Ray Saintonge wrote:
Benjamin Esham wrote:
I guess there are three issues here: the
copyright on the photograph I
took, the copyright on the actual wood rendering I took a picture of,
and the ability to use the seal in any given situation. My original
inquiry to the county regarded the first item, which they completely
ignored, changing the topic to the third item.
The problem seems to be that when you ask the wrong questions you get the
wrong answers. Asking the question is what started the problem. My first
puzzled reaction was why would you be complaining to them about their use
of their own seal.
I had a hunch that they may have been using my picture of their seal. In
retrospect, yes, it was pretty stupid to ask about this, and I regret having
opened a can of legal worms.
The seal is
codified in law, which is necessarily public domain.
Suppose I were to work from the law's definition of the seal and create
an SVG file; would that be considered public domain, since I only
created a graphic from a PD textual description? Even then, the
question remains of what I am allowed to do with the image I created.
I can't see what you are trying to accomplish with this game. If it's your
original photograph you can do what you want with it.
I was just wondering about the copyright of that particular rendering of the
seal—it's a carved wooden disk—versus the copyright of J. Random User's
rendering of the seal. ISTM that the latter use would not be in violation
of any copyrights, but might still be caught by the clause disallowing use
of the seal by unauthorized persons.
Does Wikipedia
have any established guidelines on the legality of the
use of coats of arms and seals?
Including a picture of a seal is not a use for trademark purposes.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying here. Are you just being
pedantic about my choice of the word "use"? The County government certainly
seemed to think that we were "using" their seal to some extent that is in
violation of the relevant law. It's not like we're trying to pose as a
county website; we're just including the image for illustrative purposes.
But having said all that, you seem to have been
referred to a law that
has nothing to do with copyright - I'm not sure whether it applies to
the Wikimedia Foundation or to other editors, since the servers and
the legal entity are in Florida.
Indeed... ISTM that it wouldn't even be worth it for the county to
attempt to press charges against someone outside of New York. I have
only a vague idea of how the Wikimedia servers' location factors in to
such legal matters.
I think this is a non-issue. Assuming that there were a legal case here
in the first place, I suspect strongly that the New York courts would have
jurisdictions. The trick of having someone else do the uploading only
plays games with the idea of jurisdiction, and has no relevance to the
main issue.
I agree. Even if someone else re-uploaded the image, the person (me) who
took the image and who owns the copyright still lives in Livingston County.
It would be best not to try to play games with jurisdiction... if we have a
legal right to use the image, then we should use it; if not, we shouldn't
use it.
I tried the link that you gave to your picture, but it
does not give me
the picture.
Hmm... try
http://tinyurl.com/252t2e. The link was probably broken due to
line wrapping somewhere.
This leaves me the impression that the complaint is
much ado about
nothing.
Which complaint are you referring to, their complaint about our inclusion of
the image? I hope it is nothing, but I'm not looking forward to trying to
explain to them that our fair use rights trump their law ;-)
I have forwarded the attorney's letter to the Commons OTRS people; they will
be able to remove the image from Commons while we try to determine our legal
rights and abilities in this matter.
Thanks for the reply,
--
Benjamin D. Esham
E-mail/Jabber: bdesham(a)gmail.com | AIM bdesham128 | PGP D676BB9A
"A time is marked not so much by ideas that are argued about as
by ideas that are taken for granted." — Lawrence Lessig
