The goal of the project is not to produce an encyclopedia with content that is free for some people for some uses.
But that's exactly what's happening as long as all the focus is on U.S. laws. Fair use won't protect you if you're publishing Wikipedia derived content in Denmark. Nor will Bridgeman v. Corel.
Recently a picture of the Lindisfarne Gospels taken from the British Library website became a featured picture even though the BL explicitly claims copyright on it and that claim may well hold up in a British court.
Well I can't speak for others. In general I believe we should never feature a picture not produced by a Wikipedian. The behind featuring works is to show the best we have to offer, not the best we've found someplace else and are redistributing. :)
That's certainly a reasonable opinion. But whether or not it's featured the fact remains that we're using it. Look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
You'll see that there's a link to the British Library page from which the image was snatched. Following that link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up under British law (evil as that would be).
This may conceivably get someone publishing Wikipedia in Britain, even just mirroring it on a British server, into trouble.
Using used-with-permission images will not get Wikipedia into trouble. With all such images properly tagged it would be simple for downstream users to avoid mirroring them. And if they needed particular images they could always apply for permission for themselves.
Of course I agree that we should get free images wherever possible. But in a few cases it may not be. The Z machine picture I keep coming back to will not be easily replaced (and I doubt the lab will release it under a free license). Nor will the deleted IBM 1360 images.
As for the idea of restoring the IBM 1360 pictures using a "fair-use-and-used-with-permission" tag - I think that nicely illustrates my point that disallowing used-with- permission will encourage shady "fair use".
And if "permission" is useful after all, as Michael says:
the fact that we have permission bolsters our claim to fair use ... it is very useful to note that we have permission.
Then I don't think the image upload text should discourage users from trying to get permission - as it currently does.
Overall I think that a few used-with-permission images are far less harmful to the universal distributability of the project than over-reliance on the U.S. legal code.
I'm not talking about thousands of pictures here - more like a few dozen we may not be able to replace. That's something we can easily keep tabs on and provide appropriate warning labels for downstream users. We can use any number of methods to quarantine these images and strictly limit their use.
How about a voting mechanism? Anyone proposing we use a new used-with-permission image must obtain a consensus that the image is sufficiently useful and hard to replace to justify a used-with-permission exception. That is my modest proposal.
Regards, Haukur
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
You'll see that there's a link to the British Library page from which the image was snatched. Following that link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up under British law (evil as that would be).
The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art itself is in the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of the book, framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little " Copyright © The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL), there is nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of copyright spurious, to say the least.
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
You'll see that there's a link to the British Library page from which the image was snatched. Following that link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up under British law (evil as that would be).
The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art itself is in the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of the book, framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little " Copyright © The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL), there is nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of copyright spurious, to say the least.
First off, I should point out that I, too, am not a lawyer. :-)
A great many^W^Wall museums in the United Kingdom seen to operate (and instruct their lawyers to do so, too) under the belief that the copyright laws are suspended, and perpetual copyright reigns forth in its place, on images of any and all objects owned by the institution. It seems to work like this:
* You can see what we show for free. (This has nothing to do with copyright law, just Arts Council rules.) * But you can't take pictures, because we say so. (This is a by-law thing, and has nothing to do with copyright law.) * When the museum has photographs taken, this is quite a business. (This is logistics, and has nothing to do with copyright law.) * The photographs are made using the museum's money, staff, and time. (This is irrelevant to copyright law; what counts is.)
Thus, the only way of getting a photograph of an object owned by a museum is through 'piggy-backing' on the money and time that the museum has spent; they feel that, because of this, they should be entitled to money for each viewing, or whatever.
To the best of my knowledge, this desire for recompense does not seem to be borne out in law[*]. I would be grateful for a correction by anyone more knowledgeable than me, especially one from a museum which practices this principle.
[*] - The relevant law is the Copyright, Designs And Patents Act 1988, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
Yours sincerely,
My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act. This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue). In the case of the page with the ruler and scale, the placing of those elements is a matter of selection so the image involves demonstrable creativity. So, the image depicted on the page of the book is out of copyright but any reproduction of that image can be copyright. Most museums have a fiduciary duty to their trustees to protect the assets of the museum; this includes intellectual property.
Theo
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:50:15 +0100, James D. Forrester wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
You'll see that there's a link to the British Library page from which the image was snatched. Following that link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up under British law (evil as that would be).
The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art itself is in the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of the book, framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little " Copyright © The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL), there is nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of copyright spurious, to say the least.
