Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/17/2009 1:03:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, sainto...@telus.net writes: Declaring a common law practice no longer valid is different from the statutory repeal of a statutory provision.>> That's right. "Repeal" wasn't the word I would have chosen for this decision. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/16/2009 8:45:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, > sainto...@telus.net writes: > > True enough, because you can't repeal what was never in the law in the > first place.>> > > --- > Whether or not it was part of Common Law is exactly the issue. > You have to read up on the doctrine here > _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow_ > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow) > > Note how the "doctrine" is viewed in England. Or at least as presented here. > It should be apparent that the doctrine was treated as an implicit part of > US law until recently. > That is why, you see, it wound up at the Supreme Court in the first place. > To reconcile conflicting issues with the treatment of this implicit doctrine. > > Declaring a common law practice no longer valid is different from the statutory repeal of a statutory provision. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/17/2009 12:45:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, sainto...@telus.net writes: To summarize, I responded to whether I would agree to post a scan by you of otherwise PD material without first getting your permission. You would have no right of action at all if the scan were by anybody else.>> - I'm not referring to *my* scans. I never was. And I never claimed that *I* would have a right of action. Why not just pick some page from Google Books of an obviously old edition? Seems pretty easy to find some old book. I haven't read their terms of service to see if they'd object though... Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/16/2009 9:57:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, > sainto...@telus.net writes: > > Absolutely!>> > > > > Are you willing to do it? That's the next question. > All of this is academic if there is *no one* willing to test this theory by > actually executing it. > > To summarize, I responded to whether I would agree to post a scan by you of otherwise PD material without first getting your permission. You would have no right of action at all if the scan were by anybody else. Apart from not knowing where to find these special scans of yours, how can I be sure that you would take me to court about it? If I'm going to go out of my way to upload your scans somewhere, the least I can expect is the fun of destroying your arguments in court. Make my day. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > I don't think we need *consent* to upload stuff that is in the pd... > However crediting the person or source of the image should always be > done just as part of our scholarly ethics. > Exactly my thoughts on the issue. -Falcorian ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
geni wrote: > 2009/1/16 : > >> Not a good example. >> The building owner is not working your camera, you are. >> You own the photographs you take, not the person who owns the object being >> photographed. >> > Your US bias is showing. Consider French law. > > Still if you want a US law based case. Substitute 3D artworks in a > public place in the UK for building. > So far, data base protection laws have only been passed in the European Union, not in the USA. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
geni wrote: > 2009/1/16 : > >> In a message dated 1/15/2009 geni...@gmail.com writes: >> >> Just about every company that makes Generic pharmaceutics.>> >> - >> So you're advocating stealing from pharmacies to get free drugs? >> Otherwise I don't see the point in this example >> We're talking about *free* here after all >> > Sigh. Companies that make generic pharmaceutical are making a product > I am free to take, analyse and copy (okey so in reality I'd just look > up the expired patent). They cannot control exclussive access to the > stuff. And yet they make money. > > Copying patented drugs is indeed far removed from holding up the local pharmacy at gunpoint. The pharmaceutical industry knows more than a thing or two about theft. I can't really blame the South African government when it offered to produce AIDS drugs domestically and distribute them to the poor for substantially less than ther patent holders. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
Carcharoth wrote: > The point here is that the availability of PD items (the actual items > themselves, not the scans or copies of them) varies. There are also > quality control and provenance issues as well. What would you prefer? > A quality scan from a respected museum that has confirmed the > provenance of an item and that it is genuine and not a fake, or a > poor-quality scan from Joe Blogs who has found stuff in a second-hand > bookshop and has no weight of authority behind him to confirm that the > scan or the object are genuine? > > The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive > image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people > point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as > references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image? > > I don't worry too much about book scans. I suppose that a determined person could fake these if he had good reason to be so motivated, but those circumstances would be a definite exception. Joe Blogs's scans will very often be of poor quality, but where only text is concerned are probably suitable to the intended purpose. Companies like Google are getting involved because it's too much for limited library budgets, and volunteer help is probably not reliable enough to handle such a huge mindless task. There are further access problems when we are dealing with fragile material on acidic paper. Books that have come out in multiple editions present a lot of additional problems about what it means to be a genuine.version. I view the public domain as a trust with the general public as the beneficiary. It is the underlying rationale behind the public ownership of US government copyrights, and to free admission to national museums in Washington: the taxpayer already paid for all this with his taxes, so why should he pay again to see it and use it where possible. Pointing to Google Books is one thing when our usage does not involve changing the material. If we want to do more with it like producing derivatives, we need to host it elsewhere. This makes me wonder if there is a place at the bailout trough for rebuilding the intellectual infrastructure. ;-) Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:04:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, tracy.p...@gmail.com writes: I don't see any benefit in attempting to agitate people. Furthermore, as a student I was taught to credit my sources, not because it's legally necessary, but because it's the appropriate and ethical thing to do. I have no intention of compromising on my ethics at your goading.>> --- I'm not asking *you* to it. The point was raised in this thread, by someone who isn't you, that we should feel free to take these images we find on the web of things which are PD, and do whatever we want to with them, including not giving credit to where we got them. That is, in fact, the point of this sub thread on the whole credit issue. So an example where you give credit, doesn't really address the main point of this sub sub sub thread ;) **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:49 AM, wrote: > Well perhaps I didn't state that in that particular post, but I have stated > it a number of times. > > People who make a living *by* writing and creating web pages, would often be > mollified by being given credit. The point isn't whether they would be mollified--that implies some wrong was done. If it's wrong, it's still wrong whether people will put up with it or not. We shouldn't be doing things that are wrong. I don't believe that copying that photo was wrong. > By the way, the example doesn't actually *prove* that she didn't ask for > consent, but that's a side issue. Are you accusing me of lying about copying the photo without asking? Really? And, incidentally, it's 'he'. > The main issue is really to test the theory by using an image from a site > where we *know* they will complain isn't it? I mean there's not much point > in > testing this by stealing someone's photo who doesn't even notice or care. I don't see any benefit in attempting to agitate people. Furthermore, as a student I was taught to credit my sources, not because it's legally necessary, but because it's the appropriate and ethical thing to do. I have no intention of compromising on my ethics at your goading. -- Tracy Poff ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
I don't think we need *consent* to upload stuff that is in the pd... However crediting the person or source of the image should always be done just as part of our scholarly ethics. On 1/17/09, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > Why would you do that? I mean is it not in scholarly interest to know > the sources? > > On 1/17/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 1/16/2009 10:12:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, >> tracy.p...@gmail.com writes: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aphra_Behn_by_Mary_Beale.jpg >> >> I uploaded that a while ago. I stand by my interpretation at the time >> that my action was legal and appropriate.>> >> >> >> -- >> And we can see that you give credit to the site from where you took it. >> So your example does not pass that test. >> >> Would you be willing to load a picture without giving credit to from where >> you took it? >> >> >> **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 >> easy >> steps! >> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De >> cemailfooterNO62) >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
Why would you do that? I mean is it not in scholarly interest to know the sources? On 1/17/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/16/2009 10:12:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, > tracy.p...@gmail.com writes: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aphra_Behn_by_Mary_Beale.jpg > > I uploaded that a while ago. I stand by my interpretation at the time > that my action was legal and appropriate.>> > > > -- > And we can see that you give credit to the site from where you took it. > So your example does not pass that test. > > Would you be willing to load a picture without giving credit to from where > you took it? > > > **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy > steps! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De > cemailfooterNO62) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
