Richmond Mathewson wrote:
> Rick Harrison wrote:
>
> "Unless Apple, Inc. has put all of HyperCard into the public domain,
> the HyperCard icons are still owned by Apple, Inc."
>
> which seems pretty clear and unequivocal.
>
> However, old icons are a bit like my face:
>
> I own my face, and were somebody to mysteriously remove it and
> graft it on to another person they would have stolen it.
>
> However, journalists and others photograph people's faces and
> publish them everywhere without so much as a backward glance;
> and they cannot be said to have "stolen people's faces", or even
> their likenesses.
You did not create your face. In the US, your image in public places is
considered pubic domain, and can be photographed by anyone without
requiring consent. Photos of your face taken in private places will
require your consent, or may be considered an invasion of privacy. But
it's the privacy at play with faces, not copyright (at least not in the
US; YMMV); you did not create your face, and copyright is generally
limited to the domain of created works.
> Now, were I to post the HyperCard application, or, say, a ResEdit
> document containing Hypercard icons on a website and/or user group
> I would have stolen the icons.
>
> However, were I to post (as, indeed I have done) photographs (i.e.
> screenshots) of HyperCard icons; this would be similar to an
> individual publishing a photograph of me s/he took.
Actually, photographs of paintings are covered by the copyright of the
painting being photographed. There may be exceptions for incidental use
(e.g., a painting in the far background of a photograph of a gallery),
but the rules for incidental use are vague and the copyright holder can
elect to have them tested in court.
Pixel-for-pixel copies of a work, even if saved in a different format,
have been tested by the court and found to be under the protection of
the copyright holder of the original work. In some cases even modest
deviance from the original may still be protected, unless the defendant
can demonstrate that their work was indeed original and similarity is
purely coincidental.
Oddly enough, fonts are a specific exclusion to this protection, having
been defined by the courts as purely utilitarian and therefore
unprotectable by copyright (given the artfulness required for font
design I disagree with this ruling, but the courts rarely consult me
when making judgments). The underlying code of vector fonts can be
protected as software instructions, but the actual rendered image of the
glyphs themselves are not protected (hence the knock-off industry).
Screenshots which include copyrighted images may fall under "incidental
use", but as I noted such usage is vaguely defined and may be tested at
the copyright holder's election.
> This discussion is rapidly reaching its natural end.
Yes, all citations of governing law have demonstrated that distribution
of pixel-perfect copies of an entire collection Apple's icons represents
a violation of their copyright.
If this seems unclear the best test of course is to verify this with
Apple. I'm not an attorney, and I haven't seen any of the attorneys on
this list offer their opinions, so while no one here can be of
assistance the original copyright holder is the one who can best answer
your question.
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
