if the image is on another site, presumably it is there to be viewed ,if not downloaded? The first person to ask would be the webmaster(s) of the relevant sites. They may be delighted to have further links to their site(s) and may have already ensured that any copyright protection is embedded in the image so that any copy would be useless commercially. It is an interestig question to pursue further. regards /charles
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony Hind [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 November 2007 19:20 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net Subject: [LUTE] Re: FoMRHI - copyright and a rebirth? Howard, or any one else I was just wondering what the legal situation is about putting a link to a Jpeg, of a painting including a lute, when the photo on the site has a copyright symbol on it. Can linking your explanation to a photo that is "copyrighted" infringe the photographer's rights, or the persons running the site's rights? Is this different from actually including that JPeg in your message? Are both "acts" legally acceptable, in fact? I assume that paintings are not like written texts that lose their copyright after a fixed time (at least the content of the text). I suppose the owner of a painting has rights beyond any fixed time. Indeed, I suppose that is true for the manuscript, rather than for its written content. Thus we can quote Burwell, for example, but possibly not put in a photograph of part of the actual manuscript. In the case of a painting, I suppose there just cannot be that differnciation between content and the the actual painting. Does any one know about this? My question might seem a little bizarre, but how about a link to the engraving of Jacques Gaultier that belongs to the RA. They sell copies of this, and so might be nervous of such a link, at the same time, they could also be happy for an advertisement, through the link, but that does not relate to the legal issue. Perhaps, I should not ask the question, as may be it would be best for the issue to be left in the dark? Regards Anthony Le 20 nov. 07 à 16:30, howard posner a écrit : > On Nov 20, 2007, at 2:24 AM, Stuart Walsh wrote: > >> Martyn Hodgson wrote: >>> Following recent communications which mentioned FoMRHI, I >>> contacted Eph Segerman and include the relevant part of his reply >>> below. >>> In short, anything in FoMRHI not specifcally restricted as >>> detailed below seems to be able to be freely reproduced and >>> circulated. >>> MH >>> >>> Ephraim Segerman wrote: >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: FoMRHI >>> From: Ephraim Segerman >>> To: Martyn Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:36:22 +0000 >>> >>> >>> All one needs to copyright something that is written is to print the >>> symbol of a C inside a circle. A few contributors to FoMRHI have >>> retained their copyright by doing this, but the vast majority have >>> not. >>> FoMRHI has never claimed copyright on anything it published. So, >>> except >>> for the few copyrighted Comms, all FoMRHI stuff can be duplicated >>> and >>> circulated. >>> >>> There is now a movement to revive FoMRHI, which involves action by >>> the >>> Fellows. Yours, >>> >>> Eph >>> >>> >>> >> I'm note sure Eph is right here. >> >> See: >> >> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/protect/protect-should/protect-should-copy.htm >> >> As I understand it, copyright (in UK) is yours just if you've >> written (or created) something original. Putting a C inside a >> circle just makes things a bit clearer - but still, if you've >> written something original, you have copyright (in UK anyway). > > Also pretty much the case in the US; an original work is > automatically copyrighted until some years (I think it's now 75) > after the author's death. What Eph wrote would have been half right > 30 years ago in the States, I think it qualifies as misinformation > throughout Europe. > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
