---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com Date: 02-Apr-2007 20:40 Subject: [WikiEN-l] Cool tool that lets you check for copyright renewals on books To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
This is a new, neat tool that helps you find whether certain US published books are out of copyright even if they are published after 1923. As most copyright savvy people know, there was a period of time after that in which copyrights had to be officially renewed to stay valid, meaning that a lot of works published after that time are officially in the public domain in the United States. But these are hard to find, since renewal notices are hard to peruse and in many cases not machine-searchable at all.
But no longer! Stanford has created a Copyright Renewal Database, making it quite easy to check if any book published first in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 are in the public domain. It could potentially clear up copyright ambiguities for certain things taken from these works.
http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/
FF
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But no longer! Stanford has created a Copyright Renewal Database, making it quite easy to check if any book published first in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 are in the public domain. It could potentially clear up copyright ambiguities for certain things taken from these works.
but how do you know that those books don't contain extracts from other copyright works that *have* been renewed?
On 4/3/07, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
but how do you know that those books don't contain extracts from other copyright works that *have* been renewed?
This is the problem with the "PD" movies you sometimes see circulating on the net.. The movie lost its copyright (through lack of registration, lack of renewal, etc) but it contains music, photographs, and an underlying story which were all renewed and are still enforceable and enforced.
On 4/3/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is the problem with the "PD" movies you sometimes see circulating on the net.. The movie lost its copyright (through lack of registration, lack of renewal, etc) but it contains music, photographs, and an underlying story which were all renewed and are still enforceable and enforced.
All of which makes them better sources for stills than moving images - if the copyright in the movie itself is expired, a still from the movie cannot infringe upon music, is unlikely to infringe upon story, and can be checked for such copyrightable elements as photographs.
This leads me to another question. In pre-Berne US copyright law (1923-1960something), if a photograph has no independent copyright registration, I believe that its copyright term would be based on the copyright of the work in which it is published. If, however, a photograph without independent registration has been published in two different books - what happens if one of those books falls out of copyright through non-renewal, and the other does not?
Is it based on the copyright status of the book you copied it from? Is it based on the copyright status of the first book in which it was published (IOW, its first copyright registration)? Is it still copyrighted if any of the published versions are still in copyright? (a version I think is least likely)
I've never found anything useful about this situation in copyright guides.
-Matt
On 4/3/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Is it based on the copyright status of the book you copied it from? Is it based on the copyright status of the first book in which it was published (IOW, its first copyright registration)? Is it still copyrighted if any of the published versions are still in copyright? (a version I think is least likely)
I've never found anything useful about this situation in copyright guides.
The copyright holder of the book still under copyright would still be the copyright holder thus surely Stewart v. Abend would apply?
On 4/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The copyright holder of the book still under copyright would still be the copyright holder thus surely Stewart v. Abend would apply?
I can't see that Stewart v. Abend is really applicable in this situation, which is rather different; Stewart v. Abend covers a copyrighted work and the details of how rights over a copyrighted work pass to the heirs on the author's death and how this affects copyright assignments and permission for derivative works.
The scenario I asked about is when two independently copyrighted works, where neither is a derivative work of the other, include the same image that has not been independently copyrighted.
-Matt
On 4/6/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The copyright holder of the book still under copyright would still be the copyright holder thus surely Stewart v. Abend would apply?
I can't see that Stewart v. Abend is really applicable in this situation, which is rather different; Stewart v. Abend covers a copyrighted work and the details of how rights over a copyrighted work pass to the heirs on the author's death and how this affects copyright assignments and permission for derivative works.
The scenario I asked about is when two independently copyrighted works, where neither is a derivative work of the other, include the same image that has not been independently copyrighted.
-Matt
It was the case used to back up the copyright claim on "It's a Wonderful Life". I would argue that just because a specific copyright claim has not be renewed that does not mean that the image enters the public domain. That can only happen if all copyright claims failed to be renewed.
