
enhanced research resources for locating the right kind of photo among the thousands in
stock. 
CONTRACTS 
When a publisher desires to purchase a photo from a stock agency there may be several
contractual arrangements to weave through. These contract issues are determined by state
law where as copyright law per se is the subject of federal statutes.[34] Contracts may
exist between the subject and the photographer, the photographer and the stock agency and
perhaps a digital rights agent.[35] Mr. Harrang states that a typical stock photo agency
contract is a license for ``one edition only.'`[36] The question of what is ``one
edition'` has been debated in the context of CD-ROM publications. In this context some
argue that an upgrade of the product would be a second edition requiring a re-license
fee.[37] Harring does not agree with this view and suggests that CD-ROM and on-line
publishers can avoid the problem with proper electronic licensing contracts.[38] 
An on-line stock agency such as Corbis Media should be more familiar with structuring
proper electronic rights contracts.[39] In terms of protecting copyrights while
displaying photos on-line, Corbis puts a copyright notice in the upper left-hand corner
of the photo.[40] This copyright protects the digital file not the actual photo which is
copyrighted to the photographer.[41] 
PROTECTING COPYRIGHT WITH TECHNOLOGY 
Additionally, when a client desires to view a larger image of a photo, the client clicks
on the thumbprint photo to access the 6 x 7 inch photo.[42] To protect this copyright,
Corbis adds a translucent watermark on the picture.[43] This method is not full-proof.
CEO Doug Rowan admits that the watermark could be eliminated by a technical person and
they are working toward technical improvement of the system.[44] Unlike other stock
agencies, Corbis on-line pictures are for preview only and are not for customer
downloading.[45] 
NET PUBLISHERS AND PHOTOJOURNALISTS 
In Copyright in the New World of Electronic Publishing, See attorney William Strong
reassures traditional publishers that copyright law will not be eviscerated by the Net.
Copyright is grounded in the Constitution and assures a financial incentive to authors
and creative persons.[46] Mr. Strong takes the position that in a traditional author
contract granting ``all right, title and interest in and to the work, including
copyright'` grants a publisher broad rights to publish electronically.[47] 
NEW CONTRACTS FOR E-RIGHTS 
When a publisher drafts new contracts, Mr. Strong recommends that to ensure that a
publisher is getting the whole ball of wax that the contract should read ``the exclusive
license to reproduce the work and distribute it by all means and media now known or
hereafter discovered, including, without limitation, print, microfilm, and electronic
media as well as the right to display and transmit the work publicly on-line.'`[48] This
kind of ``all rights'` transaction is not popular among photographers and the American
Society of Media Photographers (AMSP). cautions photographers to consider limiting a
license by time, geographic area or media type.[49] 
It is interesting to note, that apparently Mr. Strong did not sign such a contract with
the publisher of his article, the Journal of Electronic Publishing (JEP) ). The copyright
notice indicates that the author, not JEP, controls the copyright, consequently
commercial publication is prohibited in print or electronic form without permission of
the author. 
The tension between a publisher's desire to license all rights to a photograph, and a
photographer's concern about ``giving away too much'` may gum up negotiations on the
electronic publishing frontier.[50] Mr. Harrang suggests ``separating legitimate concerns
about changing technologies from simple angst about unfamiliar technologies.'`[51] For
example, an author may agree to license rights to a CD-ROM publication but hesitate to a
license for on-line networks because of ``metered use'` questions.[52] A resolution to
this problem may be ``by agreement to negotiate a fair royalty amount in the future based
on the existing rates.'`[53] 
For example, Time Inc. is offering an increase in photographer's day rate from $400 to
$500 per day to compensate for electronic rights for assignment photos.[54] Time also
offers a royalty option offering a base fee of $75 per image plus a royalty rate that
varies depending on a number of factors including English vs. foreign language
distribution.[55] Terms are to be reviewed in one year.[56] About half the photographers
have signed the new agreements and the remaining freelancers will continue to negotiate
licenses for each photo.[57] Time uses the photos in their on-line magazines and other
products.[58] 
There is no agreement among the Board members of the American Society of Media
Photographers regarding the Time electronics rights policy.[59] The value of the rights
is hard to assess but ASMP board member Roger Ressmeyer believes that, ``at issue is the
very survival of freelance photography into the next century.'`[60] Veteran photographer
Douglas Kirkland sums up the situation well, ``If there wasn't a substantial value in
these rights, [Time] wouldn't be asking for them.'`[61] On the other end of the spectrum,
publisher Conde Nast has refused to pay any additional fees for electronic rights.[62] 
INTERPRETATION OF PRE INTERNET CONTRACTS 
With regard to pre-Internet contracts, Mr. Strong predicts that where a contract is
silent on the issue of electronic publication, the publisher has the right to produce the
entire journal in any form including electronic.[63] Mr. Strong points to the Copyright
Act, ``in the absence of a written agreement the copyright owner of a contribution to a
periodical will be deemed to have given the periodical publisher only the right to
reproduce the article as part of the issue of the periodical in which it appears and any
revision of that periodical.'`[64] Mr. Strong says, ``While technically this is not
relevant to an interpretation of an actual written contract, I believe it is fair to say
that the presumptions which the statute creates here would probably be applied by any
court forced to grapple with a contract that was silent on the question of electronic
rights.'`[65] 
The interpretation of old contracts and electronic rights is the subject of controversy
between photographers and, TIME Inc. 