First off, I should point out that I, too, am not a lawyer. :-)
A great many^W^Wall museums in the United Kingdom seen to operate (and instruct their lawyers to do so, too) under the belief that the copyright laws are suspended, and perpetual copyright reigns forth in its place, on images of any and all objects owned by the institution. It seems to work like this:
* You can see what we show for free. (This has nothing to do with copyright law, just Arts Council rules.) * But you can't take pictures, because we say so. (This is a by-law thing, and has nothing to do with copyright law.) * When the museum has photographs taken, this is quite a business. (This is logistics, and has nothing to do with copyright law.) * The photographs are made using the museum's money, staff, and time. (This is irrelevant to copyright law; what counts is.)
Thus, the only way of getting a photograph of an object owned by a museum is through 'piggy-backing' on the money and time that the museum has spent; they feel that, because of this, they should be entitled to money for each viewing, or whatever.
To the best of my knowledge, this desire for recompense does not seem to be borne out in law[*]. I would be grateful for a correction by anyone more knowledgeable than me, especially one from a museum which practices this principle.
[*] - The relevant law is the Copyright, Designs And Patents Act 1988, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
Yours sincerely,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Theo Clarke wrote:
My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act. This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue). In the case of the page with the ruler and scale, the placing of those elements is a matter of selection so the image involves demonstrable creativity. So, the image depicted on the page of the book is out of copyright but any reproduction of that image can be copyright. Most museums have a fiduciary duty to their trustees to protect the assets of the museum; this includes intellectual property.
And yet, we have lots of works by artists which have been photographed from galleries (eg. a whole bunch of stuff by Vincent van Gogh) on Commons, and whoever provided those images hasn't come after us with pitchforks and scythes yet...
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Theo Clarke wrote:
My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act. This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue). In the case of the page with the ruler and scale, the placing of those elements is a matter of selection so the image involves demonstrable creativity. So, the image depicted on the page of the book is out of copyright but any reproduction of that image can be copyright. Most museums have a fiduciary duty to their trustees to protect the assets of the museum; this includes intellectual property.
The polite expression for what they have been telling you is "bullshit".
The minor variations that you cite are often of no consequence to the user who can remove the so-called creative effects by changing browser settings or cropping out the ruler. This should effectively remove the "copyright" material from the picture.
Ec
In 05/07/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The polite expression for what they have been telling you is "bullshit".
The minor variations that you cite are often of no consequence to the user who can remove the so-called creative effects by changing browser settings or cropping out the ruler. This should effectively remove the "copyright" material from the picture.
Except, sadly, this isn't the case.
The photograph is, in effect, indivisible. It's not that there's "copyright material" and "non-copyright material" put together to form a composite copyrighted document, which would be the case if - for example - I quoted the Lindisfarne Gospels at length, but inserted my own commentary between sections. In that case, copyrightable and non-copyrightable material can be trivially separated, and a court would likely hold that any minor changes I'd made to the original (punctuation, spelling homogenisation, &c) could be considered not deserving of copyright outside of the context of my commentary.
With the photograph, as I discussed with Haukur earlier today, there are two aspects to consider. Firstly, as you comment here, we have the "compilation" copyright - where copyright is held by virtue of the original assembly of components for the photograph.
However, we also have to contend with the originality of the photograph as a whole, which is where problems arise. It is inevitable - simply by virtue of the age and value of the document in question - that any photography of it is an involved, organised effort, involving a professional applying skill and judgement to the situation. The book will have been prepared for photography, a page will have been chosen, the book arranged carefully, lighting set up... &c. It's a non-trivial exercise, this stuff.
Under British copyright law, as I understand it, it is very difficult *not* to consider the final photograph an original work, even disregarding the existence of the added scales. It's not the law I'd like it to be, but it's there, and it is at least somewhat defensible from the point of view of the photographer.
On 7/5/05, Theo Clarke wiki@tignosis.com wrote:
My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act. This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue).
[snip]
I'm not aware of how it works around the world, but in the US we are very generous with extending copyright to photographs and in general to many non-artistic works which simply required a lot of effort to produce.
And archival grade photography certainly does require a lot of effort to produce: There are several interacting axis of decision on which a compromise must be struck, mostly involving lighting. In general lighting which operates efficiently enough to produce sufficient light generally tends to only operate at a few wavelegnths. Depending on the media used in the art this can cause a dramatically incorrect rendition of the colors. So the photographer is often left trying to fix these compromises with their choice in film and the channel gain settings on the digital rig. It often requires specific knowledge of the behavior of the paints in use to get it right.
In short, don't be so quick to discount the work. If we can grant copyright on any work which is purely function (as is some software), then there is no rational reason that copyright can not equally be extended to an archival grade photograph.
