LS Studio is an article with content introduced by editors with a pro pedophiles pov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_Studio
Jimbo is aware of the problems with this article. I'm speculating that his comments about trolling come from observing the pro-pedophilia pov pushing at this article and a dozen more articles.
I'm trying to gather consensus to delete LS Studio. There is no verifiable reliable sources for the content of the article. Evidently the current content is original research. Look through past versions and you will see that more detailed original research describing the web site has been removed. None of the newspaper articles identify LS Studio by name. I searched through FBI press announcement looking for some evidence that LS Studio was raided. I've looked through the United States official statements on human rights violations for Ukraine. Again, I find general reference to the FBI's involvement in shutting down child porn web sites in Ukraine but nothing specifically naming this studio.
This article was nominated for deletion on February 4 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LS_Studio I'm not satisfied with the outcome of this Afd. There was heavy input from pro-pedophilia pov editors. There was a vote from a brand new user. This Afd vote was their first and last edit. Unless someone can find verifiable reliable sources in the next 48 hours I'm going to start another Afd. WP child pornography article already includes this content so there is no need to merge.
Sydney aka FloNight
Sydney Poore wrote:
LS Studio is an article with content introduced by editors with a pro pedophiles pov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_Studio
[[LS Studio]] is an article about a porn studio which was closed down. It appears to be well-referenced, and only the most obtuse POV-pusher would manage to convince themselves after reading all the comments attached to those references that the cited stories might be about some other incident.
I'm trying to gather consensus to delete LS Studio. There is no verifiable reliable sources for the content of the article.
You're forum-shopping and POV-pushing. Please stop it. WP:NOT censored. Just because something is horrid does not mean we should not have an article about it.
Indeed our core mission is to educate and elucidate. This can hardly be accomplished by ninny-hammered burying of the truth on the tenuous grounds of "Yeeuuch".
HTH HAND
I'm not sure how you feel it's well-referenced; I searched the entirety of the Nexis database for anything regarding LS Studio for as long as Nexis has been indexing print publications and came up empty.
k
On 4/6/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Sydney Poore wrote:
LS Studio is an article with content introduced by editors with a pro pedophiles pov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_Studio
[[LS Studio]] is an article about a porn studio which was closed down. It appears to be well-referenced, and only the most obtuse POV-pusher would manage to convince themselves after reading all the comments attached to those references that the cited stories might be about some other incident.
I'm trying to gather consensus to delete LS Studio. There is no verifiable reliable sources for the content of the article.
You're forum-shopping and POV-pushing. Please stop it. WP:NOT censored. Just because something is horrid does not mean we should not have an article about it.
Indeed our core mission is to educate and elucidate. This can hardly be accomplished by ninny-hammered burying of the truth on the tenuous grounds of "Yeeuuch".
HTH HAND
Phil
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/LS-Studio-and-pro-pedophilia-pov-t1401250.html#a378508... Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The main reason I posted to the list was to give an example of an article influenced by self identified pedophiles. Jimbo's comment on the talk page of the article mirrors his comment about trolling during the image deletion discussion.
The talk page of the article is leaning toward delete based on the fact the name of studio is not mentioned in any of the news articles.This seems like a valid reason to delete. Isn't the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia verifiable reliable sources not the truth? Forums and blogs are not generally considered a reliable source.
You bet I'm forum shopping-if that's what you want to call it. The child pornography, child abuse, pedophilia articles need the eyes of experienced editors like those that subscribe to this list. This need is being pointed out by Kate and others in a different thread. Feel free to give your opinion on talk one way or the other. (I see that you have.) Vote delete in the Afd if that is your opinion.
Phil, would you do me a favor and knock off the accusations of pov pushing. Let's assume good faith on both our parts and move on.
Sydney aka FloNight
Phil Boswell wrote:
Sydney Poore wrote:
LS Studio is an article with content introduced by editors with a pro pedophiles pov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_Studio
[[LS Studio]] is an article about a porn studio which was closed down. It appears to be well-referenced, and only the most obtuse POV-pusher would manage to convince themselves after reading all the comments attached to those references that the cited stories might be about some other incident.
I'm trying to gather consensus to delete LS Studio. There is no verifiable reliable sources for the content of the article.
You're forum-shopping and POV-pushing. Please stop it. WP:NOT censored. Just because something is horrid does not mean we should not have an article about it.
