Well, the case you are thinking of is surely Bridgeman v. Corel. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_v._Corel) or something that affirms
it (like the recent Meshwerks v. Toyota).
I understand that at the moment Wikipedia has a rather complicated
determination of whether they use it or not.
Most of the legal question revolves around whether there is a lot of
creativity in doing a reproduction. There are arguments on either side of
things. Still, I think in the case of Corbis, the fact that at most they are
just putting a photo onto a flat-bed scanner, maybe applying "auto-contrast"
to the results (or doing some other sort of color syncing), ought to
preclude the idea that they are doing anything "creative" in such cases.
(One thing that has long annoyed me in the discussions about Bridgeman is
that the question is always posed as whether or not the adjustments were
creative enough to generate a new copyright. In my mind this ignores the
question of whether they are creative enough to generate a new copyright
_and thus give the modifier monopoly control over the previous public domain
material_. Moving things from the public to the private domain is a
dangerous game and should only be reserved for truly substantial and
worthwhile efforts to rehabilitate something that would otherwise be fairly
useless -- massive restorations of crumbling things that require an amount
of artistry on par with that which created the restored object in question
-- and not just tweaking the reds and greens a bit, removing a scratch here
or there with the clone tool. In my opinion. But I am neither a lawyer nor a
judge.)
FF
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
<<In a message dated 1/13/2009 10:28:59 A.M.
Pacific Standard Time,
fastfission(a)gmail.com writes:
I once e-mailed them about this and the person who e-mailed me
back said that they were claiming the copyright on the _scans_, not the
images themselves.>>
That is sort of the argument I was making a while ago, and I was greatly
interested in the recent copyright case where some museum (I can't remember
the
details) was claiming copyright over high quality images they produced of
old
(flat) artworks (i.e. paintings or drawings).
The case went against them I believe and the reasoning was repeated here
on
this list just recently.
It would seem pretty clear that the same reasoning could be used against
say
Google books scans of old documents/books/maps.
That these scans themselves enjoy no special ability for a new copyright
claim vis a vis the expiration of old copyrights (pre 1922).
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (
http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l