It seems like we've seen a bit of a silent creep of photos of objects representing copyrighted cartoon or movie characters. Photographing an _object_ of something which is copyrighted does not magically remove it from being so. As a start, I've nominated several Star Wars pictures for deletion:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Various_Star_Wa...
I've also updated Commons:Licensing:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Licensing&diff=19...
Please help to clean up photos of copyrighted characters on Commons.
Thanks, Erik
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Car_company_logos
Some problems are so big it's hard to know where to start... sigh.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:IPods
I freely admit that my knowledge of copyright is lacking. It can apply to 3D objects like toys, models? machinery like i-pods? cars, why not? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ford_fiesta_mk5.jpg
Brianna
On 21/05/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like we've seen a bit of a silent creep of photos of objects representing copyrighted cartoon or movie characters. Photographing an _object_ of something which is copyrighted does not magically remove it from being so. As a start, I've nominated several Star Wars pictures for deletion:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Various_Star_Wa...
I've also updated Commons:Licensing:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Licensing&diff=19...
Please help to clean up photos of copyrighted characters on Commons.
Thanks, Erik _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 5/21/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I freely admit that my knowledge of copyright is lacking. It can apply to 3D objects like toys, models? machinery like i-pods? cars, why not?
Under US law, at least, copyright law is not generally read as having any bearing on photos of such objects. Trademark law does, however, for some commercial uses, in terms of things like logos. However, Commons has in general decided that we are not going to concern ourselves with trademark issues when they impact only certain types of commercial use. They do not prohibit the uses of such images even in a commercial encyclopedia.
Trademarked characters (e.g. Star Wars) are generally regarded as being more protected than other 3D objects (because they are derived work of things generally regarded as copyright-protected art, I guess, as well as trademarked characters).
Photos of cars, ipods, computers, et al. are not a problem.
Photos explicitly of logos MAY be a problem, however.
-Matt
On 5/21/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I freely admit that my knowledge of copyright is lacking. It can apply to 3D objects like toys, models? machinery like i-pods? cars, why not?
Under US law, at least, copyright law is not generally read as having any bearing on photos of such objects.
Because photos of such objects are fair use. If you're trying to say that the design of a car or an i-pod is not copyrightable, then I think you're incorrect.
Trademark law does, however, for some commercial uses, in terms of things like logos. However, Commons has in general decided that we are not going to concern ourselves with trademark issues when they impact only certain types of commercial use. They do not prohibit the uses of such images even in a commercial encyclopedia.
Maybe it's time for commons to decide not to concern itself with copyright issues when they only impact certain types of commercial use, and do not prohibit the uses of such images even in a commercial encyclopedia.
If so, it's important that such an issue be very carefully addressed. You don't want commons to wind up like En.wikipedia.
Trademarked characters (e.g. Star Wars) are generally regarded as being more protected than other 3D objects (because they are derived work of things generally regarded as copyright-protected art, I guess, as well as trademarked characters).
Photos of cars, ipods, computers, et al. are not a problem.
I still don't see why a car or an I-pod is any less copyrightable than an action figure. A generic computer, perhaps, because its look is purely functional. But even then, I'm sure the design of the I-mac is copyrighted - a lot of creative work went into making the I-mac *look good*.
Anthony
I still don't see why a car or an I-pod is any less copyrightable than an action figure. A generic computer, perhaps, because its look is purely functional. But even then, I'm sure the design of the I-mac is copyrighted - a lot of creative work went into making the I-mac *look good*.
The reason is the concept of "character copyright". Google for it. On a first glance, I found this to be interesting: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/jointauthors.html (about half way down).
Regards -- Daniel
On 5/21/06, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
I still don't see why a car or an I-pod is any less copyrightable than an action figure. A generic computer, perhaps, because its look is purely functional. But even then, I'm sure the design of the I-mac is copyrighted - a lot of creative work went into making the I-mac *look good*.
The reason is the concept of "character copyright". Google for it. On a first glance, I found this to be interesting: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/jointauthors.html (about half way down).
Regards -- Daniel
Yes, characters are copyrighted. But that doesn't say that a car or an I-pod isn't. In the case of cars:
"Copyright law is an additional, but less commonly used, legal protection for automobile designs. The application of copyright law is via a specific category of sculptural works, recognized as being protected in their three-dimensional form. Copyright protection arises when (1) a specific feature of the design is original - that is, possessing more than a mere quantum of creativity in its design, and (2) that specific feature exists separate and apart from the feature's functional aspect." http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=June&a...
The same would be true of the Ipod - functional aspects of the design would not be copyrightable, but creative asaesthetic aspects of the design would (though I doubt I can find a link specifically describing this in terms of the Ipod).
Anthony
On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The same would be true of the Ipod - functional aspects of the design would not be copyrightable, but creative asaesthetic aspects of the design would (though I doubt I can find a link specifically describing this in terms of the Ipod).
In practice, there is no case law (in the US, at least) suggesting that photographs of such objects are considered copyright infringement.
Thus, Commons should not consider this an issue.
-Matt
On 5/21/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The same would be true of the Ipod - functional aspects of the design would not be copyrightable, but creative asaesthetic aspects of the design would (though I doubt I can find a link specifically describing this in terms of the Ipod).
In practice, there is no case law (in the US, at least) suggesting that photographs of such objects are considered copyright infringement.
Thus, Commons should not consider this an issue.
Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action figures are copyright infringement?
Anthony
On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action figures are copyright infringement?
That's a valid question. One could argue that photographing a doll removes the expression from commercial relevance to the copyright holder. If that is true, then I would suspect photos of dolls (not 3D models) work particularly well for cartoon characters, while artist's impressions are better for human actors. Is there such a thing as "clearly derivative, but not infringing"?