Well perhaps I didn't state that in that particular post, but I have stated it a number of times. People who make a living *by* writing and creating web pages, would often be mollified by being given credit. I don't consider crediting someone the same as stealing the image. It's really a grey area. Some people don't want you even linking-in their images with or without credit. Many sites will block that, even for photographs of things in the public domain. So consider how they would feel if you simply print-screened the photo, and then uploaded it to commons. By the way, the example doesn't actually *prove* that she didn't ask for consent, but that's a side issue. The main issue is really to test the theory by using an image from a site where we *know* they will complain isn't it? I mean there's not much point in testing this by stealing someone's photo who doesn't even notice or care. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:26 AM, wrote: > And we can see that you give credit to the site from where you took it. > So your example does not pass that test. > > Would you be willing to load a picture without giving credit to from where > you took it? You asked: "Should you be able to take my photograph (without my consent) and post it to Commons?" I provided an instance of a photograph I copied without the photographer's consent and uploaded to commons. Which is what you wanted. Whether I provided a link back to the site doesn't affect the legality of the action. -- Tracy Poff ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:26 PM, wrote: > And we can see that you give credit to the site from where you took it. > So your example does not pass that test. > > Would you be willing to load a picture without giving credit to from where > you took it? I have a feeling that you're changing the terms of the question on us. Nowhere in the original did you mention credit. You mentioned consent, not credit. If Tracy Poff did not ask permission, then she meets your original criteria. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/16/2009 10:12:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, tracy.p...@gmail.com writes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aphra_Behn_by_Mary_Beale.jpg I uploaded that a while ago. I stand by my interpretation at the time that my action was legal and appropriate.>> -- And we can see that you give credit to the site from where you took it. So your example does not pass that test. Would you be willing to load a picture without giving credit to from where you took it? **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:58 AM, wrote: > Are you willing to do it? That's the next question. > All of this is academic if there is *no one* willing to test this theory by > actually executing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aphra_Behn_by_Mary_Beale.jpg I uploaded that a while ago. I stand by my interpretation at the time that my action was legal and appropriate. -- Tracy Poff ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/16/2009 9:57:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, sainto...@telus.net writes: Absolutely!>> Are you willing to do it? That's the next question. All of this is academic if there is *no one* willing to test this theory by actually executing it. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > < > It would be legitimate if copyright law permitted it. In that case it > likely does not. What case law we have suggests that photographing a > three-dimensional object requires a sufficient amount of creativity to > be a copyrightable work. >> > > Fine. I take a photograph of a page from an old book and post it to my own > web site. > You take my photograph and post it to commons. > Now you can't use the 3d argument, so is that a legitimate thing to do? > Should you be able to take my photograph (without my consent) and post it to > Commons? > Answer that. > Absolutely! Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > < geni...@gmail.com writes: > > We will deal with that if it happens. For various reasons I strongly > suspect it won't.>> > > And yet we already know that you are not willing to do this yourself. > You just want to convince others to do it :) > Not really a very defensible position is it? Whatever someone chooses to upload should be consistent with that person's interests and other efforts, and not just for the sake of proving that nothing more than that he can do it, or tendentiously beggaring your vicarious pleasures. Your I-dare-you approach is more suited to a children's playground. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/16/2009 8:45:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, sainto...@telus.net writes: True enough, because you can't repeal what was never in the law in the first place.>> --- Whether or not it was part of Common Law is exactly the issue. You have to read up on the doctrine here _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow) Note how the "doctrine" is viewed in England. Or at least as presented here. It should be apparent that the doctrine was treated as an implicit part of US law until recently. That is why, you see, it wound up at the Supreme Court in the first place. To reconcile conflicting issues with the treatment of this implicit doctrine. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > The ruling did *not* repeal sweat-of-the-brow. True enough, because you can't repeal what was never in the law in the first place. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM, wrote: > And now we see the argument descend into this sort of attack. > So evidently Geni has nothing left except personal insult. Nice. Will, I'm afraid you already descended much of the way yourself. Perhaps it is time we all disengaged from this argument; I suspect that you are not going to convince Geni or I, and we are not going to convince you, and the rest of the audience is likely getting very bored. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> Fine. I take a photograph of a page from an old book and post it to my own web site. You take my photograph and post it to commons. Now you can't use the 3d argument, so is that a legitimate thing to do? Should you be able to take my photograph (without my consent) and post it to Commons? Answer that. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> And now we see the argument descend into this sort of attack. So evidently Geni has nothing left except personal insult. Nice. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:44 AM, wrote: > Well it could be that what Geni is advocating is not legal in the US and the > fact that Geni is not willing to do it Geni-self might be a good indication > of that. Will, it is not reasonable or fair to accuse Geni of lying, which is what you are thus doing. To my knowledge Geni has not in this discussion ever advocated that he or anyone else breach the laws which apply to them, personally. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM, wrote: > The question again is not taking a copy of things. It's taking a copy of my > photograph. > I photograph the Taj Mahal and put it on my own web page. > You take my copy and post it to Commons. > > That's what you want? That seems legitimate? > Answer that question. It would be legitimate if copyright law permitted it. In that case it likely does not. What case law we have suggests that photographing a three-dimensional object requires a sufficient amount of creativity to be a copyrightable work. Thus, you would hold a valid copyright in that photograph and I would respect the law. When we're talking about commercial organizations, they will do anything they are legally permitted to do that will further their interests. It is their duty to do so, in fact, if they're a US public company. I fail to see why Wikipedia, or other free-content organizations, or individuals, need to respect some additional moral imperative you seem to see above and beyond that, when commercial organizations will not respect any such. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > Well it could be that what Geni is advocating is not legal in the US and the > fact that Geni is not willing to do it Geni-self might be a good indication > of that. > > Will It could be but you would have to overturn a fair bit of caselaw. The second part of you email however shows that you are either illiterate, lying or an idiot. It has been explained to you many times that I answer to UK law which is different in this area. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> Well it could be that what Geni is advocating is not legal in the US and the fact that Geni is not willing to do it Geni-self might be a good indication of that. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> The question again is not taking a copy of things. It's taking a copy of my photograph. I photograph the Taj Mahal and put it on my own web page. You take my copy and post it to Commons. That's what you want? That seems legitimate? Answer that question. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> Your particular item is not PD. It's the general item, the Socratian item, that is PD. Your specific item is not. No one can force you to let them view your item. If to take an extreme vase, the only versions of the item are privately held, and no one has ever photographed it, or if they have all the photographs are unpublished etc etc, then right, you can't get the item. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:34 AM, wrote: > And yet we already know that you are not willing to do this yourself. > You just want to convince others to do it :) > Not really a very defensible position is it? Will, that's quite an unreasonable thing to say. Geni is a UK resident. He must obey UK laws. Whether or not he agrees with them. Just because he must obey the laws of the country in which he lives does not impose on him a moral imperative to never advocate that people in the US should do things that are legal in the US but not in the UK. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> And yet we already know that you are not willing to do this yourself. You just want to convince others to do it :) Not really a very defensible position is it? Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wrote: > If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to > freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result > is > that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have > anything free, limited, for pay, or what. I think you've failed to demonstrate that our taking a copy of things we're legally allowed to take a copy of is actually harming any of these organizations, quite apart from any argument about whether we should actually care. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:20 PM, wrote: >>>In a message dated 1/16/2009 4:27:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: > > The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive > image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people > point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as > references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image?>> > > "Point to" versus "take". Two separate things. I agree. > I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing > the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com Ditto. But you do realise the reason why there is such a thing as "public domain" in the first place, right? It's a balance between encouraging free access to public domain material, and discouraging restriction of access to public domain material. > And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same > position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog > for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five > thousand years. I preferred the bible example. > The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do > whatever we want with it. I agree. But you avoided my other question: If the *object* is public domain, who has the right to access it? If you buy an expensive first edition public domain book (hundreds of years old and thousands of US dollars), what do you say to someone who turns up on your doorstep saying that the book is part of the collective heritage of humankind, and that they have a right to look at it and scan it, and that you have no right to keep the item locked up in a display cabinet for only you to look at? This is private collections, not museums, but what distinctions should be drawn? There *are* some private collections of very old material that are not under government control and are not about to be released to the public anytime soon. Is this a problem? What can be done about it? You talked about capitalism. That creates markets in old stuff. Which leads to hoarding. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > "Point to" versus "take". Two separate things. > I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing > the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com > > And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same > position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog > for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five > thousand years. > > The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do > whatever we want with it. Under common law we have the right to do anything that is not illegal. > And the mere fact that no image exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do > whatever it takes to get one. We have the right to anything legal to get one. > We still are ethically bound to follow standard protocol, and not rock the > image boat. Not under any of the commonly held systems of ethics within liberal democracies. > If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to > freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result > is > that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have > anything free, limited, for pay, or what. We will deal with that if it happens. For various reasons I strongly suspect it won't. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
>>In a message dated 1/16/2009 4:27:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image?>> "Point to" versus "take". Two separate things. I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five thousand years. The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever we want with it. And the mere fact that no image exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever it takes to get one. We still are ethically bound to follow standard protocol, and not rock the image boat. If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result is that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have anything free, limited, for pay, or what. Shooting yourself in the foot to prove that you can isn't a useful tactic. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:08 AM, wrote: > > In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:56:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, > mor...@gmail.com writes: > > You are copying the formula. There is no item itself to be "stolen".>> > > > - > > And no one is stopping anyone, from taking an old Bible and scanning it. > But if you want to come to my bible.org website and copy off all my scans of > old bibles and then post them up on your website, that is quite a different > thing. > > The simple fact that an underlying object is PD does not give carte blanche > to rehost someone else's photographs. What if someone turns up on your doorstep with a scanner and says "your old bible is public domain information - I demand you let me scan it so I can set up a website to compete with your one". What then? The point here is that the availability of PD items (the actual items themselves, not the scans or copies of them) varies. There are also quality control and provenance issues as well. What would you prefer? A quality scan from a respected museum that has confirmed the provenance of an item and that it is genuine and not a fake, or a poor-quality scan from Joe Blogs who has found stuff in a second-hand bookshop and has no weight of authority behind him to confirm that the scan or the object are genuine? The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:56:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, mor...@gmail.com writes: You are copying the formula. There is no item itself to be "stolen".>> - And no one is stopping anyone, from taking an old Bible and scanning it. But if you want to come to my bible.org website and copy off all my scans of old bibles and then post them up on your website, that is quite a different thing. The simple fact that an underlying object is PD does not give carte blanche to rehost someone else's photographs. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:46:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Okey so you consider copying images different to copying formulas? The endpoint of your argument would be that if someone takes a PD image and converts it into SVG it is okey to copy it but if they put it in a raster format it isn't.>> -- If you take a chemical formula and make your own drug out of it, fine. If you walk into a pharmacy and say "Give me your aspirin because the formula is in the public domain, the will laugh at you or call the police." Walking onto a website and saying, well since the *underlying object* that you are photographing is itself in the public domain, I think I'll just steal your image of it, is the same example as trying to take a drug where the formula itself is public domain. The drug thing is just a bad example. It is not nearly close enough to the issue. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:28 PM, wrote: > You are copying the formula. > You are not stealing the item itself. > There is quite a difference, sigh or no sigh. > > If you are so worn out by this argument, then stop arguing. > > In the case of images, you are not copying a formula, you are copying the > item itself. You are copying the formula. There is no item itself to be "stolen". -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > Wikipedia operates under US law. > So you're admitting that you want to argue forever over it, but you're not > willing to actually test it. Strangely when dealing with the actions of a UK resident UK courts wont care what law wikipedia thinks it operates under. This is basic stuff. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > You are copying the formula. > You are not stealing the item itself. > There is quite a difference, sigh or no sigh. Okey so you consider copying images different to copying formulas? The endpoint of your argument would be that if someone takes a PD image and converts it into SVG it is okey to copy it but if they put it in a raster format it isn't. Or perhaps you think chemicals are magically different. If the formula is a DNA string I can literally drop it into a machine that will pretty much print it out. Still another option for people who make money of PD work are the companies that take advantage of the 50 year rule on recorded music in the UK. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > No one is stopping any American, from going to the repository where the > originals items are stored and viewing them. You know this, I don't know > why you > keep pushing on that button, when it's clear that it's a non starter. View!= scanning. Heh ever tried to have a conversation with a government depositry about scanning their stuff? > The companies are not trying to prevent people from viewing PD items. They > are trying to prevent the viewing of their own copies of those items. Not > the items. The copies. They are free to do that. Just can't use copyright as a tool. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: I've mentioned rather a lot of times I'm British. British law in this area is slightly different.>> -- Wikipedia operates under US law. So you're admitting that you want to argue forever over it, but you're not willing to actually test it. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: > yes that's my point. > You scanned it. > You scanned it from PD documents. > So this example only repeats what I've been saying. Not really.>> - You yourself stated that you scanned these items. "Not really" is a vague counter argument. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:25:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Sigh. Companies that make generic pharmaceutical are making a product I am free to take, analyse and copy (okey so in reality I'd just look up the expired patent). They cannot control exclussive access to the stuff. And yet they make money.