Badgeman colourised

[Craig Lamson]

Hmmmm. Mr Lamson has added a new line to his calling card:

Photographer and Attorney at Law.

Copyright law is not as clear as Counsellor Lamson indicates,

and is often determined by CASE law and not statutory law.

Jack

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I create. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Lest the unwary be fooled by this nonsense which for some reason used my name and badgeman work

I here repost the original study, which is NOT COLORIZED,

duh? Jack, do you still have a black and white screen?

but a very large b/w print hand tinted with

TRANSPARENT photo oil colors.

Ah now I understand. That's different from colorized. Gee, I'm confused now.

Technically, Jack is correct.

col·or·ize (kl-rz)

tr.v. col·or·ized, col·or·iz·ing, col·or·iz·es

To impart color to (black-and-white film) by means of a computer-assisted process:

Then why did you alter the image with colors?

Wim, as you must know .... B&W images are limited in color tone, thus most people have a hard time defining the boundries of objectes within the image. Jack added color to the image to show where he believed the outlines of these individuals started and stopped. In other words, Jack wanted people to see in color what he had seen in B&W.

Bill Miller

Excellent, Bill. For once you are one hundred percent correct!

"Colorization" is a term applicable to COMPUTER GRAPHICS.

Back before the advent of cheap color photography, all commercial

portrait studios used TRANSPARENT PHOTO OILS under several brand

names, employing artists to hand-stain sepia or b/w prints to add

"realistic looking" color. I have many photos in my family collection

which used this process in the 1930s-50s. I still have somewhere a

set of the tinting oils, which were painted on and then carefully

swabbed off, leaving a transparent stain over the photo.

Regarding the reason I "tinted" the badgeman photo is EXACTLY

what you wrote. It was to show people where to look. When I gave

slide presentations, I showed the b/w version first. A few people

could see the figures easily. The next slide was the colored version,

followed by the b/w version; then EVERYONE could see the people.

Thanks for your assistance in helping people understand.

Jack

[Jack White]

Hmmmm. Mr Lamson has added a new line to his calling card:

Photographer and Attorney at Law.

Copyright law is not as clear as Counsellor Lamson indicates,

and is often determined by CASE law and not statutory law.

Jack

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I sell. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up.

The law requires vigilant protection or subject art may enter

the public domain. Ask Robert Groden. He has reproduced virtually

every important JFK image in books and videos, and has never

been challenged legally. At this late date if anyone were to sue

him for copyright violation, any court would likely find that the

subject works HAVE ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN through

numerous unchallenged publications. Furthermore, the Zapruder

family for years could not afford to challenge his use of the film,

SINCE HE WAS THEIR SOLE AND ONLY SOURCE TO OBTAIN

COPIES OF THE FRAMES for which they charged huge fees.

If I recall correctly, they charged Oliver Stone six figures to

use the Zfilm...for which their SOLE SUPPLIER was Groden.

The rule of thumb...if users have DEEP POCKETS, they charge.

Otherwise they ignore violations. This has never yet been

tested in court, but Jim Fetzer tried to provoke a lawsuit by

publishing many Z frames...but they ignored him. On the

other hand Life Magazine sued Tink Thompson for publishing

drawings based on the frames. It is a case by case thing.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Hmmmm. Mr Lamson has added a new line to his calling card:

Photographer and Attorney at Law.

Copyright law is not as clear as Counsellor Lamson indicates,

and is often determined by CASE law and not statutory law.

Jack

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I sell. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up.

The law requires vigilant protection or subject art may enter

the public domain. Ask Robert Groden. He has reproduced virtually

every important JFK image in books and videos, and has never

been challenged legally. At this late date if anyone were to sue

him for copyright violation, any court would likely find that the

subject works HAVE ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN through

numerous unchallenged publications. Furthermore, the Zapruder

family for years could not afford to challenge his use of the film,

SINCE HE WAS THEIR SOLE AND ONLY SOURCE TO OBTAIN

COPIES OF THE FRAMES for which they charged huge fees.