Indeed our core mission is to educate and elucidate. This can hardly be accomplished by ninny-hammered burying of the truth on the tenuous grounds of "Yeeuuch".
HTH HAND
On 4/6/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
[[LS Studio]] is an article about a porn studio which was closed down. It appears to be well-referenced, and only the most obtuse POV-pusher would manage to convince themselves after reading all the comments attached to those references that the cited stories might be about some other incident.
After looking at this article, I had no problem with the way it is written. But as some editors are rather persuasively arguing on the talk page, just about nothing in the article is verified or even verifiable -- for example, much of the article discussion on the content of the child porn produced would require a reader to obtain child pornography to verify. There are no third-party references in the article so whoever wrote that stuff into it could have been making it all up and there is no way for us to know.
This is a kind of weird verifiability case. We don't say "God exists" in Wikipedia because such a statement couldn't be verified. But the statements in [[LS Studio]] could be verified if someone got their hands on an FBI report on the organization or somesuch. Since no one has yet, nothing in the article is verifiable... so do we delete it?
Ryan
On 4/6/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
This is a kind of weird verifiability case. We don't say "God exists" in Wikipedia because such a statement couldn't be verified. But the statements in [[LS Studio]] could be verified if someone got their hands on an FBI report on the organization or somesuch. Since no one has yet, nothing in the article is verifiable... so do we delete it?
If after a good while, nobody has come back with references, we probably should.
If the information has not been published anywhere, it's investigative journalism, not encyclopedia article material.
If an FBI report exists but is unpublished / unavailable, that is equivalent to it not existing right now.
-Matt
On Apr 6, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
If an FBI report exists but is unpublished / unavailable, that is equivalent to it not existing right now.
Can't we use the Freedom of Information Act?
On 4/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 6, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
If an FBI report exists but is unpublished / unavailable, that is equivalent to it not existing right now.
Can't we use the Freedom of Information Act?
If it actually exists and is not related to ongoing investigations, I'd imagine we could, but this still gets a little too close to original research / investigative journalism for me.
-Matt
On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
If an FBI report exists but is unpublished / unavailable, that is equivalent to it not existing right now.
Can't we use the Freedom of Information Act?
If it actually exists and is not related to ongoing investigations, I'd imagine we could, but this still gets a little too close to original research / investigative journalism for me.
So we have WikiNews use the FOIA to get the report and then cite WikiNews :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
If the report became available under Freedom of Information, then yes we could use it. Since it hasn't been, we can't.
Cynical
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 6, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
If an FBI report exists but is unpublished / unavailable, that is equivalent to it not existing right now.
Can't we use the Freedom of Information Act?
I believe that the only verifiability problem here is the name of the organisation, which is not mentioned in any of the sources that I checked. That there was a major child pornography ring using child modeling as a front in Kharkov and Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is well sourced by references to, inter alia, Pravda and Reuters.
I didn't have any luck getting an answer to this on the wiki, so I'll try asking here. I've been using the {{pd-art}} tag for Greek vase paintings I've uploaded, but before I really go hog wild and start uploading these on a large scale I'd like to be sure that this would be a good idea. So, two questions:
1. Are we relatively sure that the Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corp. case applies to two dimensional art on a non-flat surface? I've seen other users use this tag for that purpose, but I don't know that any of them were any more informed about this than me.
and
2. Since that case was a strictly US case, are there likely to be issues with downstream usability of these images outside of the US?
Thanks, Robth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)
On 4/6/06, Robth robth1@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't have any luck getting an answer to this on the wiki, so I'll try asking here. I've been using the {{pd-art}} tag for Greek vase paintings I've uploaded, but before I really go hog wild and start uploading these on a large scale I'd like to be sure that this would be a good idea. So, two questions:
- Are we relatively sure that the Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corp.
case applies to two dimensional art on a non-flat surface? I've seen other users use this tag for that purpose, but I don't know that any of them were any more informed about this than me.
I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works). The basis of it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the original. Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the choice of lighting and camera angle.
- Since that case was a strictly US case, are there likely to be issues
with downstream usability of these images outside of the US?