On 4/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It was the case used to back up the copyright claim on "It's a Wonderful Life". I would argue that just because a specific copyright claim has not be renewed that does not mean that the image enters the public domain. That can only happen if all copyright claims failed to be renewed.
"It's a Wonderful Life" involved a derivative work, again. The scenario I brought up does not, unless it's argued that the first publication of an image in a larger work gave the copyright holders of that larger work a copyright over even parts of that work not created or owned by them where the owner has not sold exclusive rights but is still free to sell to others.
If the first publication as a part of a much larger work did create a copyright in that image independent of the larger work, and thus the second publication of the image would be technically a derivative work of the first, and the lack of ability of restriction of the second work by the copyright holders of the first deemed to result from contract law - that would mean that if the first work was not renewed and entered the public domain, then the image (if copied from that work, at least) would also be in the public domain, since copyright does not flow backward from derivative to original.
I suspect that issues like these are why it's in some ways better that the US signed the Berne Convention and adopted the principle of all works being copyrighted at birth independent of publication status. It does simplify this kind of thing immensely. The flip side, of course, is that everything is copyrighted even when it does nobody any good.
What I'm guessing is that there is actually no truly applicable case law in this matter, as with a lot of edge cases in copyright law.
-Matt
. I'm not sure I understand the problem in this case. I think the challenge is trying to use an unattributed illustration. That is happens to appear in two different sources encourages at least one person to assume it's in the public domain. Have I got it? ¢ - Peter Blaise - Monday, April 09, 2007 11:27:49 AM
The copyright holder of the book still under copyright would still be the copyright holder thus surely Stewart v. Abend would apply?
I can't see that Stewart v. Abend is really applicable in this situation, which is rather different; Stewart v. Abend covers a copyrighted work and the details of how rights over a copyrighted work pass to the heirs on the author's death and how this affects copyright assignments and permission for derivative works.
The scenario I asked about is when two independently copyrighted works, where neither is a derivative work of the other, include the same image that has not been independently copyrighted.
PS - Regarding web site policing the copyright of open contributions, I'm not sure why anyone but the copyright holder is pursuing such "policing" of their own copyrights and infringements. I think it rather presumptuous for anyone ELSE to scrutinize contributors and "police" the use of someone else's copyright as if it's their job to act as the author's agent. I appreciate it's property, just like my home or car. But, I do not expect anyone to come running after me on the street and say, "Hey, prove you own that car" - unless they alone are the real owner and they know I stole THEIR car. So, I do not expect someone else who is NOT the original author and / or copyright owner to come running after me and say, "Hey, prove you have the rights to those words / pictures / intellectual property." My 2¢ today.
On 4/9/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
PS - Regarding web site policing the copyright of open contributions, I'm not sure why anyone but the copyright holder is pursuing such "policing" of their own copyrights and infringements. I think it rather presumptuous for anyone ELSE to scrutinize contributors and "police" the use of someone else's copyright as if it's their job to act as the author's agent. I appreciate it's property, just like my home or car. But, I do not expect anyone to come running after me on the street and say, "Hey, prove you own that car" - unless they alone are the real owner and they know I stole THEIR car. So, I do not expect someone else who is NOT the original author and / or copyright owner to come running after me and say, "Hey, prove you have the rights to those words / pictures / intellectual property." My 2¢ today.
Youtube is that way. Commons is about free content. Copyvios are not free.
On 4/9/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the problem in this case. I think the challenge is trying to use an unattributed illustration. That is happens to appear in two different sources encourages at least one person to assume it's in the public domain. Have I got it?
The image may or may not be attributed, but the image has no independent copyright registration. In modern, post Berne convention US copyright law, this situation doesn't really apply; everything is 'born copyrighted' and thus the image has an independent copyright.
In the US copyright law that applied through the late 1960s, things were only copyrighted if they were only ever published with a copyright claim and the copyright was registered. This copyright had to be renewed periodically to remain in force. An image would only have a copyright independently if it had been submitted for copyright registration in its own right - photographic studios would periodically register batches of photographs, for instance. Otherwise, a photograph would be copyrighted when published as part of a larger work under that work's copyright.