The situation is complicated by our assertion that the image is free content, allowing you to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Of course it's always possible to effectively turn a free content picture into a copyright infringement through modification. I really don't have a clue where to draw the line at the moment.
We live in a copyrighted world. It gets quite nauseating sometimes.
Erik
On 5/21/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The situation is complicated by our assertion that the image is free content, allowing you to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Of course it's always possible to effectively turn a free content picture into a copyright infringement through modification. I really don't have a clue where to draw the line at the moment.
Given the way the law works right now, I don't think we can ever 100% guarantee that an image is not legally restricted from certain uses.
-Matt
On 5/21/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action figures are copyright infringement?
That's a valid question. One could argue that photographing a doll removes the expression from commercial relevance to the copyright holder. If that is true, then I would suspect photos of dolls (not 3D models) work particularly well for cartoon characters, while artist's impressions are better for human actors. Is there such a thing as "clearly derivative, but not infringing"?
Actually, this brings up a common misnomer about US copyright law, which is probably in part spread because of the strange terms of the GPL. Whether or not something is a "derivative" is irrelevant to the particular situation. Copyright law protects *preparation* of a derivative work and *copying* of a copyrighted work, it doesn't *directly* protect copying of a derivative work. Copying of a derivative work is infringement only because (or maybe I should say to the extent) it involves copying of the original work (see Mirage Editions v. Albuquerque A.R.T. and Galoob v. Nintendo).
The situation is complicated by our assertion that the image is free content, allowing you to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Of course it's always possible to effectively turn a free content picture into a copyright infringement through modification. I really don't have a clue where to draw the line at the moment.
We live in a copyrighted world. It gets quite nauseating sometimes.
Erik
The combination of copyright, international law, and free content is a very tricky one. This is one of the things I hope can be hashed out to some extent during the Free Content Definition procedure.
On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action figures are copyright infringement?
Not to my knowledge.
-Matt
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Maybe it's time for commons to decide not to concern itself with copyright issues when they only impact certain types of commercial use, and do not prohibit the uses of such images even in a commercial encyclopedia.
No, this is not the purpose of commons. The purpose of commons is to be very restrictive and narrow so that a huge range of people who would like to feel comfortable reusing our work can do so. There will of course be borderline cases, but unlike the other projects, commons should come down firmly on the side of caution.
Indeed, by doing so, we make all the more clear what is broken about aspects of current copyright law worldwide.
2006/5/24, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
No, this is not the purpose of commons. The purpose of commons is to be very restrictive and narrow so that a huge range of people who would like to feel comfortable reusing our work can do so. There will of course be borderline cases, but unlike the other projects, commons should come down firmly on the side of caution.
Indeed, by doing so, we make all the more clear what is broken about aspects of current copyright law worldwide.
I don't see how that would work. If we are being extremely cautious, we won't get into trouble. So we cannot make it clear by saying "we got even sued for showing someone in a suit that just vaguely resembled Superman's." And if we complain about what we have to disallow, people can just retort by saying we're being too strict on ourselves. The only way I can see you can use it to show how copyright law is broken is when the way in which you believe it is broken is by being so extremely hard to interpret.
On 5/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
No, this is not the purpose of commons. The purpose of commons is to be very restrictive and narrow so that a huge range of people who would like to feel comfortable reusing our work can do so. There will of course be borderline cases, but unlike the other projects, commons should come down firmly on the side of caution.
Indeed, by doing so, we make all the more clear what is broken about aspects of current copyright law worldwide.
I agree that we should come down on the side of caution, but not paranoia. Photos of copyrighted characters are probably not OK; photos of general 3D objects, even if those objects are copyrightable, are generally not considered copyright infringements, in the US at least and many other countries.
-Matt
On 5/24/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that we should come down on the side of caution, but not paranoia. Photos of copyrighted characters are probably not OK; photos of general 3D objects, even if those objects are copyrightable, are generally not considered copyright infringements, in the US at least and many other countries.
-Matt
Photos of copyrighted characters also are generally not considered copyright infringements, in the US. If you take the photo and build a comic book around it, then maybe it would be. I'm not at all familiar with the status in other countries, though. Japanese doujinshi artists certainly seem to get away with a lot of things that probably wouldn't be possible in the US, though.
Anthony
On 5/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Maybe it's time for commons to decide not to concern itself with copyright issues when they only impact certain types of commercial use, and do not prohibit the uses of such images even in a commercial encyclopedia.
No, this is not the purpose of commons. The purpose of commons is to be very restrictive and narrow so that a huge range of people who would like to feel comfortable reusing our work can do so. There will of course be borderline cases, but unlike the other projects, commons should come down firmly on the side of caution.
Not only did you take my quote out of context, but you responded with a point which is completely tangental to the comment I was making. I agree that the purpose of commons is to be very restrictive and narrow. But if you're going to allow items which are non-free due to trademark law, then the decision has already made not to insist on absolute restrictiveness.
Indeed, by doing so, we make all the more clear what is broken about aspects of current copyright law worldwide.
Who are you going to make it clear to? Most of the world *supports* copyright when it comes to blatant commercial non-educational use. Considering the reluctance of Wikimedia to release its own logos under a free license I would assume Wikimedia itself even supports this. Those people who are completely anti-copyright in all situations, well, I don't think they need anything made more clear.
Anthony
2006/5/21, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Car_company_logos
Some problems are so big it's hard to know where to start... sigh.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:IPods
I freely admit that my knowledge of copyright is lacking. It can apply to 3D objects like toys, models? machinery like i-pods? cars, why not? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ford_fiesta_mk5.jpg
I have in the Netherlands a judgement that yes, they (in that case, a car model) are copyrighted, however publishing the photographs was still allowed because the copyright owner could provide no argument that this publication was harmful to him.