>> - You are copying the formula. You are not stealing the item itself. There is quite a difference, sigh or no sigh. If you are so worn out by this argument, then stop arguing. In the case of images, you are not copying a formula, you are copying the item itself. Next bad example ? **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:21:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: US law however has for the time being decided that sweat of the brow is not a variable to be considered. Since scanning is non creative there can be no copyright under US law. They may be under UK law depending on the process and they are rather unlikely to be under swiss law (which has rather high barriers to copyright).>> - Then put your money where your mouth is :) Go copy a bunch of stuff off one of these cites and post it to Commons. If you're not willing to steal someone else's work, you should stop advocating other people test your theory. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > yes that's my point. > You scanned it. > You scanned it from PD documents. > So this example only repeats what I've been saying. Not really. > What I want you to do, is go find some web site and copy their stuff, and > then post it to Commons :) > do that I've mentioned rather a lot of times I'm British. British law in this area is slightly different. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > > In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:15:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, > geni...@gmail.com writes: > > > Just about every company that makes Generic pharmaceutics.>> > > > - > > So you're advocating stealing from pharmacies to get free drugs? > Otherwise I don't see the point in this example > We're talking about *free* here after all Sigh. Companies that make generic pharmaceutical are making a product I am free to take, analyse and copy (okey so in reality I'd just look up the expired patent). They cannot control exclussive access to the stuff. And yet they make money. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:53:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, > geni...@gmail.com writes: > > Which effectively kicks out sweat of the brow. Sweat of the brow is on > it's own non creative.>> > > False. Sweat of the brow discusses effort. > Creativity and effort can both exist, or neither exist, or one. > They are independent variables. US law however has for the time being decided that sweat of the brow is not a variable to be considered. Since scanning is non creative there can be no copyright under US law. They may be under UK law depending on the process and they are rather unlikely to be under swiss law (which has rather high barriers to copyright). -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:15:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Just about every company that makes Generic pharmaceutics.>> - So you're advocating stealing from pharmacies to get free drugs? Otherwise I don't see the point in this example We're talking about *free* here after all **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Again depends where they are. But yes any American can do that with this stuff most of which I scanned:>> -- yes that's my point. You scanned it. You scanned it from PD documents. So this example only repeats what I've been saying. What I want you to do, is go find some web site and copy their stuff, and then post it to Commons :) do that **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > > In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:06:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, > mor...@gmail.com writes: > > Plenty of companies make money from things that they cannot control > exclusive access to. If they provide a service worth money, they will > remain profitable.>> > > > Name one Just about every company that makes Generic pharmaceutics. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > Not a good example. > The building owner is not working your camera, you are. > You own the photographs you take, not the person who owns the object being > photographed. Your US bias is showing. Consider French law. Still if you want a US law based case. Substitute 3D artworks in a public place in the UK for building. > > But what you are advocating, is that if you take lots of photos, and post > them to your own web site, that any person wandering by who says "Oh that's an > image of a piece of art in the public domain" can just lift it off your site, > and plop it on theirs. > > Without any credit to you, without any consideration. Again depends where they are. But yes any American can do that with this stuff most of which I scanned: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_Ordnance_Survey_map_images -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:08:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Ah no. I want Americans to exercise the legal ability they have to use certain material in certain ways. If that cases companies issues then under the principles of capitalism that isn't my problem unless I own shares in them. >That's not very nice. 1)Copyright law isn't nice 2)Compared to most of the other bits the relevant area isn't very nasty.>> --- No one is stopping any American, from going to the repository where the originals items are stored and viewing them. You know this, I don't know why you keep pushing on that button, when it's clear that it's a non starter. The companies are not trying to prevent people from viewing PD items. They are trying to prevent the viewing of their own copies of those items. Not the items. The copies. You want readers of this thread to think that the only issue here is copyright law, but it's not. Never was. That's just a handy crutch for people who are intent on theft to justify their actions. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:06:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, mor...@gmail.com writes: Plenty of companies make money from things that they cannot control exclusive access to. If they provide a service worth money, they will remain profitable.>> Name one **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > We have always had the problem of how to access pd documents that might be > sitting in some repository like for example the US Federal Census. > > Until ancestry and genealogy, starting scanning them in, you had to *go* to > a Federal Archives (or similar repository) and sit *there* and view them > during their hours and under their control. > > Now that net sites have begun uploading those documents so we can conviently > view them, you want to steal them. Ah no. I want Americans to exercise the legal ability they have to use certain material in certain ways. If that cases companies issues then under the principles of capitalism that isn't my problem unless I own shares in them. >That's not very nice. 1)Copyright law isn't nice 2)Compared to most of the other bits the relevant area isn't very nasty. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:00 PM, wrote: > They are not creating air. > Please use an example that makes more sense. > These companies are in the business of providing these images. > Without this business, they cease to exist, and the images cease. These companies knew the state of the law when they started doing that business. Plenty of companies make money from things that they cannot control exclusive access to. If they provide a service worth money, they will remain profitable. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:02:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Well yes. Just as I will ignore claims of copyright by the building owner over photos I take of buildings in the UK.>> Not a good example. The building owner is not working your camera, you are. You own the photographs you take, not the person who owns the object being photographed. But what you are advocating, is that if you take lots of photos, and post them to your own web site, that any person wandering by who says "Oh that's an image of a piece of art in the public domain" can just lift it off your site, and plop it on theirs. Without any credit to you, without any consideration. That's quite different from taking a picture of a building. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > But that's the way it's *always* been. So what> > What you want, is for me or some library or google or whoever, to do all the > heavy lifting work, by scanning thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages > of material, and then to just... steal it. Not at all. Everyone has a choice. In any case you are wasting your time if you think page counts are going to impress me. I know the basics of modern scanning techniques. > That is essentially what you are saying. > Once you've done all the work, tough, go spin, we'll do whatever we want > with your work. Well yes. Just as I will ignore claims of copyright by the building owner over photos I take of buildings in the UK. > That isn't what the court case you keep citing says you can do. > Not at all. No. It doesn't say I can do that. However it makes it pretty clear that US based wikipedians can. Given the number of copyright claims we've ignored citing that case you would have thought someone would have tired taking the situation to court if they thought they actually had a case. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 8:55:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, mor...@gmail.com writes: is recorded is property, yes, but nobody is being deprived of property. It is not theft any more than breathing the air within their building would be theft. -Matt They are not creating air. Please use an example that makes more sense. These companies are in the business of providing these images. Without this business, they cease to exist, and the images cease. So who wins that ? Nobody wins. We all lose. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:23 PM, wrote: > Now that net sites have begun uploading those documents so we can conviently > view them, you want to steal them. That's not very nice. They cannot be stolen. The information is being copied, not destroyed, and the information is not property; the material on which it is recorded is property, yes, but nobody is being deprived of property. It is not theft any more than breathing the air within their building would be theft. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
We have always had the problem of how to access pd documents that might be sitting in some repository like for example the US Federal Census. Until ancestry and genealogy, starting scanning them in, you had to *go* to a Federal Archives (or similar repository) and sit *there* and view them during their hours and under their control. Now that net sites have begun uploading those documents so we can conviently view them, you want to steal them. That's not very nice. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
But that's the way it's *always* been. What you want, is for me or some library or google or whoever, to do all the heavy lifting work, by scanning thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages of material, and then to just... steal it. That is essentially what you are saying. Once you've done all the work, tough, go spin, we'll do whatever we want with your work. That isn't what the court case you keep citing says you can do. Not at all. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > That doesn't make sense to me. > How do you limit PD items? > How can I, direct the land office in my local county to *stop* giving copies > to people who walk in? > I can't. You seem to assume that all PD items are in public collections. > If something is PD, then there is *some* where you can go or write or call > to get a copy. > > > You are confusing the *creation* of an image, with the *creation* of the > original document. > > What we're discussing here is limiting the use of your creation, not the > original creation. > > Unless you're actually proposing that PD-item scanners are actually buying > originals and then destroying all copies of them in the world except their > own. I really doubt that is occuring. > > Will Doesn't need to happen. In many cases there are only a very small number of copies or even just one. Most collectors are not going to allow people nears there stuff with scanners unless they are paid for access. But even public collections have this problem. I doubt you would be able to get a scanner into the imperial war museum collection or the British library collection. Under your system the only way to get a copy of those things not protected by rather limiting conditions. For example he's the conditions for the imperial war museam: http://collections.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/newlegal02a.pdf -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:53:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Which effectively kicks out sweat of the brow. Sweat of the brow is on it's own non creative.>> False. Sweat of the brow discusses effort. Creativity and effort can both exist, or neither exist, or one. They are independent variables. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:52:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Against that you have to consider that granting copyright in such cases effectively allows someone who can limit the physical access to the document to enjoy all the benefits of copyright even though they didn't create it. Sometimes the access control doesn't mean much. New popular edition maps are cheap. So acquiring them to scan does not present a major problem. Older less mass produced maps? 10K+. In effect you prevent large parts of the public domain ever being meaningfully PD.>> That doesn't make sense to me. How do you limit PD items? How can I, direct the land office in my local county to *stop* giving copies to people who walk in? I can't. If something is PD, then there is *some* where you can go or write or call to get a copy. You are confusing the *creation* of an image, with the *creation* of the original document. What we're discussing here is limiting the use of your creation, not the original creation. Unless you're actually proposing that PD-item scanners are actually buying originals and then destroying all copies of them in the world except their own. I really doubt that is occuring. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > The ruling did *not* repeal sweat-of-the-brow. What it did was state that > your work must have some creativity, some originality, some non-obvious > content in order to enjoy copyright protection. Which effectively kicks out sweat of the brow. Sweat of the brow is on it's own non creative. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > You know perfectly well this is a "theory" of the law and the case law is > not clear. Depends where you are. > > And I hope you realize the chilling effect it gives to state that something > like Google Books has no protection for their out-of-copyright scans. That > Microsoft or whoever, can simply copy all of that material onto their own > servers and thumb their noses at Google. Sure. Would take them forever though. > That is what you're saying. > That theory would effectively end anyone attempting to upload PD anything of > significant value. Not really. Just because you have the content doesn't mean you are equal. > Sure people will upload little dribs and drabs but we'll not be getting > thousands of pages of census, and hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, > maps, etc, since anyone like yourself can just copy the entire contents, > rehost > them, and place your own ads on your own server and make money off doing > virtually nothing. > > This is what you want to happen on the internet? > This sounds like a good thing to you? Your problem is that you are forgetting a number of factors. First there is the issue of first mover advantage. People get used to google books before Microsoft has a chance to compete. Second there is the issue of presentation. Microsoft can do all the mirroring they like won't mean they can match Google's software. Lots of was to add value with software. Frequently the design of the software can make large scale harvesting a near impossibility. Throw in some watermarking and mirroring your stuff seems rather unattractive. Sure wikipedia might be prepared to remove the watermark (sometimes for example only one image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour has had the AWM watermark removed) but most people won't and those that do won't be able to on a large scale. You mention census stuff but that is mostly a government thing. Against that you have to consider that granting copyright in such cases effectively allows someone who can limit the physical access to the document to enjoy all the benefits of copyright even though they didn't create it. Sometimes the access control doesn't mean much. New popular edition maps are cheap. So acquiring them to scan does not present a major problem. Older less mass produced maps? 10K+. In effect you prevent large parts of the public domain ever being meaningfully PD. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
The sweat-of-the-brow case _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service) is actually a rather specific and technical exception to the general rule of "minimal spark of creativity". This was a telephone book, which one company took, and *did not copy* the pages, they copied the *content* of those pages, and then inserted that content into a broader database of similar content i.e. the listings for all of Kansas, instead of just the one town. The ruling, writen I think by O'Connor was fairly narrow and not as extreme as some are implying. The ruling did *not* repeal sweat-of-the-brow. What it did was state that your work must have some creativity, some originality, some non-obvious content in order to enjoy copyright protection. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 6:46:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, geni...@gmail.com writes: Since under US law sweat of the brow does not give something copyright protection if your scans are publicly available it is rather hard to get people to pay anything for them.>> --- You know perfectly well this is a "theory" of the law and the case law is not clear. And I hope you realize the chilling effect it gives to state that something like Google Books has no protection for their out-of-copyright scans. That Microsoft or whoever, can simply copy all of that material onto their own servers and thumb their noses at Google. That is what you're saying. That theory would effectively end anyone attempting to upload PD anything of significant value. Sure people will upload little dribs and drabs but we'll not be getting thousands of pages of census, and hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, maps, etc, since anyone like yourself can just copy the entire contents, rehost them, and place your own ads on your own server and make money off doing virtually nothing. This is what you want to happen on the internet? This sounds like a good thing to you? **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/16 : > It takes me a few dozen hours to scan the pages of a public domain work. I > have a perfect right to expect payment for someone else to use it. That > capitalism. No. Under capitalism you have the right to expect what someone else is prepared to pay you. If that is zero then it is zero. Since under US law sweat of the brow does not give something copyright protection if your scans are publicly available it is rather hard to get people to pay anything for them. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 5:56:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, tracy.p...@gmail.com writes: My inexpert opinion is that convincing someone that they are required to pay you to use the material bearing the false copyright notice would be fraudulent intent, though I could be wrong.>> -- Thank you for the text of that. Don't you think it's a bit odd to claim, that someone can steal the work of someone else for no payment whatsoever ? Copyright or no? If I work, and place a claim of copyright on my work, and you just take it, I really doubt that a *credible* excuse for theft is "he was claiming copyright without a real copyright". It's still theft of the work of someone else's effort. It takes me a few dozen hours to scan the pages of a public domain work. I have a perfect right to expect payment for someone else to use it. That capitalism. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:37 PM, wrote: > No it is not illegal to claim copyright over something to which you don't > own copyright. If you believe it is illegal, then perhaps you could cite the > law that states that, so we can review it. If you have to prove "intent to > deceive" than I would suggest that the law you are thinking of, does not > specify copyright at all, but is more general. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/5/sections/section_506.html "(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500." My inexpert opinion is that convincing someone that they are required to pay you to use the material bearing the false copyright notice would be fraudulent intent, though I could be wrong. -- Tracy Poff ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/15/2009 11:06:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, fastfiss...@gmail.com writes: <> I know you don't agree. But there are others who think that the mere act of making available electronically vast archives of paper, creates an ethical situation where the creator and exerter of all that effort should get *some*thing for their effort. <> They are others believe this, or did believe it. I and others do tend to value effort ethically if not legally. Do you know of more than one case? I've only heard of a single case. The issue is not just whether scanning generates a copyright, which it probably does not, but whether the use of that image generates an appropriate ethical treatment of the creator. <> No it is not illegal to claim copyright over something to which you don't own copyright. If you believe it is illegal, then perhaps you could cite the law that states that, so we can review it. If you have to prove "intent to deceive" than I would suggest that the law you are thinking of, does not specify copyright at all, but is more general. <> The case law that has been cited is exactly a case where an image was taken from a creator and used without their copyright attached. As I have said repeatedly, even IF a creator exerts a copyright claim over their own image, that does not change whatsoever the state of the original item, or any other images taken by other creators of that item. >>Um, that's not what is going on. Corbis is selling (expensive) licenses which give the publisher in question the right to use the image. It's not a matter of "giving credit," it's a matter of pretending you can sell copyright licenses for things that are clearly in the public domain.>> The right to "use" of an image is not "selling [a] copyright license" for that image. I can certainly sell you the right to use my image whether I exert a copyright claim or not. I own the image, even if the underlying document is in the public domain. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.fr eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > Or to put it another way, is GFDL freer or less-free than PD? > Less free. Explicitly so. There are strict and specific limitations on what you can do with GFDL content. The goal, of course, is that in the end a GFDL regime will be more free on the whole, but that requires that the world is full of GFDL regimes. If it is not, then using GFDL content (or CC content or whatever) becomes fairly difficult unless you can re-negotiate the license. (This is one of the reasons I had long supported the idea of more flexible free licenses, like the ability to multi-license at a later date* if, for example, a new copyleft regime emerges that is more desirable than GFDL and is incompatible with it. In the end, since nobody seemed to care a whole lot about this, I just decided that I should re-license everything of mine as PD.) (*What I envisioned here was some sort of "trust," bundle license, that would say, "I give X the ability to license my contributions and to multi-license it in the future assuming that the following Y conditions are met by the license in question." So content that was GFDL today could be CC-SA tomorrow, or XY-AB ten years from now, as long as certain core requirements were met, like ability to use commercially, must be viral in some way, etc. In short it would be a hedge-your-bets measure -- don't rely on the fact that GFDL will be used in the future, because it might not, and ideally one licensed with GFDL in the first place because one wanted maximum reuse, which again only works if you have a lot of GFDL use in the first place. But I repeat myself.) FF ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, wrote: > "Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely > stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", > it has to > do with "Normal scholarly citation methods" > > Note that nobody here is talking about credit except for you! We are talking about copyright law! I think you are missing the entire point of the discussion. Once one has hammered out the specifics of the law then one can worry about the niceties of credit. FF ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM, wrote: > Agreed. But if a possessor of an image, which they themselves created, > denys our use of that image, we should respect such a denial. The image > belongs, > is owned, by them, regardless of whether it can be copyrighted or not, and > regardless of whether they claim such a copyright. > By "created" you mean "scanned"? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. If someone scans an and puts it on the web, I don't think we are required to follow the wishes of the uploader if the image is in the public domain. They do not "own" the image content whatsoever if it is in the public domain. > Agreed. You can only use it as evidence that they make such a claim. > Anyone can make a claim of copyright status on things which are not > copyrightable > in court. That is why there are court fights over it. It is not illegal > to > suggest that you have a copyright over something which later in court is > denied. Exerting a copyright claim does not make you immoral, as you seem > to > suggest by saying "they aren't upfront". They may have a valid reason for > the > belief that their effort makes their work copyrightable. As I related, their sole reason is they believe they own the copyright "on the scan." Which, as pointed out, is not something we value very much around here, for good reasons (legal and ethical). So far all case law to my knowledge has gone along with the notion that mere reproduction does not generate copyright. Scanning should be even less an issue than photography in this case -- it is even more mechanical. And yes, it is illegal to claim copyright over something that you don't own copyright to. It just isn't prosecuted as far as I can tell. Obviously you'd have to prove intent to deceive. I deny this claim. We can trust Corbis, that they make copyright claims > that are or aren't defensible. However provided we *stop using THEIR > images* > and use other images of the same material, than what Corbis does or > doesn't > claim is not relevant. I have a photograph of the Declaration of > Indenpendence, > which I took with my own camera. I give it to the project. Whether > Corbis > also has a photo of that, does not stop me or the project in any way from > using *my own image*. You seem to be confusing the use of a particular > image, > with the use of any image of the same work. > Please take a look at the discussion I was linking to. Nobody claimed we took the image file from Corbis. > Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be > scandalous. > IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my > image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I > give > you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise. > Um, that's not what is going on. Corbis is selling (expensive) licenses which give the publisher in question the right to use the image. It's not a matter of "giving credit," it's a matter of pretending you can sell copyright licenses for things that are clearly in the public domain. FF ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
Yes Ian I agree. It's not really a question of *law*, its a question of *citation practice*. Will **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> -- Or in two years, when someone notices that many user name credits point to limbo, and recreates all the history of every user name, just so we can have a clean path back to something. W **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> I agree. A credit like "Credit: Corbis, which does not specify it's own source and which possibly lacks copyright..." ;)~~~ Will **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On 14/01/2009, Ray Saintonge wrote: > You are only right to a limited extent. While it makes sense to say > that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only > that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights. If > Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to > be noted. It's not legally true either. For example if a newspaper or magazine gets a PD image from Corbis and publishes it, they *are* bound by their contract they made with Corbis to obtain the image. However, readers aren't so bound. If one of them copies the image, they have every right to do so, and are not legally (and probably not morally either) obliged to credit the magazine or Corbis, the readers usually don't have any contractual obligation, and copyright doesn't apply since it's still PD. So Corbis does have some protection, even for PD images, from contract law, but it's easily bypassed. > Ec -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, >> dger...@gmail.com writes: >> >> This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable >> morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public >> domain.>> >> >> Copyright and Credit are two seperate items. We need to discuss them >> seperately. >> You don't Credit the Copyright holder. You Credit your source, which may or >> may not be a copyright holder. >> >> You credit where *you* got it from. You even "Credit" public domain sources >> such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on anything >> whatsoever. >> >> "Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely >> stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", >> it has to >> do with "Normal scholarly citation methods" >> > You are only right to a limited extent. While it makes sense to say > that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only > that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights. If > Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to > be noted. Turning it around and stepping into a time machine, it is interesting to speculate about what people will think in 100 years time when they are looking at a photograph and the credit is to "Pbroks13" to use a random example of a featured picture. Will the people around then argue whether some of the usernames used today are truly pseudonymous or not, and get into long and involved arguments about that? And does it make sense to talk about GFDL works eventually falling into the public domain, and does it make any difference? :-) Or to put it another way, is GFDL freer or less-free than PD? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, > dger...@gmail.com writes: > > This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable > morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public > domain.>> > > Copyright and Credit are two seperate items. We need to discuss them > seperately. > You don't Credit the Copyright holder. You Credit your source, which may or > may not be a copyright holder. > > You credit where *you* got it from. You even "Credit" public domain sources > such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on anything > whatsoever. > > "Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely > stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", it > has to > do with "Normal scholarly citation methods" > You are only right to a limited extent. While it makes sense to say that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights. If Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to be noted. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, dger...@gmail.com writes: This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public domain.>> David that isn't relevant. Copyright and Credit are two seperate items. We need to discuss them seperately. You don't Credit the Copyright holder. You Credit your source, which may or may not be a copyright holder. You credit where *you* got it from. You even "Credit" public domain sources such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on anything whatsoever. "Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", it has to do with "Normal scholarly citation methods" Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
2009/1/14 : > If I take a photo of your photo, I own the photo that I created. As does > Corbis. > If they scan, upload, duplicate, xerox, or in any other way, create a new > physical item, even if it's an exact copy of some other item, they own that > new > item. > You should not ethically use their item, without crediting them. > That is not the same as a copyright, and just because you make a copy > doesn't mean you create a new copyright to that copy. It certainly has no > bearing > whatsoever on the state of the original item. > If someone wants to use a Corbis created copy, simply because it's easier > than trying to find another copy of that same thing, that Corbis didn't > create, > then that's their problem for being lazy. This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public domain. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Matthew Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wrote: >> <> that credits it to Corbis, Getty, etc. This happens even in very obvious >> cases, like US military photos of atomic tests.>> >> >> Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be >> scandalous. >> IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my >> image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I >> give >> you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise. >> >> That's S.O.P. in the image world. >> Nothing to do with copyright. Seperate issue. > > We were, I thought, talking of photos that Corbis does not own the > rights to and never did, and is certainly not the creator of. Copy of a copy of a copy and so on "Original" is usually a negative or print in some archive (the original "original" may be long gone). Many copies are often made of a single photo or image. In the case of photos from the early 20th century, you sometimes have many copies from an original negative or plate being distributed to various places and people, and various histories being recorded for each separate copy. If the original provenance is lost, it can sometimes appear that a single photo has several different claims of "ownership". Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/13/2009 5:40:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, mor...@gmail.com writes: We were, I thought, talking of photos that Corbis does not own the rights to and never did, and is certainly not the creator of.>> - If I take a photo of your photo, I own the photo that I created. As does Corbis. If they scan, upload, duplicate, xerox, or in any other way, create a new physical item, even if it's an exact copy of some other item, they own that new item. You should not ethically use their item, without crediting them. That is not the same as a copyright, and just because you make a copy doesn't mean you create a new copyright to that copy. It certainly has no bearing whatsoever on the state of the original item. If someone wants to use a Corbis created copy, simply because it's easier than trying to find another copy of that same thing, that Corbis didn't create, then that's their problem for being lazy. That doesn't however prevent anyone from linking to that image, describing it, or using it under fair use. However to simply take the image, use it, and neither give them credit, nor state it was even from a Corbis repository would not be ethical. However I see no problem with adding a link and saying "Here's a picture that Corbis copied, from a public source, showing President Bush eating a hot dog". Convenience links don't mean "use it however you want". They mean "use it but try to be fair to us". Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, wrote: > < that credits it to Corbis, Getty, etc. This happens even in very obvious > cases, like US military photos of atomic tests.>> > > Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be > scandalous. > IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my > image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I give > you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise. > > That's S.O.P. in the image world. > Nothing to do with copyright. Seperate issue. We were, I thought, talking of photos that Corbis does not own the rights to and never did, and is certainly not the creator of. -Matt ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> Agreed. But if a possessor of an image, which they themselves created, denys our use of that image, we should respect such a denial. The image belongs, is owned, by them, regardless of whether it can be copyrighted or not, and regardless of whether they claim such a copyright. <> Agreed. You can only use it as evidence that they make such a claim. Anyone can make a claim of copyright status on things which are not copyrightable in court. That is why there are court fights over it. It is not illegal to suggest that you have a copyright over something which later in court is denied. Exerting a copyright claim does not make you immoral, as you seem to suggest by saying "they aren't upfront". They may have a valid reason for the belief that their effort makes their work copyrightable. <> I deny this claim. We can trust Corbis, that they make copyright claims that are or aren't defensible. However provided we *stop using THEIR images* and use other images of the same material, than what Corbis does or doesn't claim is not relevant. I have a photograph of the Declaration of Indenpendence, which I took with my own camera. I give it to the project. Whether Corbis also has a photo of that, does not stop me or the project in any way from using *my own image*. You seem to be confusing the use of a particular image, with the use of any image of the same work. <> Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be scandalous. IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I give you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise. That's S.O.P. in the image world. Nothing to do with copyright. Seperate issue. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM, wrote: > > We're speaking past each other. > I am not suggesting that a person, scanning some image, cannot add a > copyright disclaimer to it. > > What I'm suggesting is that *this action* does not make a public domain > work > into a private copyrighted work. What it does, what they are suggesting > it > does at any rate, is make THEIR OWN WORK into a private copyrighted work. > > It does nothing at all to the original public domain piece, and no one, as > far as I know, even the defendents/plaintiffs have suggested that it alters > that the piece is still public domain. What they suggested is that *their > own > image* of that piece *solely* is a copyrighted piece. Not the original. > > Hope that's more clear. > > Will Johnson > The entire point of me posting this was to point out that this was exactly what we were doing in practice. In the instance of the Einstein-Planck photo, we were using the fact that Corbis had claimed it as a reason to suspect it must be copyrighted. My point was that just because Corbis claims it, doesn't mean it is copyrighted. You can't use whether Corbis claims something as evidence of its copyrighted status, if you have other reasons to suspect it is in the public domain. That's my point. Don't trust Corbis to be up front about copyrights. They aren't. When we get to the point where we all start trusting Corbis, then Corbis has, _in effect_, taken something from the public domain. I see lots of stuff I know to be public domain in news media in particular that credits it to Corbis, Getty, etc. This happens even in very obvious cases, like US military photos of atomic tests. FF ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
In a message dated 1/13/2009 2:03:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, sainto...@telus.net writes: Legally, you are right. That doesn't stop groups like Corbis from doing it. It's very easy to add a copyright notice to anything, with or without justification. Who is going to be willing to challenge them? >> -- We're speaking past each other. I am not suggesting that a person, scanning some image, cannot add a copyright disclaimer to it. What I'm suggesting is that *this action* does not make a public domain work into a private copyrighted work. What it does, what they are suggesting it does at any rate, is make THEIR OWN WORK into a private copyrighted work. It does nothing at all to the original public domain piece, and no one, as far as I know, even the defendents/plaintiffs have suggested that it alters that the piece is still public domain. What they suggested is that *their own image* of that piece *solely* is a copyrighted piece. Not the original. Hope that's more clear. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
Andrew Gray wrote: > [posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to > wikisource-l, perhaps?] > > I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping > those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a > given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US. > > http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/hirtle/07hirtle.html > > Copyright Renewal, Copyright Restoration, and the Difficulty of > Determining Copyright Status - Peter B. Hirtle, Cornell University > > D-Lib Magazine, July/August 2008 > Volume 14 Number 7/8 > > "It has long been assumed that most of the works published from 1923 > to 1964 in the US are currently in the public domain. Both non-profit > and commercial digital libraries have dreamed of making this material > available. Most programs have recognized as well that the restoration > of US copyright in foreign works in 1996 has made it impossible for > them to offer to the public the full text of most foreign works. What > has been overlooked up to now is the difficulty that copyright > restoration has created for anyone trying to determine if a work > published in the United States is still protected by copyright. This > paper discusses the impact that copyright restoration of foreign works > has had on US copyright status investigations, and offers some new > steps that users must follow in order to investigate the copyright > status in the US of any work. It argues that copyright restoration has > made it almost impossible to determine with certainty whether a book > published in the United States after 1922 and before 1964 is in the > public domain. Digital libraries that wish to offer books from this > period do so at some risk." > > The minefield is even murkier than we thought, it seems. > The unabridged version is at http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/10884/6/Copyright_renewal_final.pdf The trimming was all from the segment on "Risk management and copyright restoration" We really *never* can be sure about the copyright status of anything, and a risk management approach may be preferable. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between 1923 and 1964
Fastfission wrote: > Just a note from a very occasional reader: one of the apparently final > determinants made by User:Nv8200p before he deleted the Einstein-Planck > images is that Corbis claims it as one of theirs, thus it must be > copyrighted. > I have found over the years that Corbis has many, many US-government > produced images in its catalog that they claim they own the copyright > on. They also have many images that are so old that they cannot possibly be > still copyrighted (images published first in the early 19th century, for > example). I once e-mailed them about this and the person who e-mailed me > back said that they were claiming the copyright on the _scans_, not the > images themselves. > > Which is of dubious legal validity, as all of on here know. > > So just a head's up on that. Corbis has no real problem in overextending > their copyright claims to things that we would probably not agree with based > on our own copyright policies and the goals of a free encyclopedia. As we > all know, there is virtually no risk to Corbis for doing so as long as they > don't sue anybody for these dubious claims (as the US Copyright Office does > not seem to prosecute false copyright claims of this nature). Just because > it is in a Corbis catalog does not mean it is not actually public domain -- > Corbis is not careful about these things. Corbis does it because it can. The comment about having copyright on the scans works because very few people are willing and able to challenge bullshit. Some of the copyrights claimed by Corbis may be on material bought from another archive which in turn acquired them from a defunct newspaper. The newspaper would have had the rights to photographs which were works for hire, but it may also have used material from free-lance photographers who did not transfer copyrights. Who will have the energy to follow the paper trail? Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
Fastfission wrote: > Well, the case you are thinking of is surely Bridgeman v. Corel. ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_v._Corel) or something that affirms > it (like the recent Meshwerks v. Toyota). > I understand that at the moment Wikipedia has a rather complicated > determination of whether they use it or not. > > Most of the legal question revolves around whether there is a lot of > creativity in doing a reproduction. There are arguments on either side of > things. Still, I think in the case of Corbis, the fact that at most they are > just putting a photo onto a flat-bed scanner, maybe applying "auto-contrast" > to the results (or doing some other sort of color syncing), ought to > preclude the idea that they are doing anything "creative" in such cases. > > (One thing that has long annoyed me in the discussions about Bridgeman is > that the question is always posed as whether or not the adjustments were > creative enough to generate a new copyright. In my mind this ignores the > question of whether they are creative enough to generate a new copyright > _and thus give the modifier monopoly control over the previous public domain > material_. Moving things from the public to the private domain is a > dangerous game and should only be reserved for truly substantial and > worthwhile efforts to rehabilitate something that would otherwise be fairly > useless -- massive restorations of crumbling things that require an amount > of artistry on par with that which created the restored object in question > -- and not just tweaking the reds and greens a bit, removing a scratch here > or there with the clone tool. In my opinion. But I am neither a lawyer nor a > judge.) The law in this regard has more to do with whether the work is "original" rather than "creative". The distinction may seem somewhat hair-splitting, but that's what law suits are about. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I don't believe it's possible to move something from the public to the > private domain. > Legally, you are right. That doesn't stop groups like Corbis from doing it. It's very easy to add a copyright notice to anything, with or without justification. Who is going to be willing to challenge them? The longer these things go unchallenged, the stronger will be the impression that they have a valid claim. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
I don't believe it's possible to move something from the public to the private domain. The issue at hand wasn't that. The issue was *can* we use *their* image of that public domain material as the source image or source in general? That's not the same as, can we go take some other image of the same work, or take our own image of it and use that. They never implied (as far as I know) that the mere act of making an image, immediately gained them copyright over *all previous images of that work ever*. Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
Well, the case you are thinking of is surely Bridgeman v. Corel. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_v._Corel) or something that affirms it (like the recent Meshwerks v. Toyota). I understand that at the moment Wikipedia has a rather complicated determination of whether they use it or not. Most of the legal question revolves around whether there is a lot of creativity in doing a reproduction. There are arguments on either side of things. Still, I think in the case of Corbis, the fact that at most they are just putting a photo onto a flat-bed scanner, maybe applying "auto-contrast" to the results (or doing some other sort of color syncing), ought to preclude the idea that they are doing anything "creative" in such cases. (One thing that has long annoyed me in the discussions about Bridgeman is that the question is always posed as whether or not the adjustments were creative enough to generate a new copyright. In my mind this ignores the question of whether they are creative enough to generate a new copyright _and thus give the modifier monopoly control over the previous public domain material_. Moving things from the public to the private domain is a dangerous game and should only be reserved for truly substantial and worthwhile efforts to rehabilitate something that would otherwise be fairly useless -- massive restorations of crumbling things that require an amount of artistry on par with that which created the restored object in question -- and not just tweaking the reds and greens a bit, removing a scratch here or there with the clone tool. In my opinion. But I am neither a lawyer nor a judge.) FF On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM, wrote: > < fastfiss...@gmail.com writes: > > I once e-mailed them about this and the person who e-mailed me > back said that they were claiming the copyright on the _scans_, not the > images themselves.>> > > That is sort of the argument I was making a while ago, and I was greatly > interested in the recent copyright case where some museum (I can't remember > the > details) was claiming copyright over high quality images they produced of > old > (flat) artworks (i.e. paintings or drawings). > > The case went against them I believe and the reasoning was repeated here > on > this list just recently. > It would seem pretty clear that the same reasoning could be used against > say > Google books scans of old documents/books/maps. > That these scans themselves enjoy no special ability for a new copyright > claim vis a vis the expiration of old copyrights (pre 1922). > > Will Johnson > > > > > **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
<> That is sort of the argument I was making a while ago, and I was greatly interested in the recent copyright case where some museum (I can't remember the details) was claiming copyright over high quality images they produced of old (flat) artworks (i.e. paintings or drawings). The case went against them I believe and the reasoning was repeated here on this list just recently. It would seem pretty clear that the same reasoning could be used against say Google books scans of old documents/books/maps. That these scans themselves enjoy no special ability for a new copyright claim vis a vis the expiration of old copyrights (pre 1922). Will Johnson **New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews0002) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