If I recall correctly, they charged Oliver Stone six figures to

use the Zfilm...for which their SOLE SUPPLIER was Groden.

The rule of thumb...if users have DEEP POCKETS, they charge.

Otherwise they ignore violations. This has never yet been

tested in court, but Jim Fetzer tried to provoke a lawsuit by

publishing many Z frames...but they ignored him. On the

other hand Life Magazine sued Tink Thompson for publishing

drawings based on the frames. It is a case by case thing.

Jack

Nope, you are wrong. Unless the author of a photograph sells or gives awaqy the copyright to an image they have created the copyright continues to remain that of the creator. US copyright law gives the creator this protection even if the image is not registered with the US copyright office.

THe copyright holder may or may not choose to enforce their copyright but failure to do so does not mean the image has become part of the public domain. Unless or until the owner of the copyright sells or gives away their rights to an image it remains theirs.

[Jack White]

Hmmmm. Mr Lamson has added a new line to his calling card:

Photographer and Attorney at Law.

Copyright law is not as clear as Counsellor Lamson indicates,

and is often determined by CASE law and not statutory law.

Jack

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I sell. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up.

The law requires vigilant protection or subject art may enter

the public domain. Ask Robert Groden. He has reproduced virtually

every important JFK image in books and videos, and has never

been challenged legally. At this late date if anyone were to sue

him for copyright violation, any court would likely find that the

subject works HAVE ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN through

numerous unchallenged publications. Furthermore, the Zapruder

family for years could not afford to challenge his use of the film,

SINCE HE WAS THEIR SOLE AND ONLY SOURCE TO OBTAIN

COPIES OF THE FRAMES for which they charged huge fees.

If I recall correctly, they charged Oliver Stone six figures to

use the Zfilm...for which their SOLE SUPPLIER was Groden.

The rule of thumb...if users have DEEP POCKETS, they charge.

Otherwise they ignore violations. This has never yet been

tested in court, but Jim Fetzer tried to provoke a lawsuit by

publishing many Z frames...but they ignored him. On the

other hand Life Magazine sued Tink Thompson for publishing

drawings based on the frames. It is a case by case thing.

Jack

Nope, you are wrong. Unless the author of a photograph sells or gives awaqy the copyright to an image they have created the copyright continues to remain that of the creator. US copyright law gives the creator this protection even if the image is not registered with the US copyright office.

THe copyright holder may or may not choose to enforce their copyright but failure to do so does not mean the image has become part of the public domain. Unless or until the owner of the copyright sells or gives away their rights to an image it remains theirs.

EXACTLY...your key phrase is GIVES AWAY. Not exercising copyright privilege rights

is literally GIVING IT AWAY. I have not done legal research and am not a lawyer,

but repeated unauthorized use (giving it away) provides entry into the public domain.

Trademarks are very similar...as Dupont found (cellophane, nylon) entered the public domain.

When you close your fly, you use a zipper, not a Zipper. I think it was Talon Zippers

who lost that case. More recently Sweet-n-low tried to trademark their PINK PACKAGES,

but lost their case when the court ruled that a color is not copyrightable or trademarkable.

On the other hand WALT DISNEY writes thousands of cease and desist letters to anyone

using Mickey Mouse et al for any purpose. The Peanuts empire also protected their copyrights

vigorously. A Fort Worth bar named Charlie Brown's Bar was forced through lawsuit to stop

using the name and image, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNER'S NAME WAS CHARLIE BROWN.

In Dallas right now, two competitors selling fall pumpkins under the name THE PUNKIN' PATCH

are in a lawsuit over the name. I suggest that the judge throw them both out of court.