Images created and published in the US that are public domain under Bridgeman v Corel are probably public domain everywhere else, as well.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
<snip>
I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works). The basis of it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the original. Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the choice of lighting and camera angle. <snip>
This has come up in an article I'm working on- does this ruling apply to images from books or manuscripts? Are books three dimensional art works, even if what you're reproducing is a single page from them? My father, a librarian, seems to think the owning library continues to hold copyright for all such images. I'm not so sure.
Makemi
On 4/10/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
This has come up in an article I'm working on- does this ruling apply to images from books or manuscripts? Are books three dimensional art works, even if what you're reproducing is a single page from them? My father, a librarian, seems to think the owning library continues to hold copyright for all such images. I'm not so sure.
In the United States, Bridgeman v. Corel applies. Elsewhere, the issue is vaguer.
-Matt
On 10/04/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works). The basis of it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the original. Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the choice of lighting and camera angle.
<snip>
This has come up in an article I'm working on- does this ruling apply to images from books or manuscripts? Are books three dimensional art works, even if what you're reproducing is a single page from them? My father, a librarian, seems to think the owning library continues to hold copyright for all such images. I'm not so sure.
Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.
I don't know what the caselaw is on it, but I would be wary of an overbroad reliance on Bridgeman.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
<snip>
This has come up in an article I'm working on- does this ruling apply to images from books or manuscripts? Are books three dimensional art works, even if what you're reproducing is a single page from them? My father, a librarian, seems to think the owning library continues to hold copyright
for
all such images. I'm not so sure.
Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.
I don't know what the caselaw is on it, but I would be wary of an overbroad reliance on Bridgeman.
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
<snip>
The specific image I'm thinking of is my own scan of a really crummy black-and-white microfilm, not an art-book/good facsimile level reproduction. I can see how in some cases such work would conceivably be copyrightable, but not how any image made from a book which is itself out of copyright would be copyrightable by the owning institution.
Makemi
Mak wrote:
<snip>
This has come up in an article I'm working on- does this ruling apply to images from books or manuscripts? Are books three dimensional art works, even if what you're reproducing is a single page from them? My father, a librarian, seems to think the owning library continues to hold copyright
for
all such images. I'm not so sure.
Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.
I don't know what the caselaw is on it, but I would be wary of an overbroad reliance on Bridgeman.
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
<snip>
The specific image I'm thinking of is my own scan of a really crummy black-and-white microfilm, not an art-book/good facsimile level reproduction. I can see how in some cases such work would conceivably be copyrightable, but not how any image made from a book which is itself out of copyright would be copyrightable by the owning institution.
In the US if the book is in the public domain so are the pictures in it. This would follow logically if the duration of copyright is based on when the book was published. Where the duration is life plus some number of years, one needs to consider the possibility that the photographer may have died later than the person who owned the copyright on the book.
The Bridgeman case is based on US law. The UK, where Andrew is from, has a much less clear situation, or so the museums holding large collections of paintings would have you believe. Physical ownership of an object does not determine copyright.
Ec
On 4/10/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.
Difficulty is immaterial. There are many difficult things one can do which are not copyrightable.
The point is that when making a photograph or scan of a 2D work, one is attempting to accurately reproduce the original. In other words, one is seeking to have NO difference between the original and one's copy; imperfections are flaws (acceptable or not). All one's efforts are attempting to get rid of any 'creative' differences.
Thus copyright does not apply. The US does not recognise the concept of 'mechanical copyright', although other nations do to varying degrees. Simply taking a copy of something does not generate new copyright, no matter how hard the copying process.
-Matt
On 4/10/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that when making a photograph or scan of a 2D work, one is attempting to accurately reproduce the original. In other words, one is seeking to have NO difference between the original and one's copy; imperfections are flaws (acceptable or not). All one's efforts are attempting to get rid of any 'creative' differences.
Heh, you mean if there's a flaw, such as a scratch, in the photocopying process, copyright could reside in the flaw? :)
(could a third party then claim copyright in removing the flaw?)
Steve
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that when making a photograph or scan of a 2D work, one is attempting to accurately reproduce the original. In other words, one is seeking to have NO difference between the original and one's copy; imperfections are flaws (acceptable or not). All one's efforts are attempting to get rid of any 'creative' differences.
Heh, you mean if there's a flaw, such as a scratch, in the photocopying process, copyright could reside in the flaw? :)
No; rather my point was that by attempting to minimise differences between your copy and the original, you were explicitly trying NOT to have creative additions.
However, a copy that was artistic (distorted, etc. deliberately) might establish new copyright.
-Matt
while we're a topic, a couple of months ago I took pictures (on a museum) of ancient mayan sculptures. Unfortunately I was on a hurry so I couldn't go talk with staff. Now, who owns the copyright? Those sculptures are like a thousand year old, but pd-old doesn't apply (it will apply 100 years after I die in case I actually hold the copyright of my pictures)
Can I upload such pictures to wikipedia? Can museum claim copyright on the ancient sculptures? and if so, can it claim copyright on my pictures?
On 4/10/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that when making a photograph or scan of a 2D work, one is attempting to accurately reproduce the original. In other words, one is seeking to have NO difference between the original and one's copy; imperfections are flaws (acceptable or not). All one's efforts are attempting to get rid of any 'creative' differences.
Heh, you mean if there's a flaw, such as a scratch, in the photocopying process, copyright could reside in the flaw? :)
No; rather my point was that by attempting to minimise differences between your copy and the original, you were explicitly trying NOT to have creative additions.
However, a copy that was artistic (distorted, etc. deliberately) might establish new copyright.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Pedro,
while we're a topic, a couple of months ago I took pictures (on a museum) of ancient mayan sculptures. Unfortunately I was on a hurry so I couldn't go talk with staff. Now, who owns the copyright? Those sculptures are like a thousand year old, but pd-old doesn't apply (it will apply 100 years after I die in case I actually hold the copyright of my pictures)
Can I upload such pictures to wikipedia? Can museum claim copyright on the ancient sculptures? and if so, can it claim copyright on my pictures?
I think a photo of a 3D sculpture has a lot more "creativity" in it than a scan of a painting: choosing the angle, and so on. Such a photo could well be copyright you. If I'm wrong, then the copyright would be held by the original artist (in other words, PD-old).
Either way, the museum has no claim on you. I believe that's why some museums don't like you taking photos.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Pedro,
while we're a topic, a couple of months ago I took pictures (on a museum) of ancient mayan sculptures. Unfortunately I was on a hurry so I couldn't go talk with staff. Now, who owns the copyright? Those sculptures are like a thousand year old, but pd-old doesn't apply (it will apply 100 years after I die in case I actually hold the copyright of my pictures)
Can I upload such pictures to wikipedia? Can museum claim copyright on the ancient sculptures? and if so, can it claim copyright on my pictures?
I think a photo of a 3D sculpture has a lot more "creativity" in it than a scan of a painting: choosing the angle, and so on. Such a photo could well be copyright you. If I'm wrong, then the copyright would be held by the original artist (in other words, PD-old).
Either way, the museum has no claim on you. I believe that's why some museums don't like you taking photos.
It's important to note that in many countries you may hold the copyright on your photographs of 3D objects, but that copyright lasts for a shorter time than for literary works.
I think that the Hungarian National Museum has an interesting policy. Admission to the museum is free, but you need to buy a permit to take photographs. The rate was the equivalent of about $20. There is a higher rate if you want to use a video camera.
Ec
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
while we're a topic, a couple of months ago I took pictures (on a museum) of ancient mayan sculptures. Unfortunately I was on a hurry so I couldn't go talk with staff.
Once you have the pictures in legally uncertain circumstances it's seldom good strategy to talk with staff about it.
Ec
Well no, you were allowed to take pictures (as long as you didn't us flash) so I have a lot , I was asking if I can put them under a free license
On 4/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
while we're a topic, a couple of months ago I took pictures (on a museum) of ancient mayan sculptures. Unfortunately I was on a hurry so I couldn't go talk with staff.
Once you have the pictures in legally uncertain circumstances it's seldom good strategy to talk with staff about it.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/10/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Photocopying a page of a book is a slavish copy... but you can make a good case that photography of any book as an archival process, or with the intent of producing high-quality images, is a sufficiently difficult process that it passes the minimum-creativity standard.
Difficulty does not equal creativity. In fact, in the Bridgeman case, the argument that they had expended huge amounts of effort to make it look accurate worked against them, because the judge ruled that they were in fact making it as uncreative as possible in the process (the value of the reproduction was in its uncreativity, aka its being a perfect match with the original).
FF
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 4/6/06, Robth robth1@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't have any luck getting an answer to this on the wiki, so I'll try asking here. I've been using the {{pd-art}} tag for Greek vase paintings I've uploaded, but before I really go hog wild and start uploading these on a large scale I'd like to be sure that this would be a good idea. So, two questions:
I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works). The basis of it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the original. Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the choice of lighting and camera angle.
On the other hand, while that makes sense for pictures of the vases, the situation could be different if the pictures Robth is referring to are attempts to accurately reproduce the painting _on_ the vase. In such a case, I can't see the curvature of the surface making any difference.
But yes, it's a hairy situation. I can imagine cases where the answer would seem to be obviously yes or obviously no, but most actual images probably fall somewhere in the grey area between the two. In those cases, one would have to ask someone who actually knows about these things, rather than random IANALs on the net like me.
Mark Wagner wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works). The basis of it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the original. Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the choice of lighting and camera angle.
Bridgeman v. Corel was a district court case, never litigated at the appeals court level, and therefore is not a strong precedent. It is, as far as I have been able to determine, a fairly unusual result not likely to be followed by other courts.
Therefore, relying on Bridgeman v. Corel for anything is likely wishful thinking.
Images created and published in the US that are public domain under Bridgeman v Corel are probably public domain everywhere else, as well.
I very much doubt this.
--Jimbo
On 4/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Bridgeman v. Corel was a district court case, never litigated at the appeals court level, and therefore is not a strong precedent. It is, as far as I have been able to determine, a fairly unusual result not likely to be followed by other courts.
Therefore, relying on Bridgeman v. Corel for anything is likely wishful thinking.
We do rely on it quite strongly at present; in fact, it is explicitly cited in our "PD-Art" template, which is used on thousands of pictures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Art
From the Wikipedia article about the case:
"Several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman, though it has yet to be endorsed specifically by the Supreme Court. Moreover, this case has not been cited by any appellate-level circuit court meaning that it has no mandatory legal authority and its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Feist v. Rural, explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability, seems to support the fundamental reasoning behind Bridgeman." (That case was about copyrightability of phone directories.)
I do believe that for two-dimensional works, the principle "public domain stays public domain" is very much one worth defending in court, if necessary.
Erik
It's not just us who rely on it -- lots of people do -- so I don't think it's just a case of amateur lawyering. The basic rationale for Bridgeman v. Corel is in Feist v. Rural (Bridgeman is an application of the "slavish copying" issue to artwork rather than text, which was the subject of Feist), which is a US Supreme Court case and on much firmer grounds. The idea that sheer manpower, but no transformative effort, creates new copyright claims is fairly strong; the exact nuances come down to how this translates in the case of, say, a photograph of a painting (which is the exact issue in Bridgeman v. Corel), or the more complicated cases like a photograph of a mural, a stained-glass window, or a collage.
But it is wishful thinking to assume it applies outside the US. It is an interpretation of US copyright law and has no strict international implications in and of itself. The US approach to copyrights is in no means the only conclusion or form of reasoning possible.
FF
On 4/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but IIRC, Bridgeman v Corel only applies to two-dimensional copies of two-dimensional works (though it may apply to three-dimensional copies of three-dimensional works). The basis of it is that a "slavishly accurate" copy of a work involves no creative effort, and so cannot establish a copyright separate from that of the original. Photographing a 3D work involves creative effort, in the choice of lighting and camera angle.
Bridgeman v. Corel was a district court case, never litigated at the appeals court level, and therefore is not a strong precedent. It is, as far as I have been able to determine, a fairly unusual result not likely to be followed by other courts.
Therefore, relying on Bridgeman v. Corel for anything is likely wishful thinking.
Images created and published in the US that are public domain under Bridgeman v Corel are probably public domain everywhere else, as well.
I very much doubt this.
--Jimbo
-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/11/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
But it is wishful thinking to assume it applies outside the US. It is an interpretation of US copyright law and has no strict international implications in and of itself. The US approach to copyrights is in no means the only conclusion or form of reasoning possible.
US copyright law requires creativity, while the laws of many nations do not.
-Matt
<snip> Note that none of this applies if you scan or photograph the image yourself, or if it is licensed under a Wikipedia-compatible license by someone who did.