Since under this system, an image that had been published in several copyrighted works would have no independent copyright, but every published work it was in would be copyrighted; since all publications had been copyrighted, the image itself could be considered to be.
The question is what happens if one or more of those works fell out of copyright due to non-renewal, but others were renewed and remained in copyright. Can the image be copied out of the non-renewed work and considered as public domain due to 'descent' from a now out-of-copyright source? Does it matter which publication, in terms of cronological order of original copyright date, fell out of copyright?
It is known that if the image was copyrighted in its own right, independently, that if a work including it fell out of copyright the image would not. It's also known that if a derivative work falls out of copyright, the copyright of the portions covered by the work from which it was derived remain in force. However, I'm having trouble tracking down any US legal precedent or trustworthy authority on copyright that says what happens in the situation I describe.
-Matt
Matthew,
Sounds like a situation where a dozen lawyers might offer two dozen "opinions", and an equal number of courts may "decide" the same opposing things - they disagree with each other, but if they are lateral courts, then their conflicting disagreements stand, and if they are vertical courts, then the higher court wins. Though, over time, all decisions may be reversed.
My opinion? Neither publication is the ORIGINAL copyright owner. As such, they are republishing according to license and have no presumed authority to re-license or pursue action against other uses of the image, unless they can show an exclusive use license that may be presumed to allow them power to prohibit other uses - but again, that's the copyright OWNER's job, not a licensee's job. However, that's entering into contract law, not copyright law: can any property owner enter into conflicting contracts, who then executes those contracts, and do parties to the separate and conflicting contracts with the original property owner have any power over each other? In other words, if I sell both the New York Time and the Los Angeles Times a supposedly exclusive use of my image, do they sue each other, or me, or what? I suggest they have no power over each other; certainly, my contract with the New York Times cannot be a source of power that the New York Times can then wield over the Los Angeles Times, right? Same here - the publisher of the second book has no authoritative source of power over you using a copy of an image they may think they have exclusive have rights to. Their beef is with the copyright owner, not with you!
I'd say it's up to the owner of the copyright to pursue action against you. If I were you, I'd feel confident that you documented your efforts to resolve this out of court - and that is all I've ever seen a judge ask of plaintiffs and defendants before them. Once in court, even a decision against you should not carry punitive damages considering your good-faith attempt to resolve the issue before asking a judge to resolve the disagreement in the courtroom.
Have at it, and let us know how it goes.
Next - does anyone have any further arguments on the interests of third parties in policing all this?
- Peter Blaise
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-> bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Brown Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:44 PM To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Cool tool that lets you check for copyright renewals on books
On 4/9/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote: I'm not sure I understand the problem in this case. I think the
challenge
is trying to use an unattributed illustration. That [it] happens to
appear in
two different sources encourages at least one person to assume it's
in the
public domain. Have I got it?
The image may or may not be attributed, but the image has no independent copyright registration. In modern, post Berne convention US copyright law, this situation doesn't really apply; everything is 'born copyrighted' and thus the image has an independent copyright.
In the US copyright law that applied through the late 1960s, things were only copyrighted if they were only ever published with a copyright claim and the copyright was registered. This copyright had to be renewed periodically to remain in force. An image would only have a copyright independently if it had been submitted for copyright registration in its own right - photographic studios would periodically register batches of photographs, for instance. Otherwise, a photograph would be copyrighted when published as part of a larger work under that work's copyright.
Since under this system, an image that had been published in several copyrighted works would have no independent copyright, but every published work it was in would be copyrighted; since all publications had been copyrighted, the image itself could be considered to be.
The question is what happens if one or more of those works fell out of copyright due to non-renewal, but others were renewed and remained in copyright. Can the image be copied out of the non-renewed work and considered as public domain due to 'descent' from a now out-of-copyright source? Does it matter which publication, in terms of chronological order of original copyright date, fell out of copyright?