As far as I can tell this position is strongly supported by caselaw in the US, and I think that it would be a fair position on Wikipedia to make an effort to preferentially make use of made-by-wikipedian and truly PD photographs of PD artwork when such alternatives are available.
That said, the problem is big enough that it would be unreasonable to try to make a full correction at this time. I think we just need to start with the position that we prefer works made by wikipedians and will replace works not made by wikipedians with works by wikipedians as such choices come along.
This is a reasonable solution though I would ALSO suggest that such a policy be accompanied by a disclaimer that (unless the actual copyright holder comes forth and denies approval and denies that the item is fair use) we prefer leaving the image in place to wholesale deletions done WITHOUT providing a suitable replacement picture.
Otherwise I can see any number of trolls on Wikipedia running around deleting pictures of their political opponents, or people they don't like, or girls they think are sluts, or any other nonsense and then claiming "it needed to go Wikipedia didn't have copyright approval" when called on their vandalism.
A. Nony Mouse
That said, the problem is big enough that it would be unreasonable to try to make a full correction at this time. I think we just need to start with the position that we prefer works made by wikipedians and will replace works not made by wikipedians with works by wikipedians as such choices come along.
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
I'm not aware of how it works around the world, but in the US we are very generous with extending copyright to photographs and in general to many non-artistic works which simply required a lot of effort to produce.
...
then there is no rational reason that copyright can not equally be extended to an archival grade photograph.
As far as I can tell this position is strongly supported by caselaw in the US ...
Not quite. Pasting from Wikipedia:
- - -
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be covered by copyright because they lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions may require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, it is a process that lacks originality, which is a key element for copyrightability under U.S. law. The decision applies only to two-dimensional images such as paintings.
Many federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though it has yet to be specifically endorsed by the Supreme Court. However, the Court's ruling in Feist v. Rural, in which it explicitly rejected difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability, seems to have supported the central reasoning behind Bridgeman.
- - -
and I think that it would be a fair position on Wikipedia to make an effort to preferentially make use of made-by-wikipedian and truly PD photographs of PD artwork when such alternatives are available.
When possible, sure. But there are a great many occasions where we can only maintain a photograph under a Bridgeman type argument.
Regards, Haukur
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/5/05, Theo Clarke wiki@tignosis.com wrote:
My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act. This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue).
[snip]
I'm not aware of how it works around the world, but in the US we are very generous with extending copyright to photographs and in general to many non-artistic works which simply required a lot of effort to produce.
And archival grade photography certainly does require a lot of effort to produce: There are several interacting axis of decision on which a compromise must be struck, mostly involving lighting. In general lighting which operates efficiently enough to produce sufficient light generally tends to only operate at a few wavelegnths. Depending on the media used in the art this can cause a dramatically incorrect rendition of the colors. So the photographer is often left trying to fix these compromises with their choice in film and the channel gain settings on the digital rig. It often requires specific knowledge of the behavior of the paints in use to get it right.
In short, don't be so quick to discount the work. If we can grant copyright on any work which is purely function (as is some software), then there is no rational reason that copyright can not equally be extended to an archival grade photograph.
The claim that the photograph is of archival grade is a question of fact that would need to be proven in court. In a large number of situations the quality of photographic paper and inks may be far more relevant that the photographer's professional qualifications. Let's not inflate the role of professional photographers, when the work of a reasonably competent amateur would have sufficed for our purposes. The work of amateur winemakers can be justt as good as anything that might be bought from a store shelf.
Our interest is in the information contained in the ancient manuscript. That information may involve more than just the words as a modern person would perceive them. To a paleographer the original handwriting itself will be the basis of interest.
As far as I can tell this position is strongly supported by caselaw in the US, and I think that it would be a fair position on Wikipedia to make an effort to preferentially make use of made-by-wikipedian and truly PD photographs of PD artwork when such alternatives are available.
That said, the problem is big enough that it would be unreasonable to try to make a full correction at this time. I think we just need to start with the position that we prefer works made by wikipedians and will replace works not made by wikipedians with works by wikipedians as such choices come along.
I have no difficulty in agreeing that a photograph by a Wikipedian is preferable in most cases. It is the most effective way of avoiding the problems that we have been discussiong. At the same time copyright law cannot be used to keep information in otherwise public domain material from the public. If the copyright claimant is concerned about the copyrights of his photographs, he would do well to allow a Wikipedian access to the original material for the purpose of making our own photographs.
It is important to remember the significance of the effect on the copyright holder's market in establishing whether there is fair use. If there is no market the presumption of fair use becomes much stronger.
Ec