Mary Moorman literally gave Gary Mack and me the RIGHT to use the Moorman Polaroid 3 and 5

for us to copy for any use without restriction. My opinion is that though Mary still owns

the prints, by giving them away, she has lost the legal copyright. However, since she still

owns the "originals", she may exercise control over those prints in any manner she wants,

including charging for using. The same with Moorman 1 and 2 given me to copy by

Jean Hill, who owned them. Even though Mary snapped the shutter, she GAVE THREE

PRINTS TO JEAN, and thus the copyright. Jean always said that Mary gave her missing

number four, which she gave to boyfriend BJ Martin.

Additionally, Tink Thompson furnished Gary a half dozen Moorman prints he bought

legally for reproduction use. By giving us the prints, Tink implicity also transferred

to us any copyright use he had acquired.

Copyrights for the five Moorman photos would be a real tangled web to untangle.

Mary kept two, gave three to Jean, who gave one to BJ. Mary and Jean allowed Gary

and me (gave) to copy four of the prints without restrictions.

Jack

Edited September 30, 2006 by Jack White

[Shanet Clark]

Lets close out this informative and balanced thread with

a good BLACK AND WHITE BADGEMAN IMAGE...........

Rorshack image or grassy knoll hit squad???????????

[Shanet Clark]

Lets close out this informative and balanced thread with

a good BLACK AND WHITE BADGEMAN IMAGE...........

Rorshack image or grassy knoll hit squad???????????

jack white photo exhibit of MARY MOORMAN polaroid, grassy knoll wall :

Edited September 30, 2006 by Shanet Clark

[Craig Lamson]

Hmmmm. Mr Lamson has added a new line to his calling card:

Photographer and Attorney at Law.

Copyright law is not as clear as Counsellor Lamson indicates,

and is often determined by CASE law and not statutory law.

Jack

Jack, I am in the business of selling reproduction rights to the copyrighted photographic images I sell. As it applies to photography, the copyright laws are VERY clearcut and the case law backs it all up.

The law requires vigilant protection or subject art may enter

the public domain. Ask Robert Groden. He has reproduced virtually

every important JFK image in books and videos, and has never

been challenged legally. At this late date if anyone were to sue

him for copyright violation, any court would likely find that the

subject works HAVE ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN through

numerous unchallenged publications. Furthermore, the Zapruder

family for years could not afford to challenge his use of the film,

SINCE HE WAS THEIR SOLE AND ONLY SOURCE TO OBTAIN

COPIES OF THE FRAMES for which they charged huge fees.

If I recall correctly, they charged Oliver Stone six figures to

use the Zfilm...for which their SOLE SUPPLIER was Groden.

The rule of thumb...if users have DEEP POCKETS, they charge.

Otherwise they ignore violations. This has never yet been

tested in court, but Jim Fetzer tried to provoke a lawsuit by

publishing many Z frames...but they ignored him. On the

other hand Life Magazine sued Tink Thompson for publishing

drawings based on the frames. It is a case by case thing.

Jack

Nope, you are wrong. Unless the author of a photograph sells or gives awaqy the copyright to an image they have created the copyright continues to remain that of the creator. US copyright law gives the creator this protection even if the image is not registered with the US copyright office.

THe copyright holder may or may not choose to enforce their copyright but failure to do so does not mean the image has become part of the public domain. Unless or until the owner of the copyright sells or gives away their rights to an image it remains theirs.

EXACTLY...your key phrase is GIVES AWAY. Not exercising copyright privilege rights

is literally GIVING IT AWAY. I have not done legal research and am not a lawyer,

but repeated unauthorized use (giving it away) provides entry into the public domain.

Trademarks are very similar...as Dupont found (cellophane, nylon) entered the public domain.

When you close your fly, you use a zipper, not a Zipper. I think it was Talon Zippers

who lost that case. More recently Sweet-n-low tried to trademark their PINK PACKAGES,

but lost their case when the court ruled that a color is not copyrightable or trademarkable.