It is known that if the image was copyrighted in its own right, independently, that if a work including it fell out of copyright the image would not. It's also known that if a derivative work falls out of copyright, the copyright of the portions covered by the work from which it was derived remain in force. However, I'm having trouble tracking down any US legal precedent or trustworthy authority on copyright that says what happens in the situation I describe.
-Matt
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Quoting "Monahon, Peter B." Peter.Monahon@USPTO.GOV: <snip>
PS - Regarding web site policing the copyright of open contributions, I'm not sure why anyone but the copyright holder is pursuing such "policing" of their own copyrights and infringements. I think it rather presumptuous for anyone ELSE to scrutinize contributors and "police" the use of someone else's copyright as if it's their job to act as the author's agent. I appreciate it's property, just like my home or car. But, I do not expect anyone to come running after me on the street and say, "Hey, prove you own that car" - unless they alone are the real owner and they know I stole THEIR car. So, I do not expect someone else who is NOT the original author and / or copyright owner to come running after me and say, "Hey, prove you have the rights to those words / pictures / intellectual property." My 2¢ today.
Contributions are scrutinised to ensure that the content is now, and will be in the future, freely distributable, because the license it is published under is validly offered. This is quality assurance on a core object of Wikipedia and Commons.
Publishing under an open licence is more akin to selling a car than driving it down the street.
Will
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Peter Blaise wrote:... I do not expect anyone to come running after me on the street and say, "Hey, prove you own that car" ... I do not expect someone else who is NOT the original author and / or copyright owner to come running after me and say, "Hey, prove you have the rights to those words / pictures / intellectual property." ...
Will wrote: Contributions are scrutinised to ensure that the content is now, and will be in the future, freely distributable, because the license it is published under is validly offered. This is quality assurance on a core object of Wikipedia and Commons.
Peter Blaise responds: "... scrutinised ..." by whom? No one but the parties to the original contract have any authority over that contract, including the courts, should the original property owner or licensee not want to pursue a court settlement. By what authority does anyone other than the original property owner have the right or is empowered or obliged to scrutinize someone else's use to that property, to demand to see a satisfactory licensing contract, and to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the contract?
Are Wikipedia and Commons willing to indemnify viewers and linkers against subsequent lawsuits for any and every thing contained in Wikipedia and Commons? Are Wikipedia and Commons so absolutely confident that their intellectual property rights "quality assurance" is accurate, appropriate, thorough and complete, up to infallible and incontestable standards to the satisfaction of the original intellectual property rights owners and licensees? No? Then why are they wasting their time trying to anticipate the desires and whims of intellectual property rights owners and licensees - something we can do for ourselves on our own very well, than you very much.
Will wrote: Publishing under an open licence is more akin to selling a car than driving it down the street.
Peter Blaise responds: I disagree. Viewing a web page is like viewing my car on the street. Neither the owner of the "street" nor the visiting viewer has any authority to scrutinize and pass judgment on my ownership or license of the property in question.
While I appreciate that we all want to protect each other's intellectual property rights, that does not suddenly empower any of us, even as publishers, to become the intellectual property police. I believe that the best way to protect intellectual property rights is to honor them ourselves and set a stellar, sterling example by policing our own intellectual property, not by trying to preemptively police other people's presumed intellectual property agreements or lack of agreements.
I do not expect to have to PROVE to Xerox that I have permission to copy something before I use a Xerox machine. The Internet changes nothing, permission wise. Neither Xerox nor Wikipedia admins nor Commons admins nor ISP admins have any right (nor empowerment nor SKILL) to police my use of their publicly available service, copyright wise. As always, intellectual property interests are in the purview of the intellectual property owners, just as any property interests are in the purview of the property owners.
Try this:
Prospective customer: "Hi, I'd like to rent your plane to photograph the city from above."
Pilot: "I'm afraid I might get sued for transporting stolen property. Before I'll let you use my otherwise publicly available service, you must first PROVE to my whimsical satisfaction that you own your camera gear. I don't like receipt - they can be faked. I want a notarized statement form the previous owner of the transfer of ownership to you. I want 3 IDs that you are who you say you are, too."