Recently, Time republished some Life cover photos for a CD compilation. Time associate
counsel Laury Frieber maintains that the company need not pay the photographers a reuse
fee.[66] Instead the company sent a letter stating, ``While as a legal matter we are not
obliged to make any additional payments to reproduce our covers, in the spirit of this
project we decided to make a payment to all non-staffers whose images graced Life's
cover.'`[67] The letter was accompanied by a $30.00 check.[68] Ben Chapnick of the Black
Star picture agency disagrees with Time's interpretation of the license which he says was
for one time use.[69] 
Both Mr. Strong and Mr. Chapnick agree that litigation could take years.[70] And Mr.
Chapnick predicts in the Time situation, litigation could cost as much as $500,000.'`[71]
In any event, says Mr. Strong, each publisher can weigh the financial risks of a
copyright violation or breach of contract suit against the gains of electronic
publishing.[72] Of course an individual photographer is unlikely to have the financial
resources to litigate a law suit. 
HOW ONE PUBLISHER SEEKS TO PROTECT COPYRIGHTED WORKS 
Michael Rogers managing editor of Newsweek Interactive an on-line publication with
Prodigy has integrated the photographs with the text rather than in separate files as a
way to combat copyright infringement.[73] ``That way, users can't export the pictures for
other uses without special software,'` says Mr.Rogers.'`[74] 
ALTERATION OF NEWS PHOTOS 
New on-line technology makes it easier to edit and alter photographs. Visit Digital
Imaging photographers and editors can learn new ways to improve and change photographs.
But using technology to create art is one thing, using it to doctor news photos is
another. Copyright protection for computer art, including photographs is an emerging
issue.[75] But whereas copyright protection for art photos focuses on the value of the
piece as art, the value of a news photo is accuracy.[76] 
The ethics of doctoring news photos [77] is discussed on the Michigan Press
Photographer's Association (MPPA) home page. This discussion is about the LIFE magazine
May, 1995 photo of the Kent State shootings wherein the photo was altered from the
original shot by photographer, John Filo on May 4, 1970. The alteration eliminated a pole
in the center of the photograph. David Friend, Life's Director of Photography says it was
a done unbeknownst to the editors. MPPA member Brian Masck responds, saying that
credibility in the source of a photo is critical to photojournalism. 
Whether or not photographer John Filo has a cause of action against LIFE for printing the
altered photo may be an issue of whether the terms of the print license were
exceeded.[78] This type of alteration is distinguished from the traditional cropping and
centering that a photo editor might do because it is a change in the substance of the
photograph. In the future, photographers are advised to safeguard against copyright
infringement by including in the license the amount of digital manipulation allowed.[79]

However, copyright may not be the best or even the only issue regarding authenticity of
news photographs.[80] Again, the chain of contracts between publisher, photographer,
stock agency and photo subject may present legal issues such as false light or
misappropriation.[81] The news photographer is again advised, to keep original photos to
protect against actions like this and to be especially careful if photographing with
filmless cameras where a photographer will not possess a negative.[82] 
Alteration of news photos is not a new issue. But new copyright issues pop up in the
context of on-line news photo alteration. On the one hand, alterations can be ``subtle
pixel-by-pixel changes'` that are difficult to detect.[83] This capacity makes it easy to
steal on-line photos in toto or in part.[84] The problem here is a photographer's burden
of proof as it relates to the ``ordinary observer'` approach in proving substantial
similarity in an infringement action.[85] 
Photojournalism reviewer Ken Kobre examines The Long Tradition of Doctoring Photos. 