On the other hand WALT DISNEY writes thousands of cease and desist letters to anyone

using Mickey Mouse et al for any purpose. The Peanuts empire also protected their copyrights

vigorously. A Fort Worth bar named Charlie Brown's Bar was forced through lawsuit to stop

using the name and image, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNER'S NAME WAS CHARLIE BROWN.

In Dallas right now, two competitors selling fall pumpkins under the name THE PUNKIN' PATCH

are in a lawsuit over the name. I suggest that the judge throw them both out of court.

Mary Moorman literally gave Gary Mack and me the RIGHT to use the Moorman Polaroid 3 and 5

for us to copy for any use without restriction. My opinion is that though Mary still owns

the prints, by giving them away, she has lost the legal copyright. However, since she still

owns the "originals", she may exercise control over those prints in any manner she wants,

including charging for using. The same with Moorman 1 and 2 given me to copy by

Jean Hill, who owned them. Even though Mary snapped the shutter, she GAVE THREE

PRINTS TO JEAN, and thus the copyright. Jean always said that Mary gave her missing

number four, which she gave to boyfriend BJ Martin.

Additionally, Tink Thompson furnished Gary a half dozen Moorman prints he bought

legally for reproduction use. By giving us the prints, Tink implicity also transferred

to us any copyright use he had acquired.

Copyrights for the five Moorman photos would be a real tangled web to untangle.

Mary kept two, gave three to Jean, who gave one to BJ. Mary and Jean allowed Gary

and me (gave) to copy four of the prints without restrictions.

Jack

You are so full of xxxx Jack. Mary still owns the copyrights to her JFK images despite giving you and and others usage rights. UNLESS you our anyone else has written documentation from Mary transfering exclusive ownership of the copyright to the Moorman images, they still belong to Mary Moorman. Unless Jean Hill has documentation from Mary TRANSFERING copyright she does not actually OWN the copyright to the images. Possession of the prints does not infer ownership of the copyright.

Mary Moorman did not transfer owership of the copyright to you and Gary Mack. She gave you reproduction rights. Doing so did not place her images in the public domain nor did it end her ownerswhip of the copyright, regardless of her lack of vigor in defending it. This "protect it or lose it" line is one of the biggests myths about copyright around.

I'm not sure exactly what rights TINK bought when he purchased his Moorman prints, and what he PURCHASED is all he is allowed to transfer. And again all of this goes back to the simple fact that as the creator of the works, and unless outright owership of the copyright to the images has been sold (and by this we are not talking about liimted or restricted licence for reproduction)or given away IN WRITING Mary is STILL the copyright owner to all the image she took that day in Dallas.

None of this is rocket science. Its just standard business practice. Everyday I produce images for my clients. They pay me for my time, for any materials used, for the costs of props, travel, models, location rentals and so on. I deliver to my clients an electronic file that contains the images I produce. I also transfer limited reproduction rights ( per a written agreement). I retain the ownership of the copyrihgt and future useage of the image. The fact my client has possession of the images I have produced for them does not transfer OWNERSHIP of the copyright. The only instances where the copyright would transfer is if I sold or gave away the entire copyright ( in writting) or signed a work for hire agreement, neither of which I will do.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

To Mr Jack White

Mr. Connolly...When I saw your obvious satire of my hand-tinted version of the

Moorman photo, I must admit that I was amused...as well as confused. I could

not imagine what you were trying to show, since you offered NO explanation with

your creative "colorization".

On what grounds do you assume my posting of my version of the uncolourised Moorman photo

kindly posted by you as being an ‘obvious satire of my hand-tinted version of the

Moorman photo’? As for no explanation being offered the posting in itself WAS my explanation.

No need for any words except those which accompanied my post which were:

‘I hope it may be of interest.’

Others apparently thought so also, like Mr. Valenti,

who attached the funny "comparisons" below, and others who made joking remarks,

which you must have seen. Do you also consider legal action against Mr. Valenti

for his amusing critique of your image, comparing it to Easter Island statuary or

cartoon characters?

What ‘others’ are you referring to? Wim Dankbaar wrote: ‘It changes with every colorized version.’

