Below is the response I received from the proprietor of http://4dw.net/royalark after I e-mailed him to ask for copyright information on a picture that appeared on his website. The image in question (http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Arabia/hijaz-Ali.gif) is a photograph of [[Ali bin Hussein]], who died in 1935, and thus I thought there was a good chance the image might be in the public domain by now, especially since it might well have been taken in the Middle East before the currently-existing states there were even established.
From: "Christopher J Buyers" To: "Nathaniel Krause" CC: jwales@ Subject: Re: hijaz-Ali.gif Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:31:56 +0100
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I realise that it has now become standard practice for people like yourself who post supposedly "original" articles on wikipedia to copy their materials from my website at the Royal Ark, but please note:
You certainly may not use any materials from my website, without my permission under any circumstances whatever.
Copyright infringement is property theft and intellectual rape. Are you a thief and rapist? Read on...
The text and images on the website are copyrighted and protected by United States and international copyright conventions. Reproduction of ideas, interpretations, words and graphics in any print or electronic form, except for small portions for quotations and reviews, without the written permission of the webmaster, is prohibited. These rules are not the exclusive concern of academics and the publishing industry; they are universal ethics. While a few graphics on the website might be clipart in the public domain, it is safest to assume that they are not. Users should go to clipart archives to borrow such graphics.
Permission to reproduce major portions of text on other websites is normally denied since this website is a living document and constantly subject to updating and correction. Authors and webmasters do not want uncontrolled and uncorrected versions of their texts floating around the internet. Linking to a text is the most acceptable option since it relieves the linker of responsibility for the changing content of the master copy of the document.
If you do not understand copyright and intellectual property law, apply a simple rule of courtesy: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you can conceive of the hours, weeks, and years of research, skill and education that can go into developing an idea, a text, an index, or a graphic, you would doubtless not like to have somebody steal that work from you and claim it as their own. Copyright infringement is plagiarism.
Plagiarism. n. the wrongful appropriation or purloining , and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the _expression of the ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another. [Oxford English Dictionary]
Plagiarise. vt., vi., to take and use as one's own the thoughts, writings, or inventions of another. [Oxford English Dictionary] Due to the ease of theft on the internet, international copyright laws are being tightened. The penalties for copyright infringement can be severe. For a better understanding of copyright and related ethical issues, you may wish to explore these links:
Copyright Issues, by Cyndi Howells 10 Myths About Copyright Explained, by Brad Templeton Intellectual Property Law U.S. Copyright and Genealogy, by Michael Goad. Restoring Ethics to Genealogy, by Barbara A. Brown. The Copyright Wizard Plagiarism, by Sharon Stoerger.
A final note of warning: Beware of web sites whose "copyright notice" consists principally of a disclaimer to the effect that infringement on their part is unintentional, and that they will consider negotiating with challengers. They are, in effect, putting you on notice that they are thieves, and consider themselves innocent until caught. Such lapses in ethics call into question the reliability of any other information presented on such web sites.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise fellow copyists on Wikipedia of these facts.
Thank you
Christopher Buyers
----
From: "Nathaniel Krause" To: "Christopher J Buyers" Subject: Re: hijaz-Ali.gif Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Mr. Buyers,
Well, thanks for getting back to me. Needless to say, I was not very pleased with your response, in no small part because you don't seem to have answered my question very clearly. You say, "You certainly may not use any materials from my website, without my permission under any circumstances whatever," but this is meaningless unless you actually own the copyright on the picture in question. Do you? If you don't, who, if anyone, does? That is what I was inquiring about in my first e-mail.
Furthermore, if I wanted to steal materials from your website in defiance of intellectual property laws, why would I send you an e-mail telling you about it? It was only because I have no desire to infringe on your copyright that I contacted you in the first place.
You say, "If you can conceive of the hours, weeks, and years of research, skill and education that can go into developing an idea, a text, an index, or a graphic, you would doubtless not like to have somebody steal that work from you and claim it as their own." What are you referring to here? Did you take this picture of Sharif Ali bin Hussein, who died in 1935, yourself? What are the countless hours that you spent developing it? I do want to be clear that I am not asking to use any text from your website, which I have already linked to from the article.
The simple rule you suggest, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", is somewhat ironic, because, in my case, and in the case of other Wikipedia authors, we make the text we write and photographs we take freely available to everyone.
You ask, "Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise fellow copyists on Wikipedia of these facts", and I'm happy to do so, although any Wikipedia editor who knows what he's doing already knows it. I'm not sure why this is our standard practice [here I made a typo; I meant to say "why you think this is our standard practice". Let's hope that didn't exacerbate the problem. -NYK]. We sometimes have problems with supposedly fair-use images, because fair use law is so complicated, but we never use fair-use text, or anything other than GFDL text, under any circumstances. In fact, if you tell me which article is copied from Royal Ark, I'll try to fix the problem myself.
Cheers,
Nat Krause
----
From: "Christopher J Buyers" To: "Nathaniel Krause" Subject: Re: hijaz-Ali.gif Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:38:59 +0100
Piss-off.
You and your kind are nothing more than a bunch of thieves and plagiarisers. I am in no mood to help you or co-operate with you one bit. I shall of course, ensure the registration of your name for future reference by others.
Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the appropriate steps in the near future.
---- ----
I'm sending this to the list, first, because I wanted to keep my word and remind my fellow Wikipedians not to blatantly violate somebody's copyright. Second, because I wanted to warn you that Mr. Buyers' second e-mail appears to let the cat out of the bag regarding the shadowy conspiracy that may be plotting against Wikipedia as even as you read this. Sadly, we have not escaped their notice. In case you see somebody coming toward you, especially in the near future, who looks like he may be in a position to take appropriate steps, be extra careful.
Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does. He just warns me not to use it without elaboration. Considering his attitude, I'm not sure I'd really believe him if he did claim to own it. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable just assuming that it's public domain -- even if it doesn't belong to Christopher J Buyers, there might be somebody else out there who still has rights to it. [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] seems to imply that I should tag it {{fairold}} and go ahead and use it, and it certainly appears to count as "Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means". However, since this website guy is already upset with us, I thought it would advisable to exercise additional scrutiny and get more opinions.
Thanks,
Nat Krause (the eponymous user)
Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the appropriate steps in the near future.
Indeed. I'll bet cats to bags that this is empty blustering.
Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does.
If he holds the copyright to that image then I hold the copyright to the King James Bible.
However, since this website guy is already upset with us, I thought it would advisable to exercise additional scrutiny and get more opinions.
Here's my opinion: I agree with you.
Regards, Haukur
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
[Snip]
Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does.
If he holds the copyright to that image then I hold the copyright to the King James Bible.
Assuming that you are not, indeed, the current incumbent of the British Throne (otherwise, gosh, greetings, Your Majesty. :-)), I agree, but that doesn't mean that the image is not under copyright; indeed, the image is almost certainly under copyright, as PD works are rare outside of the United States for things newer than the 1920s.
Anyway, I agree, this... 'individual' seems to be quite taken with invective about other's attitude to 'his' website. Perhaps he feels that his content has already been "stolen" (eurgh, it's intellectual property; it cannot be stolen unless the creator no longer has access to it) by us in some way, and is so very affronted? I cannot imagine that anyone would fly off the handle quite so much at the simple instigation of a request for permission...
[Snip]
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
Assuming that you are not, indeed, the current incumbent of the British Throne (otherwise, gosh, greetings, Your Majesty. :-)), I agree, but that doesn't mean that the image is not under copyright; indeed, the image is almost certainly under copyright, as PD works are rare outside of the United States for things newer than the 1920s.
Dude was born in 1879. This photo might well have been taken before 1923 and gods know under what copyright laws. British? Even if it was taken between 1923 and 1935 the photographer might well have died before 1935, which would put the photo in the public domain under European laws.
And if the angry guy with the website really held a license for the picture he'd probably state its source and author somewhere and not just froth at the mouth when asked.
He probably feels he *owns* the picture since he scanned it in or some such.
Anyway, I agree, this... 'individual' seems to be quite taken with invective about other's attitude to 'his' website. Perhaps he feels that his content has already been "stolen" (eurgh, it's intellectual property; it cannot be stolen unless the creator no longer has access to it) by us in some way, and is so very affronted? I cannot imagine that anyone would fly off the handle quite so much at the simple instigation of a request for permission...
He maintains one of the few decent websources on what is a relatively obscure subject. Like other people in the same position he will find himself used extensively by Wikipedia as a source. This is probably the cause of his fury.
Regards, Haukur
On 7/16/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
And if the angry guy with the website really held a license for the picture he'd probably state its source and author somewhere and not just froth at the mouth when asked.
He probably feels he *owns* the picture since he scanned it in or some such.
On reflection, this may actually be true. The Mona Lisa itself is long out of copyright, but if you take a photograph of it, then you hold copyright over that specific photographic image. That's how art galleries protect their images of the pantings they own. You can't just go to the Louvre's website and use their image of the Mona Lisa. Some galleries ban photography for this reason (as well as the fact that flashes may damage the painting, especially watercolours).
How did this bloke get his copy of the image? If the subject expired in 1935, then very probably he found a printed source and scanned it in. In that case, he may well have a valid claim.
On reflection, this may actually be true. The Mona Lisa itself is long out of copyright, but if you take a photograph of it, then you hold copyright over that specific photographic image. That's how art galleries protect their images of the pantings they own. You can't just go to the Louvre's website and use their image of the Mona Lisa.
Yes I can. In fact if you look at the [[Mona Lisa]] page you'll find that this is exactly what Wikipedia has done. Here's is how it's supposed to work:
Museum: Yo! You're using our stuff! Wikipedia: Heh. Yeah. We like your stuff. Museum: FNORD! COPYRIGHT! INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY! Wikipedia: Bridgeman ruling. Museum: D'oh. Wikipedia: Neener.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does.
If he holds the copyright to that image then I hold the copyright to the King James Bible.
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that book?
Ec
If he holds the copyright to that image then I hold the copyright to the King James Bible.
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that book?
To himself, more like :) My sentence was meant as a variation of the old "then I'm the Queen of England" quip.
Regards, Haukur
On 7/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
If he holds the copyright to that image then I hold the copyright to the King James Bible.
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that book?
This would cover the translation, not the actual Word of God, of course.
My opinion, getting back to the image in question, is that a reasonable person would conclude that the website owner does NOT hold copyright to the image, otherwise he would simply say so instead of resorting to evasion and abuse.
Skyring wrote:
On 7/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
If he holds the copyright to that image then I hold the copyright to the King James Bible.
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that book?
This would cover the translation, not the actual Word of God, of course.
I've frequently heard of its being misrepresented as the St. James Bible, and there have been many literalist Christians who regard this version as the only Word of God. :-)
Ec
On 16/07/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does.
If he holds the copyright to that image then I hold the copyright to the King James Bible.
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that book?
It's very weird...
Basically, James VI (being a canny - and perpetually bankrupt - Scot) wanted to get as much money out of the Authorised Version as he could, when it first was published in 1611. So, he took a patent on it - an early form of copyright - but arranged to have it vested in the Crown not the monarch. (In other words, it passes down the generations). As you can guess, the monarch being the only source for the legally mandated religious book of the nation... it's a money-spinner, all right.
This right then went to the Royal Printer, under a 1557 charter, so they got to do all the printing (presumably skimming the profits; these posts were often sinecures).
However, Cambridge had, in 1534, managed to obtain a charter which gave them the right to print and sell "all manner of books" (this right was strictly controlled back then), with the idea being that if the Vice-Chancellor had approved a book, it'd probably pass the royal censors anyway. They didn't do much with this for a long time, but they appointed printers regularly anyway on principle.
And then the KJV came along. Cambridge argued that since they had a charter to print *anything*, they got to evade the patent on the KJV; they won the argument, and started printing it in 1629. Then it seems that about ten years later, someone decided that out of a sense of fairness, Oxford should have the same rights here as Cambridge, and so they got a similar charter, and permission to print copies of the KJV.
Currently, if memory serves, all UK editions come from OUP or CUP. There's also a small Scottish printer with a similar right, but I don't know what happened to them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 16/07/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
[Snip]
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that book?
It's very weird...
Basically, James VI (being a canny - and perpetually bankrupt - Scot) wanted to get as much money out of the Authorised Version as he could, when it first was published in 1611. So, he took a patent on it - an early form of copyright - but arranged to have it vested in the Crown not the monarch. (In other words, it passes down the generations).
Well, technically, the creation of the Authorised Version was considered an act of the Crown, not the Throne, yes; the Crown being, like a company, a entity separate from the incumbents, it is in continuous existence (even during the Commonwealth years, legally), but is a person not a body corporate: the Crown is a 'person' and is still 'alive' (and has been since 1066). It owns the copyright, and the copyright will continue to exist until 70 years after the Crown's 'death' (i.e., the abolition of the British monarchy, if that comes) - the copyright is not actually perpetual. This is, in its very own weird and warped way, compatible with current copyright law. It just confuses Americans. :-)
Note also that the other commonly thought of British perpetual copyright, of Peter Pan on behalf of Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, is also not a copyright, but a copyright-like right of royalty. See the Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act 1988, section 301, IIRC.
Forgive the floridness of my wording; just saw HIV Part the First last night, with Part the Second following tonight. :-)
[Snip]
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
On 7/16/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 16/07/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
[Snip]
IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that book?
It's very weird...
Basically, James VI (being a canny - and perpetually bankrupt - Scot) wanted to get as much money out of the Authorised Version as he could, when it first was published in 1611. So, he took a patent on it - an early form of copyright - but arranged to have it vested in the Crown not the monarch. (In other words, it passes down the generations).
Well, technically, the creation of the Authorised Version was considered an act of the Crown, not the Throne, yes; the Crown being, like a company, a entity separate from the incumbents, it is in continuous existence (even during the Commonwealth years, legally), but is a person not a body corporate: the Crown is a 'person' and is still 'alive' (and has been since 1066). It owns the copyright, and the copyright will continue to exist until 70 years after the Crown's 'death' (i.e., the abolition of the British monarchy, if that comes) - the copyright is not actually perpetual. This is, in its very own weird and warped way, compatible with current copyright law. It just confuses Americans. :-)
Note also that the other commonly thought of British perpetual copyright, of Peter Pan on behalf of Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, is also not a copyright, but a copyright-like right of royalty. See the Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act 1988, section 301, IIRC.
Forgive the floridness of my wording; just saw HIV Part the First last night, with Part the Second following tonight. :-)
[Snip]
Yours,
James D. Forrester
Wow, are we getting off-topic or what?
-- gkhan
On 7/16/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, are we getting off-topic or what?
I hope someone is putting all this stuff in the right wikispots.
Nathaniel Krause wrote:
Below is the response I received from the proprietor of http://4dw.net/royalark after I e-mailed him to ask for copyright information on a picture that appeared on his website. The image in question (http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Arabia/hijaz-Ali.gif) is a photograph of [[Ali bin Hussein]], who died in 1935, and thus I thought there was a good chance the image might be in the public domain by now, especially since it might well have been taken in the Middle East before the currently-existing states there were even established.
(rant deleted)
From: "Christopher J Buyers" To: "Nathaniel Krause" Subject: Re: hijaz-Ali.gif Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:38:59 +0100
Piss-off.
You and your kind are nothing more than a bunch of thieves and plagiarisers. I am in no mood to help you or co-operate with you one bit. I shall of course, ensure the registration of your name for future reference by others.
Thankfully, I see that the activities of the wikipedia website has not escaped the notice of others who are in a position to take the appropriate steps in the near future.
I'm sending this to the list, first, because I wanted to keep my word and remind my fellow Wikipedians not to blatantly violate somebody's copyright. Second, because I wanted to warn you that Mr. Buyers' second e-mail appears to let the cat out of the bag regarding the shadowy conspiracy that may be plotting against Wikipedia as even as you read this. Sadly, we have not escaped their notice. In case you see somebody coming toward you, especially in the near future, who looks like he may be in a position to take appropriate steps, be extra careful.
Thirdly, I'm genuinely not sure how to proceed on this matter. This website guy has still not really said whether or not he claims to own the copyright to this image, or to have licensed it from somebody who does. He just warns me not to use it without elaboration. Considering his attitude, I'm not sure I'd really believe him if he did claim to own it. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable just assuming that it's public domain -- even if it doesn't belong to Christopher J Buyers, there might be somebody else out there who still has rights to it. [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] seems to imply that I should tag it {{fairold}} and go ahead and use it, and it certainly appears to count as "Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means". However, since this website guy is already upset with us, I thought it would advisable to exercise additional scrutiny and get more opinions.
Mr. Buyers comments are not consistent with those of a person who is knowledgeable of what he speaks.
The following extracts from Saudi law http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/saudiarabia/saudiarabia.html may be of some help.
Article 12. Any person who takes a photograph may not publish, show or distribute the original or copies of the photograph without the authorization of the persons depicted in the photograph. This provision shall not be of application if the photograph is published in relation to public events or if it concerns persons with official status or persons who enjoy public notoriety or if the public authorities authorize its publication in the general interest. The person depicted in the photograph may authorize its publication, even without the consent of the person who has taken the photograph, save for agreement to the contrary, in newspapers, periodicals and other such publications.
Article 24. (1) The author's rights in his work shall be protected for his lifetime and for 50 years after his death. (2) In the case of sound, audiovisual or photographic works, of works of applied art (handicraft or industrial) or of anonymously published works, the author's rights shall be protected for 25 years as from the date of publication of the work. In such cases, the term of protection shall be computed as from the date of first publication of the work irrespective of any new publication.
Since Buyers does not appear to give any credit for the photo, it appears to be anonymous in the absence of any other evidence. Saudi law should prevail for this. (Iraqi law is another possibility since Hussein died in exile in Baghdad.) The picture does not show someone ready for his death bed, and could very well have been taken many years before his February death. The picture probably went into the public domain well before 1960. Thus public domain is more than an assumption.
On the Royal Ark page in question I counted 18 claims to copyright. Copyright is not strenghthened by repetition. He should be advised that US law allows for a fine of up to $2,500 for making illegal claims of copyright. In this case I think that our use of the picture is perfectly legal; if he wants the picture removed let him issue a formal take down order.
That's all fine in relation to this specific case, but based on his tone I think that a confrontation somewhere with someone is just around the corner no matter what we do, and no matter how right we are. It just goes along with being big, and has nothing to do with any kind of cospiracy. One of Wikipedia's effects has been to diminish the value of sites like Buyers'. They forget that the facts that they have put together are not copyrightable. At the same time the copyrightable elements of their sites are mostly of no interest to us. What was a lot of work to them comes easily for us with our large human resources even though no money has been involved. There is nothing illegal to what we have done, but there is nevertheless an effect.
Ec