Mr. Kobre notes that a recent edition of The National Enquirer displayed a doctored photo
of a battered Nicole Brown Simpson.[86] The Enquirer noted in small type that the photo
was a recreation.[87] Rather than shying away from the technology and the potential abuse
of altering on-line news photos, Mr. Kobre believes that increased photographic access
assists in the discovery of truth. ``Totalitarian regimes have been more adept at
controlling- and changing what people see precisely because those regimes control their
media.'' [88] In the end, ``The credibility demanded of journalism should continue to
shape its uses of the computer's capabilities.'`[89] 
NET USERS 
Everyone agrees that Net Users, like most Americans, have little knowledge of copyright
law.[90] Digital works have some unique characteristics which challenge copyright
law.[91] Three of those characteristics include ease of replication, transmission, and
alteration.[92] The Net allows for quick replication and transmission of works as
compared to traditional replication methods.[93] Modification of Net documents may also
provide some challenges to a court's interpretation of ``fixed.'`[94] 
POSTING AND DOWNLOADING PHOTOS 
With regard to replication, transmission and alteration, some Net users behave as if all
Net information is up for grabs whether or not the material is copyrighted and has a
copyright notice.[95] Celebrity fan club postings like the Brad Pitt Web Site are
examples of users posting copyrighted photos to the Net. This home page acknowledges that
these photos are copyrighted so ``please be nice.'` This acknowledgment confirms the
Samuelson and Glushko observation that ``those who post information not authored by them
on Internet bulletin boards or in electronic newsletters delivered by Internet sometimes
do so with a conspicuous notice that it is being posted without copyright permission,
thereby asserting the poster's view of an appropriate scope of fair use.'`[96]
Furthermore, ``net users generally regard it as fair to download items from the bulletin
board for one's personal use, and even to send a copy to a friend who might otherwise not
see the item, it is considered bad manners (or worse) to redistribute more widely someone
else's posting without its author's permission.'`[97] It goes without saying that
policing user behavior as it relates to copyright is difficult at best.[98] 
ONE PUBLISHER'S VIEW OF DOWNLOADING WORKS 
Recently Time posted Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue photos for personal downloading at
the Pathfinder Website that ended up on one of the Supermodel websites. Time's legal head
Harry Johnston said ``The restriction is that you can download these pictures for
personal use only, but not for further distribution. That would constitute an
infringement.'`[99] ``The idea of policing every single individual who might violate
someone's copyright has not existed for the last 30 years, with the advent of Xeroxing
and videotaping. It's just a fact of life with the technological means we have of making
copies. You simply can't catch them all, says Mr. Johnston.'`[100] 
User liability for copy right infringement in a non commercial context is a disputed
issued.[101] A user posting someone else's photo to a bulletin board or a homepage raises
questions of which fair use provision might be appropriate? Education, research, comment
or criticism?[102] Ms. O'Rourke predicts that users are infringing where a bulletin board
subscriber forwards a document to a large number of non-subscribers.[103] But what about
home pages? In this context other Net users link to the page. Is the activity of posting
Brad Pitt photos to a home page substantially different than uploading Playboy photos to
a bulletin board?[104] In the Playboy case the court found that a bulletin board operator
``violated Playboy's exclusive rights to display and distribute its photos.'`[105] While
home page authors are not charging a subscription fee like the bulletin board operator,
they are offering unauthorized, copyrighted photos for public display. In the context of
the homepage author, the issue is not that someone is making money off the photo, but
that an individual photographer could lose the market for a great photo when someone
scans it into a homepage for all the world to access. 
AN AGENCY VIEW OF POSTING 
Jim Roehrig, president of Outline photo agency, takes the position that ``unauthorized
posting is a violation of the copyright holders' exclusive rights to distribute and
publicly display their work.'`[106] Outline represents fashion and celebrity
photographers. Roehrig admits to being at a loss as to how to handle supermodels
postings.[107] Right now Roehrig says, ``I'm hoping that this is relatively small usage
and won't become a regular thing.'`[108] 
THE USER'S RIGHT TO VIEW 
But what about Net user's right to view and access information. Copyright law clearly
protects the copyright holder. One of the goals of the National Information
Infrastructure is free or low cost information.[109] The suggestions of the Green Paper
drafted by the federal government's Information Infrastructure Task Force are
controversial.[110] See also a Response to NII.
Ms. Litman says that the draft recommendations would vest in copyrightowners ``control of
any reproduction or transmission of their works, and thendefines reproduction and
transmission to include any appearance, even afleeting one, of a protected work in any
computer, and any transfer of thatwork to, from, or through any other computer, the Draft
Report'srecommendations would enhance the exclusive rights in the copyright bundle sofar
as to give the copyright owner the exclusive right to control reading,viewing or
listening to any work in digitized form.'`*ahref= KB4_fn.html#fn111[111] And where are
the rights of users? Litman quotes the report, ``Users are not granted any affirmative
'rights' under the Copyright Act; rather, copyright owner's rights are limited by certain
exemptions from user liability.'`[112] 
Ms. Litman argues against any change in copyright law that would vest copyright owners
the right to control reading, viewing or listening.[113] She says that under current
copyright law display is distinguished from reproduction which requires fixation in a
form which is ``sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.'`
[114] Ms. Litman believes reading a work into a computer's memory ``is too transitory to
create a reproduction within the meaning of section 106(1)'` of the copyright act.[115] 
Ms. Litman questions the Report's assumption that enhanced copyright protection is in the
public's best interest.[116] She says that because the copyright laws are essentialy
written by copyright holders, those interests are served by the law, whereas the users
never get invited to the table.[117] Litman suggests that Congress and the Copyright
office are responsible for truly representing the public's interest and not merely
equating the public's interest with that of copyright holders.[118] She addresses the
presumption that creators need to be bribed with promises of full control of their work
by pointing to the reality that electronic publications and authors are releasing their
work on the Net right now, without any promise of protection.[119] 
As to the issue of scanning images into computers, author David Loundy is emphatic in his
view of copyright protection, ``Images that are scanned are in violation of the original
copyright holder's rights, unless permission to distribute the scanned image is
obtained,'` whether or not the image is further distributed.[120] This view seems to be
precisely Ms. Litman's concern regarding the protection of the user's right to view. Of
course scanning an image, eliminating the copyright notice and distributing the photo is
a matter of serious concern to copyright holders.[121] 
Conclusion 
Only time will tell what Net users, Net photogs and Net publishers ultimately determine
to be fair use. To state the issue succinctly, ``Fair use is always subject to
interpretation.'`[122]
[FNa J.D. Candidate 1996, Georgia State University School of Law. This paper was written
as part of Professor Patrick Wiseman's Summer, 1995 Law and the Internet class. Thank you
to Chas Underwood for this introduction into the photography world and Jamey Rousey for
technical support and cocktails. Comments, corrections and correspondence is welcome,
please contact the author at dixie@mindspring.com. 
1 Gary Panetta, Changing Reality Gallery Walk, PEORIA JOURNAL STAR, April 24, 1994 
2 Philip Greenspun, How I Got Rich & Famous (or at least famous) On the Internet, PHOTO
DISTRICT NEWS, July, 1995 at 58. 
3 Jonathan A. Franklin, Digital Image Reproduction, Distribution and Protection: Legal
Remedies and Industry wide Alternatives, 10 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 347
(1994) 
4 Richard Weisgrau & Michael Remer, Copyright Guide for Photographers. 
5 Id. 
6 Jonathan A. Franklin, Digital Image Reproduction, Distribution and Protection: Legal
Remedies and Industry wide Alternatives, 10 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 347
(1994) 
7 Weisgrau & Remer, Copyright Guide for Photographers, 
8Sally Wiener Grotta and Daniel Grotta, What's New In Filmless Cameras, PHOTO DISTRICT
NEWS, 58, March 1995. 
9 Don E. Tomlinson and Christopher R. Harris, Free-Lance Photojournalism in a Digital
World: Copyright, Lanham Act and Droit Moral Considerations Plus a Sui Generis Solution,
45 FED. COMM. L.J. 1, 8 (December, 1992). 
10Russ Versteeg, Jurimetric Copyright: Future Shock for the Visual Arts, 13 CARDOZO ARTS
& ENT. L.J. 125 (1994). 
11 Id. 
12 Id. at 133 (quoting 991 F.2d at 518 (9th Cir. 1993)). This essay presents the
problematic relationship between copyright as it relates to computer decisions and the
unique aspects of the visual arts. 
13 Id. at 132. 
14 Id. 
15 Robert A. Cinque, Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: The Protection of Electronic
Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention, 18 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 1258 (1995) 
16 Id. 
17 Id. 
18 Id. 
19 Id. 
20 Id. (citing Berne Convention, 17 U.S.C. sec 102(1) (1988 & Supp. IV 1992) art. 9(1)
and MAI systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993)). 
21 Robert A. Cinque, Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: The Protection of Electronic
Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention, 18 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 1258 (1995) (citing
Berne Convention art 7(6). 
22 Cinque's note explores several complex areas of international copyright law see Robert
A. Cinque, Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: The Protection of Electronic Works in a
Protocol to the Berne Convention, 18 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 1258 (1995). 
23 Jennifer T. Olsson, Rights in Fine Art Photography: Through A Lens Darkly, 70 TEX. L.
REV.,1489, 1500, (May, 1992). This article reviews fine art copyright and the Visual
Artist Rights Act of 1990. 
24 Id. at 1501. 
25 Id. (quoting Linda J. Lacey, Of Bread and Roses and Copyrights, 1989 DUKE L.J. 1532,
1536-37. 
26 Jonathan A. Franklin, Digital Image Reproduction, Distribution and Protection: Legal
Remedies and Industry wide Alternatives, 10 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 347
(1994). See also Benjamin R. Seecof, Scanning Into the Future of Copyrightable Images:
Computer-Based Image Processing Poses a Present Threat, 5 HIGH TECH. L.J. 371 (1990). 
27 Id. 
28 David Walker, Consulting Firm Forms Copyright Clearinghouse, PHOTO DISTRICT NEWS,
April, 1995 at 30. 
29 Pamela Samuelson and Robert J. Glushko, Intellectual Property Rights for Digital
Library and Hypertext, 6 HAV.J.L. & TECH. 237 (1993) 
30 Don E. Tomlinson and Christopher R. Harris, Free-Lance Photojournalism in a Digital
World: Copyright, Lanham Act and Droit Moral Considerations Plus a Sui Generis Solution,
45 FED. COMM. L.J. 1, 29 (December, 1992). 
31 Id. 
32 Jonathan A. Franklin, Digital Image Reproduction, Distribution and Protection: Legal
Remedies and Industry wide Alternatives, 10 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 347
(1994) 
33 Id. 
34 Id. 
35 Id. 
36 Kevin J. Harrang, Licensing Issues Creating and Publishing Multimedia Software
Products, 394 PLI/PAT 361 (1994) 
37 Id. 
38 Id. 
39 David Walker, Continuum Opens All-Digital Stock Agency, PHOTO DISTRICT NEWS, March
1995 at 26. 
40 Id. 
41 Id. 
42 Id. 
43 Id. 
44 Id. 
45 Id. 
46 William Strong, Copyright in the New World of Electronic Publishing, Journal of
Electronic Publishing. Original paper presented at the workshop Electronic Publishing
Issues II, June 18, 1994. 
47 Id. 
48 Id. 
49 Richard Weisgray & Michael Remer, Copyright Guide for Photographers, 1991 
50 Kevin J. Harrang, Licensing Issues Creating and Publishing Multimedia Software
Products, 394 PLI/PAT 361 (1994) 
51 Id. 
52 Id. 
53 Id. 
54 David Walker and Nancy Madlin, Time Contributors Split on E-Rights, PHOTO DISTRICT
NEWS, April, 1995 at 20. 
55 Id. 
56 Id. 
57 Id. 
58 Id. 
59 Id. at 21. 
60 Id. 
61 Id. at 23. 
62 Id. 
63 William Strong, Copyright in the New World of Electronic Publishing, Journal of
Electronic Publishing. Original paper presented at the workshop Electronic Publishing
Issues II, June 18, 1994. 
64 Id. 
65 Id. 
66 David Walker, Photogs Dispute Life Re-Use Rights for CD, PHOTO DISTRICT NEWS, March,
1995 at 30-31. 
67 Id. 
68 Id. 
69 Id. 
70 William Strong, Copyright in the New World of Electronic Publishing, Journal of
Electronic Publishing. Original paper presented at the workshop Electronic Publishing
Issues II, June 18, 1994. 
71 Id. 
72 William Strong, Copyright in the New World of Electronic Publishing, Journal of
Electronic Publishing. Original paper presented at the workshop Electronic Publishing
Issues II, June 18, 1994. 
73 Newsweek Goes On Line, PHOTO DISTRICT NEWS, March, 1995 at 16. 
74 Id. 
75 See, Jonathan C. Jackson, Legal Aspects of Computer Art, 19 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH.
L.J. 495 (1993). 
76 Don E. Tomlinson and Christopher R. Harris, Free-Lance Photojournalism in a Digital
World: Copyright, Lanham Act and Droit Moral Considerations Plus a Sui Generis Solution,
45 FED. COMM. L.J. 1, 29 (December, 1992). 
77 For a discussion of computer altered photos and the tort of false light invasion of
privacy, See Jon Lawrence Dartley, Lost Horizons?: Tortious and Philosophical
Implications of Computer Imaging, 19 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 199 (1993). 
78 Don E. Tomlinson and Christopher R. Harris, Free-Lance Photojournalism in a Digital
World: Copyright, Lanham Act and Droit Moral Considerations Plus a Sui Generis Solution,
45 Fed. Comm. L.J.1, 29 (December, 1992). 
79 Id. at 30. 
80 Id. 
81 Id. at 31. 
82 Id. at fn 6. 
83 Benjamin R. Seecof, Scanning Into the Future of Copyrightable Images: Computer-Based
Processing Poses Present Threat, 5 HIGH TECH. L.J. 371, (Fall, 1990). 
84 Id. 
85 Id. 
86 Ken Kobre, The Long Tradition of Doctoring Photos, 
87 Id. 
88 Id. 
89 Don E. Tomlinson and Christopher R. Harris, Free-Lance Photojournalism in a Digital
World: Copyright, Lanham Act and Droit Moral Considerations Plus a Sui Generis Solution,
45 FED. COMM. L.J. 1, 29 (December, 1992). 
90 Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read, 13 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 29 (1994).
See also William Strong, Copyright in the New World of Electronic Publishing, Journal of
Electronic Publishing. Original paper presented at the workshop Electronic Publishing
Issues II, June 18, 1994. 
91 Pamela Samuelson and Robert J. Glushko, Intellectual Property Rights for Digital
Library and Hypertext, 6 HAV.J.L. & TECH. 237 (1993). 
92 Id. at 240. 
93 Id. 
94 Id. 
95 Id. at 244. 
96 Id. 
97 Id. at 244 - 45. 
98 Id. at 245. 
99 Hal Stucker, The Download Dilemma: pirating Images from Cyberspace, PHOTO DISTRICT
NEWS, July, 1995 at 54-55. 
100 Id. 
101 Maureen A. O'Rourke, Proprietary Rights in Digital Data, 41 FED. B. NEWS & J. 511
(1994) 
102 Id. 
103 Id. 
104 Id. (citing Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993) 
105 Id. 
106 Hal Stucker, The Download Dilemma: pirating Images from Cyberspace, PHOTO DISTRICT
NEWS, July, 1995 at 54-55. 
107 Id. 
108 Id. 
109 Id. Maureen A. O'Rourke, Proprietary Rights in Digital Data, 41 FED. B. NEWS & J. 511
(1994) 
110 Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read, 13 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 29 (1994) 
111 Id. 
112 Id. 
113 Id. 
114 Id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1476). 
115 Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read, 13 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 29 (1994) 
116 Id. 
117 Id. 
118 Id. 
119 Id. For a discussion of pirated software see Andrew Grosso, The National Information
Infrastructure, 41 FED.B.NEWS & J. 481 (1994) (discussion the civil and criminal
penalties for copyright infringement and the LaMacchia case. 
120 David J. Loundy, 3 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 79, 132 (1992-1993). 
121 Id. at 133. 
122 Richard Weisgrau & Michael Remer, Copyright Guide for Photographers,