[Commons-l] Official paintings held by the U.S. Government

[W. Guy Finley]

I¹m usually very conservative on this type of issue (siding with copyright
holders) but I agree with Jim 100% and this email does a great job of
clarifying a muddled situation.  I think too often Corel is thrown out there
in Fair Use debates but I think is one of the first correct applications of
it that I have seen.

--Guy  (En & Commons: Wgfinley)

On 6/4/06 11:22 AM, "Jim" <trodel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone questioned, Bill Alman, the White House curator who said:
>> 
>> Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and are in
>> the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the photograph
>> of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it should be
>> generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of the electronic
>> image is credited.
> 
> The problem is that for some reason people in the discussion, are focusing on
> the fact that copyright and ownership are seperate rights - and refuse to
> acknowledge that the curator was clearly identifying the ownership of both
> property rights by saying "the portraits are property of the federal
> government [ownership of the portraits] and are in the public domain
> [copyright status]."
> 
> The curator then showed a very sophisticated understanding of US copyright law
> by making a distinction between the copyright in the work itself (which is in
> the public domain), and the copyright of a photo which may or may not be
> copyrighted depending on your view of the line of reasoning in Bridgeman Art
> Library v. Corel Corp.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.> which held
> that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected
> by copyright because the copies lack originality. Where there is signifant
> originality there would be copyright in the photograph seperate from the
> portrait.
> 
> The curator seems, very wisely, IMHO, to refrain from giving an opinion about
> the copyright of any reproductions (photographs) of the portraits while
> drawing the attention to the questioner that this could be an issue. He even
> very clearly identifies that the only copyright issue in question is whether
> one is claimed by the "publisher of the electronic image."
> 
> Thus, the portraits themselves being properly commissioned by the US and
> having the copyright transferred to the US govt - thus becoming "public
> domain" as identified by the curator are public domain works. The only issue
> is whether the photo itself is copyrighted.
> 
> This is also resolvable in one of 2 ways:
> 1. Determination that the photos lack sufficient originality, thus the
> photographer can not claim copyright in the photo of a public domain work
> (following Bridgeman)
> 2. Assuming that there is sufficient originality, so we need to find the
> copyright status of the photo seperate from the one in the portrait:
>> 1. If they are photos posted by the US govt and copied to wikipedia from
>> there - then those are clearly in the public domain as a work of the US govt.
>> 2. If the photo was taken by a contributor - then we should refer to his
>> license in uploading the work.
> Personally, my review of the photos in question indicate that they clearly
> fall under the Bridgeman decision and the photographer can not claim a
> copyright in them as there is not the sufficient originality by the
> photographer
> 
> Jim
> 
> On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> I think there is no easy answer.  It would be best to contact the exact
>> office or institution which commissioned them and ask for a letter
>> clarifying the copyright status.
>> 
>> It is possible that the government purchased both the copyright and the
>> physical object, but also possible that the government merely purchased
>> the physical object.
>> 
>> Fredrik Josefsson wrote:
>>> > This issue has been discussed for a while now. First
>>> > on English Wikipedia, now on Commons.
>>> >
>>> > The discussion on Commons can be found at:
>>> > 
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_painti
>>> ngs_held_by_the_U.S._Government
>>> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Official_paint
>>> ings_held_by_the_U.S._Government>
>>> >
>>> > A lengthy debate on English Wikipedia is at:
>>> > 
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government_
>>> portraits  
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/US_government
>>> _portraits> 
>>> >
>>> > The debate in short: The paintings are not Work of the
>>> > United States Government, they were made by artists on
>>> > commission. Can they be used as public domain?
>>> >
>>> > / Fred


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060604/d042d953/attachment.htm