In a message dated 1/15/2009 11:06:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, fastfission@gmail.com writes:

<<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.>> I know you don't agree. But there are others who think that the mere act of making available electronically vast archives of paper, creates an ethical situation where the creator and exerter of all that effort should get *some*thing for their effort.

<<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.>> They are others believe this, or did believe it. I and others do tend to value effort ethically if not legally. Do you know of more than one case? I've only heard of a single case. The issue is not just whether scanning generates a copyright, which it probably does not, but whether the use of that image generates an appropriate ethical treatment of the creator.

<<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.>> No it is not illegal to claim copyright over something to which you don't own copyright. If you believe it is illegal, then perhaps you could cite the law that states that, so we can review it. If you have to prove "intent to deceive" than I would suggest that the law you are thinking of, does not specify copyright at all, but is more general.

<<Please take a look at the discussion I was linking to. Nobody claimed we took the image file from Corbis.>> The case law that has been cited is exactly a case where an image was taken from a creator and used without their copyright attached. As I have said repeatedly, even IF a creator exerts a copyright claim over their own image, that does not change whatsoever the state of the original item, or any other images taken by other creators of that item.

...

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.>>

The right to "use" of an image is not "selling [a] copyright license" for that image. I can certainly sell you the right to use my image whether I exert a copyright claim or not. I own the image, even if the underlying document is in the public domain.

Will Johnson

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62)