To whose remarks I appended the words: ‘You said a mouthful there,Wim.

So true.’

Mark Valenti posted photographs of the face of an Easter Island statue and the face of a cartoon character

whose name I do not know. I think these photos were in reference to the ‘man’(?) in the foreground of my post of my version the uncolourised Moorman photo kindly posted by you. I must admit that there is indeed a likeness. As for others(?) who made joking remarks about my image they are quite free to make comparisons - joking or otherwise. What ‘others’ are there?

Wim Dankbaar and Mark Valenti were the only two who made any comments on my posting of my version of the uncolourised Moorman photo kindly posted by you. Both comments were perfectly valid and welcomed. I must admit I thougfht both comments were highly amusing.

If you were truly presenting this as serious research instead of satire, I of course

apologize for characterizing it as "nonsense", for I am appreciative of ALL serious

research efforts to advance understanding of mysteries of the JFK murder. Please tell

us if you will just exactly what was your intent in showing this image...what does it

show? You must have "something" in mind that you are showing as an alternative

to the Gordon Arnold image, I assume.

Why do you write ‘If you were truly presenting this as serious research instead of satire...’

Again I ask why do you assume that my posting of my version of the uncolourised Moorman photo kindly posted by you was intended as satire? Satire of whom and of what? Thank you for apologising for charcterizing my posting of my version of the uncolourised Moorman photo kindly posted by you as ‘nonsense’. Apology is gratefully accepted. You write that you are ‘ appreciative of ALL serious research efforts to advance understanding of [the(?)] mysteries of the JFK murder.’ This is indeed good to know. Again you ask what was my intent

in showing this image.

My intent was clearly demonstrated by the use of the words - ‘I hope it may be of interest’.

I took your work as an attempt to ridicule my research into this matter. If your

intent was not ridicule, please tell us what you were trying to show. By using my name,

your ridicule seemed clearly aimed at personally discrediting me. Please assure

us that was NOT your intent.

I have no control over how you or anyone else reacts to anything I or anyone else posts.

My intent was to post my version of the uncolourised Moorman photo

kindly posted by you as a matter of possible interest to other forum users.If you felt ridiculed then I am afraid

I cannot be held responsible for that. Again my intent is and was as detailed above.

Your name was used because you had kindly posted the uncolourised version last year.

May I remind you that you posted it on a direct request from me?

Am I not to give you credit for the help you give?

So if the image you presented was genuine research showing "something"

I apologize for saying it was "nonsense". I just could not "make sense"

of it since you provided no explanation for what you believe it shows.

I posted my ACTUAL STUDY of the image lest the unwary might think

YOUR study is somehow related to MY study. It is not.

The post of my version of the uncolourised Moorman photo

kindly posted by you shows exactly what it shows.

Whether it is genuine research is open to debate.

Whether it is genuine is not.

I worked from the uncolourised version of the Moorman image

kindly posted by you and NOT from your colourised version.

Perhaps this was not made clear or was unclear.

Finally, could I now show you below the contents of a post by you dated Feb 05:

Here are two Badgeman photos photodigitally enhanced by me.

Eugene...very interesting, but it looks like a digital composite of badgeman

and ROSCOE WHITE posing with a rifle. The give-aways are the left shoulder

and the area of the hand holding the rifle.

I hope you did not combine these two pictures.

In any event, the HAND-COLORED version of badgeman in Moorman is

NOT a good image to enhance, since in adding photo oil tints, I "changed"

tonal values in many areas, so they are not the best images to use.

Only the unaltered image should be used.

Attached is the image before colorization. Try your enhancement again

using it. I will be interested in the result.

Jack

Jack, please note your words: "I will be interested in the result."

As you can see, Jack, you encouraged/advised me to enhance the uncolourised version ( See image)

This is the image I attempted to colourise. I regret that my efforts engendered the response

you gave on this occasion..

EBC

.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly