On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Agreed. But if a possessor of an image, which they themselves created, denys our use of that image, we should respect such a denial. The image belongs, is owned, by them, regardless of whether it can be copyrighted or not, and regardless of whether they claim such a copyright.
By "created" you mean "scanned"? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. If someone scans an and puts it on the web, I don't think we are required to follow the wishes of the uploader if the image is in the public domain. They do not "own" the image content whatsoever if it is in the public domain.
Agreed. You can only use it as evidence that they make such a claim. Anyone can make a claim of copyright status on things which are not copyrightable in court. That is why there are court fights over it. It is not illegal to suggest that you have a copyright over something which later in court is denied. Exerting a copyright claim does not make you immoral, as you seem to suggest by saying "they aren't upfront". They may have a valid reason for the belief that their effort makes their work copyrightable.
As I related, their sole reason is they believe they own the copyright "on the scan." Which, as pointed out, is not something we value very much around here, for good reasons (legal and ethical). So far all case law to my knowledge has gone along with the notion that mere reproduction does not generate copyright. Scanning should be even less an issue than photography in this case -- it is even more mechanical.
And yes, it is illegal to claim copyright over something that you don't own copyright to. It just isn't prosecuted as far as I can tell. Obviously you'd have to prove intent to deceive.
I deny this claim. We can trust Corbis, that they make copyright claims
that are or aren't defensible. However provided we *stop using THEIR images* and use other images of the same material, than what Corbis does or doesn't claim is not relevant. I have a photograph of the Declaration of Indenpendence, which I took with my own camera. I give it to the project. Whether Corbis also has a photo of that, does not stop me or the project in any way from using *my own image*. You seem to be confusing the use of a particular image, with the use of any image of the same work.
Please take a look at the discussion I was linking to. Nobody claimed we took the image file from Corbis.
Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be scandalous. IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal. The image belongs to me, and I give you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise.
Um, that's not what is going on. Corbis is selling (expensive) licenses which give the publisher in question the right to use the image. It's not a matter of "giving credit," it's a matter of pretending you can sell copyright licenses for things that are clearly in the public domain.
FF