Can you imagine if everyone offering a public service felt compelled and empowered to scrutinize their prospective customer's rights before they let the public partake in their otherwise publicly offered services? Can't enter a restaurant without proving you didn't steal the money you're planning to pay with! And those are your clothes, right? Got a receipt? And my restaurant's standards for an acceptable receipt is w-a-y tougher than other restaurants - because I, as a restaurant owner, don't wanna get sued ... or worse, I, as a restaurant employee, don't want to get fired, so I'm inflicting my brand of overzealous scrutiny on whomever I dang well please!
So, bottom line, what we're saying here is that non-property rights owner's fears of getting sued are the overriding concern, so our ability to freely share with each other will be constrained along those lines.
Any volunteers to live in THAT world?
- Peter Blaise
Quoting "Monahon, Peter B." Peter.Monahon@USPTO.GOV:
<snip>
Any volunteers to live in THAT world?
Those are the established procedures of the Wikimedia community. If you don't like Wikimedia, or you think its contributors are wasting their time, you are free to not contribute and to not use it. If myspace is your thing go there.
Will
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Will wrote: Those are the established procedures of the Wikimedia community. If you don't like Wikimedia, or you think its contributors are wasting their time, you are free to not contribute and to not use it. If myspace is your thing go there.
Peter Blaise responds: ... and ... we're trying to discuss those rules ... and who and how and why they would be implemented or inflicted on ourselves by ourselves.
Anybody else? Anybody else?
- Peter Blaise
==========
Perhaps we should also define in what arena we're posturing. I think there are at least three, possibly non-interchangeable, venues:
- MediaWiki - http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki the SOFTWARE we're all using either as participants in WikiMedia's Wikis, or building and participating in our own on-WikiMedia Wikis, and hitchhiking on the experiences and examples of the WikiMedia "family".
- WikiMedia - the name for that COMPANY at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home who host a collection of Wikis at http://www.wikimedia.org/
- Wikipedia - http://www.wikipedia.org/ one IMPLEMENTATION of the MediaWiki company using their own software
From Google:
Definitions of [wikimedia] on the Web:
The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is the parent organization of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks (including Wikijunior and Wikiversity), Wikisource, In Memoriam 9/11, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews, and Nupedia (defunct). It is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, USA. Its existence was officially announced by Wikia CEO and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on June 20, 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
Definitions of [mediawiki] on the Web:
MediaWiki is a Wiki software package licensed under the GNU General Public License. It is a feature-rich wiki implementation, and is used to run Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects, as well as many other wikis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Definitions of [wikipedia] on the Web:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page A free content, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by contributors around the world. The site is a Wiki - anybody can edit and add to an article. Offers quick understanding on controversial issues. Strong in current affairs. http://www.uccb.ca/library/subject/reference/encyclopedias.html
Wikipedia is a Web-based, free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and sponsored by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. It has editions in roughly 200 different languages (about 100 of which are active) and contains entries both on traditional encyclopedic topics and on almanac, gazetteer, and current events topics. Its purpose is to create and distribute a free international encyclopedia in as many languages as possible. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
==========
... so, what were we talking 'bout, again?
Supppose you enter in the house of a (presumed) burglar. You see he has a key-copy machine and thousands of keys. He wants you to save for him a copy of some of them. Wouldn't you at least ask him where are these keys for or if he has authorization to have a copy of them?
On 4/3/07, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
but how do you know that those books don't contain extracts from other copyright works that *have* been renewed?
Books generally state if contents have been published before in other forms. Photographs and to a lesser degree illustrations may be problematic, however; these are normally attributed, but it's generally quite hard to tell if photographs have been independently copyrighted, AFAIK.
Some photographs were submitted to the Library of Congress in the US as part of copyright registration of a photograph collection, but I suspect this was far from a universal copyright. Since in pre Berne Convention US copyright law things were not 'born copyrighted' but had to be registered and published with a copyright claim, in most cases there is no independent photograph copyright, however.
-Matt