Hi all, What's the copyright status of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowl-out-nz-wi.JPG
which is closely based on this:
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/59200/59247.jpg
Thanks, Steve
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, What's the copyright status of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowl-out-nz-wi.JPG
which is closely based on this:
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/59200/59247.jpg
Thanks, Steve
According to the page the author released it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA. The original author of the photo almost surely also holds a copyright interest in it, but I don't see any information about a license from him/her.
Anthony
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
According to the page the author released it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA. The original author of the photo almost surely also holds a copyright interest in it, but I don't see any information about a license from him/her.
Presuming the photographer didn't license it, it's a copyvio?
Steve
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
According to the page the author released it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA. The original author of the photo almost surely also holds a copyright interest in it, but I don't see any information about a license from him/her.
Presuming the photographer didn't license it, it's a copyvio?
Surely not?
Theresa
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
According to the page the author released it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA. The original author of the photo almost surely also holds a copyright interest in it, but I don't see any information about a license from him/her.
Presuming the photographer didn't license it, it's a copyvio?
Steve
Probably qualifies ans a derivative work so yes.
geni wrote:
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
According to the page the author released it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA. The original author of the photo almost surely also holds a copyright interest in it, but I don't see any information about a license from him/her.
Presuming the photographer didn't license it, it's a copyvio?
Steve
Probably qualifies ans a derivative work so yes.
I doubt the drawing preserves any features of the photograph of which the photographer could claim to have copyright on.
Ruud
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Ruud Koot wrote:
I doubt the drawing preserves any features of the photograph of which the photographer could claim to have copyright on.
It does seem to preserve composition.
Yes, but photographer did not arrange it. If it wasn't indicated I couldn't have told you (with absolute certainty) that the drawing was based on the photograph, or because the author had seen that game.
Ruud
Ruud Koot wrote:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Ruud Koot wrote:
I doubt the drawing preserves any features of the photograph of which the photographer could claim to have copyright on.
It does seem to preserve composition.
Yes, but photographer did not arrange it. If it wasn't indicated I couldn't have told you (with absolute certainty) that the drawing was based on the photograph, or because the author had seen that game.
That's an interesting argument. Not having ever watched cricket, I can't tell if the viewpoint chosen by the photographer if one from which people in the audience might plausibly also see the game.
Of course, in any case, the photographer presumably did pick his vantage point deliberately, and chose to record and publish that particular moment in time rather than, say, take the photo two seconds later from a point five meters to the left.
The copyrightability of photographs is a surprisingly complex question, but also one which most jurisdictions have chosen to answer with a firm "yes". Nonetheless, it is important to note that the creative content in a photo consists of only three elements:
1. Where to point the camera? 2. When to click the shutter? 3. What settings to use?
Of course, postprocessing may involve additional creative decisions, but that is not essential to the image being copyrightable. Thus it follows, as a logical consequence, that any reproduction of the subject that preserves a significant fraction of those elements must constitute a derivative work.
The drawing in question preserves the former two, together known as the composition. While it effectively masks (some of) the technical choices used to produce the photograph, the fact that the drawing depicts the same moment in time from the same vantage point -- even with the same field of view -- makes it highly unlikely that the drawing could've been created without basing it on the photograph.
In fact, having thought about it, I must disagree with your claim above. The drawing does contain enough distinguishing details, including the pose of the players and the position of the balls, that, if presented side by side, I would find the odds of the drawing being based on anything other than that specific photograph vanishingly small.
Usually the courts give a lot of leeway to derivative works which do a lot of transformation, especially when pitted up against claims from works which don't do a lot of transformation.
In this case, the photograph is obviously sufficiently original to have a copyright claim. However it is not *so* original to have a copyright claim no matter what happens (i.e., it has none of the distinctive style of indisputably artistic photographers). It is a sports photograph by a sports photographer (or, at least it appears to be one, which is probably fine for our purposes). There's nothing wrong with that, but it does not exhibit the creativity of, say, a Leibowitz or a Cartier-Bresson or even something which would appear in National Geographic.
Now all of this, like a lot of copyright law, is fundamentally unknowable without a court test of it, but my personal feeling on it is that this drawing would pass any "fair use" bar in the United States, because it is highly transformative and very creative (it is not a simple tracing, for example). The derivative work uses only the most schematic elements of the original (composition, but not lighting, coloring, development, etc. etc. etc.) and then applies totally unique judgments about line weight, color, style, what to bring out of the background, etc.
The full copyright status would, in my opinion, be a very strong "fair use" claim regarding the original photograph, and a strong copyright claim to the transformative work, which could then be licensed CC-SA etc. after that.
FF
On 6/12/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Ruud Koot wrote:
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Ruud Koot wrote:
I doubt the drawing preserves any features of the photograph of which the photographer could claim to have copyright on.
It does seem to preserve composition.
Yes, but photographer did not arrange it. If it wasn't indicated I couldn't have told you (with absolute certainty) that the drawing was based on the photograph, or because the author had seen that game.
That's an interesting argument. Not having ever watched cricket, I can't tell if the viewpoint chosen by the photographer if one from which people in the audience might plausibly also see the game.
Of course, in any case, the photographer presumably did pick his vantage point deliberately, and chose to record and publish that particular moment in time rather than, say, take the photo two seconds later from a point five meters to the left.
The copyrightability of photographs is a surprisingly complex question, but also one which most jurisdictions have chosen to answer with a firm "yes". Nonetheless, it is important to note that the creative content in a photo consists of only three elements:
- Where to point the camera?
- When to click the shutter?
- What settings to use?
Of course, postprocessing may involve additional creative decisions, but that is not essential to the image being copyrightable. Thus it follows, as a logical consequence, that any reproduction of the subject that preserves a significant fraction of those elements must constitute a derivative work.
The drawing in question preserves the former two, together known as the composition. While it effectively masks (some of) the technical choices used to produce the photograph, the fact that the drawing depicts the same moment in time from the same vantage point -- even with the same field of view -- makes it highly unlikely that the drawing could've been created without basing it on the photograph.
In fact, having thought about it, I must disagree with your claim above. The drawing does contain enough distinguishing details, including the pose of the players and the position of the balls, that, if presented side by side, I would find the odds of the drawing being based on anything other than that specific photograph vanishingly small.
-- Ilmari Karonen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Usually the courts give a lot of leeway to derivative works which do a lot of transformation, especially when pitted up against claims from works which don't do a lot of transformation.
Good example here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
Koons turned Rogers' photographic postcard into a sculpture, with a couple of tiny details changed, but the other details intentionally as close as possible. Courts held it to be copyright violation.
In the case of the inspired drawing, the details are intentionally as far as possible, given the reinterpretation in .. charcoal? The only carried over elements are compositional, and it's pretty transformed.
The lack of any commercial value of the derived product also makes it more likely to pass muster.
I would say, no worries, for using it on WP. It might be a marginal concern for commercial use of that drawing, but not for noncommercial use.
On 6/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would say, no worries, for using it on WP. It might be a marginal concern for commercial use of that drawing, but not for noncommercial use.
From a standpoint of whether or not the image is a copyright
infringement, I agree. OTOH, I have no idea what the point of having this drawing in an article would be.
Anthony
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
From a standpoint of whether or not the image is a copyright
infringement, I agree. OTOH, I have no idea what the point of having this drawing in an article would be.
Apparently, to circumvent copyright? :)
Steve
George Herbert wrote:
On 6/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Usually the courts give a lot of leeway to derivative works which do a lot of transformation, especially when pitted up against claims from works which don't do a lot of transformation.
Good example here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
Koons turned Rogers' photographic postcard into a sculpture, with a couple of tiny details changed, but the other details intentionally as close as possible. Courts held it to be copyright violation.
In the case of the inspired drawing, the details are intentionally as far as possible, given the reinterpretation in .. charcoal? The only carried over elements are compositional, and it's pretty transformed.
The lack of any commercial value of the derived product also makes it more likely to pass muster.
I would say, no worries, for using it on WP. It might be a marginal concern for commercial use of that drawing, but not for noncommercial use.
Provided we use it under fair use, I presume? Non-commercial-use only works have been verboten for quite some time.
John
He just means that as a fair use claim, it would probably be totally safe when used in non-commercial circumstances, not that it is licensed under a non-commercial-use-only license. It would probably be safe in a number of for-profit circumstances as well, but our policy on that for a long time has been that in the case of fair use, it is up to the re-user to sort out their own circumstances.
FF
On 6/13/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 6/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Usually the courts give a lot of leeway to derivative works which do a lot of transformation, especially when pitted up against claims from works which don't do a lot of transformation.
Good example here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
Koons turned Rogers' photographic postcard into a sculpture, with a couple of tiny details changed, but the other details intentionally as close as possible. Courts held it to be copyright violation.
In the case of the inspired drawing, the details are intentionally as far as possible, given the reinterpretation in .. charcoal? The only carried over elements are compositional, and it's pretty transformed.
The lack of any commercial value of the derived product also makes it more likely to pass muster.
I would say, no worries, for using it on WP. It might be a marginal concern for commercial use of that drawing, but not for noncommercial use.
Provided we use it under fair use, I presume? Non-commercial-use only works have been verboten for quite some time.
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The full copyright status would, in my opinion, be a very strong "fair use" claim regarding the original photograph, and a strong copyright claim to the transformative work, which could then be licensed CC-SA etc. after that.
How can it be fair use if it's not being critiqued, or in any way referred to explicitly? The derivative work is simply being used to illustrate the concept, not the photographer or the photograph.
Steve
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The full copyright status would, in my opinion, be a very strong "fair use" claim regarding the original photograph, and a strong copyright claim to the transformative work, which could then be licensed CC-SA etc. after that.
How can it be fair use if it's not being critiqued, or in any way referred to explicitly? The derivative work is simply being used to illustrate the concept, not the photographer or the photograph.
Steve
You're confusing Wikipedia's rules as to what types of fair use are acceptable *on Wikipedia*, with the legal principle of fair use.
Fair use does not require that the original is being critiqued, that is merely one way to get one fair use factor to lean in your favor.
I seriously doubt that photo is a copyright infringement, no matter what article it happens to be used in. But I also don't see why it's appropriate *for Wikipedia*, unless we happen to have an article which is discussing the original, or at the very least, the event. (In the case of talking about the event there are probably better drawings which could be made, though.)
Anthony
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
But I also don't see why it's appropriate *for Wikipedia*, unless we happen to have an article which is discussing the original, or at the very least, the event. (In the case of talking about the event there are probably better drawings which could be made, though.)
Exactly - it's being used in a generic cricket article, for which a wikipedia user photographer could go to a cricket match and photograph the event in question (assuming a bowl-out happened at that match).
-Matt
On 6/12/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly - it's being used in a generic cricket article, for which a wikipedia user photographer could go to a cricket match and photograph the event in question (assuming a bowl-out happened at that match).
Apparently they're pretty rare - we have a comprehensive list of all the times it's happened in international matches: 2.
Editorial: (bowl-outs are a stupid addition to cricket, even more so than twenty20, anyway. even a slogathon with 5 fielders and 2 overs per side would be more meaningful...)
Steve
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly - it's being used in a generic cricket article, for which a wikipedia user photographer could go to a cricket match and photograph the event in question (assuming a bowl-out happened at that match).
Apparently they're pretty rare - we have a comprehensive list of all the times it's happened in international matches: 2.
There's no reason it has to be an international match, or even a real match at all. Get a few people together, have them throw a ball at some sticks, and take a picture of it.
Or if you're really into the drawing thing, just draw a picture of someone throwing a ball at some sticks (or whatever it is that guy was doing). There's no need to copy someone else's picture of it.
Anthony
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
There's no reason it has to be an international match, or even a real match at all. Get a few people together, have them throw a ball at some sticks, and take a picture of it.
Oh god no, I've seen photos like that, I abhor them. They're so amateurish I cringe...
Or if you're really into the drawing thing, just draw a picture of someone throwing a ball at some sticks (or whatever it is that guy was doing). There's no need to copy someone else's picture of it.
Agreed.
Steve
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
There's no reason it has to be an international match, or even a real match at all. Get a few people together, have them throw a ball at some sticks, and take a picture of it.
Oh god no, I've seen photos like that, I abhor them. They're so amateurish I cringe...
I suspect if one got a local cricket club to act it out, it'd be a bit more convincing. Still, too many people introduce fair-use images into Wikipedia just because they think that user-produced pictures are too amateurish - I think amateurish-but-free is better.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
There's no reason it has to be an international match, or even a real match at all. Get a few people together, have them throw a ball at some sticks, and take a picture of it.
Oh god no, I've seen photos like that, I abhor them. They're so amateurish I cringe...
I suspect if one got a local cricket club to act it out, it'd be a bit more convincing. Still, too many people introduce fair-use images into Wikipedia just because they think that user-produced pictures are too amateurish - I think amateurish-but-free is better.
Something that I think people don't consider is the value of practice; maybe the first user-produced image is amateurish, but it's also a learning opportunity. We see that with our maps for instance - many of the user-produced maps from three years ago are embarassingly poor, but more recently we've been getting some really fine uploads, as good as or better than professional work. I know my own "encyclopedic photograph" technique has been much improved since my first uploads.
Stan
On 6/13/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Something that I think people don't consider is the value of practice; maybe the first user-produced image is amateurish, but it's also a learning opportunity. We see that with our maps for instance - many of the user-produced maps from three years ago are embarassingly poor, but more recently we've been getting some really fine uploads, as good as or better than professional work. I know my own "encyclopedic photograph" technique has been much improved since my first uploads.
Mine too! :)
Steve
On 6/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
According to the page the author released it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA. The original author of the photo almost surely also holds a copyright interest in it, but I don't see any information about a license from him/her.
Presuming the photographer didn't license it, it's a copyvio?
Steve
Probably qualifies ans a derivative work so yes.
I think it is adequately transformative that the elements it does take from the photo would certainly fall under a strong "fair use". I think a judge would find the photo generic enough that such a radical re-working of its elements would be pretty safe.
FF
On 6/12/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
According to the page the author released it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA. The original author of the photo almost surely also holds a copyright interest in it, but I don't see any information about a license from him/her.
Presuming the photographer didn't license it, it's a copyvio?
Steve
Nah, it's probably fair use.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett stated for the record:
Hi all, What's the copyright status of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowl-out-nz-wi.JPG
which is closely based on this:
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/59200/59247.jpg
Thanks, Steve
Derivative work, from a copyright-reserved image. Copyvio.
- -- Sean Barrett | Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the sean@epoptic.com | moon, and that's a very dubious and disappointing | honor. It's been far too long. --Gene Cernan