Interesting. FWIW: - 'copyfraud' is a word that has been used in the academic literature to label overly broad or ambitious assertions of copyright (asserting copyright that doesn't or is unlikely to exist). See Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244&rec=1&srcabs=319321). - An assertion based on 'sweat of the brow' is much more questionable following the IceTV decision by the High Court. If it's just work/running the photo through the processor, then it's questionable whether such digitised photo is copyright-protected even in Australia. However, when such cases have been raised in the UK they have been based on 'extensive work' getting the photograph to faithfully reflect the original. We haven't had that case come to court in Australia; reasoning in IceTV suggests it may not hold up here (anymore).
Kimberlee Weatherall -----Original Message----- From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg Sent: Sunday, 8 November 2009 1:53 PM To: Wikimedia-au Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] The A E "Bert" Roberts photograph collection On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Craig Franklin <cr...@halo-17.net> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Unfortunately the physical objects that the collection is based upon (the > glass plate negatives) are in a locked cupboard somewhere in the QM > warehouse, so the possibility of getting our hands on them and making our own > copies are fairly remote. > > I've deliberately worded the info in the infobox to be slightly ambiguous - > QM *claim* copyright on the digitisation (much the same as the NPG in the > UK), but there has not been a legal case here in Australia to my knowledge or > the knowledge of QM's copyright people to confirm whether the "sweat of the > brow" doctrine would hold up in an Australian court. We only say that QM > "assert" copyright over the digitisation, not that we recognise that > particular claim. And because the digitisation part is then released under a > free, acceptable licence, the whole shebang is fine to go on Commons. the template is here: [[commons:Template:QM_Infobox]] watchlist it! ;-) > The images are tagged PD because they are unquestionably PD in the United > States, which is what really matters in this case, but it's worth mentioning > that there is a possible bit of CC-BY-SA-3.0 in there just so that nobody in > Australia or the UK gets caught out. A similar example of a claim like this is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phineas_Gage_Cased_Daguerreotype_WilgusPhoto2008-12-19_Unretouched_Color.jpg and the derivative http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phineas_Gage_Daguerreotype_WilgusPhoto2008-12-19_CroppedInsideMat_Unretouched_BW.jpg Legally we are better off having a CC image than a PD image - the definition of the latter can change. For cases like this, it would be nice to have a CC-0-digitised-attribution license which requires attribution of the digitiser, but does not assert copyright over it. nice work Craig! -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