-Matt <snip>
According to a number of librarians I've spoken with, a number of US Museums and libraries would differ with you on that. They believe that if they own the original work, unless they license copies, all images of that work belong to them. They could very well be wrong, but that's what they think, and would probably eventually be willing to test in court. For a lot of items they'll severely restrict access, just so that this sort of thing won't happen, and if the precedent is upheld, this is likely only to get worse. It's unclear to me whether we should use this case as a precedent, although it's clear that both Wikipedia and the Commons does. </armchair lawyering> Makemi
On 4/11/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
According to a number of librarians I've spoken with, a number of US Museums and libraries would differ with you on that. They believe that if they own the original work, unless they license copies, all images of that work belong to them. They could very well be wrong, but that's what they think, and would probably eventually be willing to test in court. For a lot of items they'll severely restrict access, just so that this sort of thing won't happen, and if the precedent is upheld, this is likely only to get worse. It's unclear to me whether we should use this case as a precedent, although it's clear that both Wikipedia and the Commons does. </armchair lawyering> Makemi
Well of course they would differ on that. They see revenue going out the window as they tried in vain to claim active authorship rights on something that was made two hundred years ago. The only claims I have seen against the reasoning in Bridgeman and Feist are along the lines of "but we'd like the money" and "it takes effort/resources to make this product." Those are realistic economic considerations for a business but it is a sort of argumentation which should have nothing to do with copyright law -- it is the sort of argumentation which leads you down the horrible legislative paths like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act ("We'd like it extended because it's worth money, so fuck the principles"). Fortunately librarians and archivists are not as potent a constituency as the music industry, or else Congress would probably get involved. I have very little tolerance for archivists who think that ownership is the same thing as authorship, and do not care that copyrights are supposed to be LIMITED monopolies on culture.
The long-term effects of Bridgeman v. Corel -- which I don't think anybody is predicting a swift overturning of -- are worth contemplating but are really beyond our personal control. Whether it will result in restriction of access (for the purpose of preserving IP without resorting to IP law) is a possibility, but just one of many. There are other ways to make revenue besides trying to misuse copyright law, thank goodness.
Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them.
FF
On 4/11/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
According to a number of librarians I've spoken with, a number of US
Museums
and libraries would differ with you on that. They believe that if they
own
the original work, unless they license copies, all images of that work belong to them. They could very well be wrong, but that's what they
think,
and would probably eventually be willing to test in court. For a lot of items they'll severely restrict access, just so that this sort of thing won't happen, and if the precedent is upheld, this is likely only to get worse. It's unclear to me whether we should use this case as a
precedent,
although it's clear that both Wikipedia and the Commons
does. </armchair
lawyering> Makemi
Well of course they would differ on that. They see revenue going out the window as they tried in vain to claim active authorship rights on something that was made two hundred years ago. The only claims I have seen against the reasoning in Bridgeman and Feist are along the lines of "but we'd like the money" and "it takes effort/resources to make this product." Those are realistic economic considerations for a business but it is a sort of argumentation which should have nothing to do with copyright law -- it is the sort of argumentation which leads you down the horrible legislative paths like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act ("We'd like it extended because it's worth money, so fuck the principles"). Fortunately librarians and archivists are not as potent a constituency as the music industry, or else Congress would probably get involved. I have very little tolerance for archivists who think that ownership is the same thing as authorship, and do not care that copyrights are supposed to be LIMITED monopolies on culture.
The long-term effects of Bridgeman v. Corel -- which I don't think anybody is predicting a swift overturning of -- are worth contemplating but are really beyond our personal control. Whether it will result in restriction of access (for the purpose of preserving IP without resorting to IP law) is a possibility, but just one of many. There are other ways to make revenue besides trying to misuse copyright law, thank goodness.
Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them.
FF
Another example in case: [[Image:Milaria Scotia Regium 1595.jpg]] the website license from where ti was taken specifically states you have to ask for a license, it got released "for educational non commercia purposes" (so it should be deleted per Jimbo's rule from last year), it's not being used on an article, yet IFD and WP:CP said the image should stay (due to PD-art)
Well, the UK is a place in particular where the issue raised in Bridgman v. Corel has not been ironed out one way or another. But it is fairly clear that under U.S. copyright law, anything published abroad in English that long ago is currently in the public domain, and scan or close, 2-D photograph of something in the public domain would not create a new copyright claim (and why should it?).
If scanning it does not create a copyright claim under U.S. copyright law, then the website/archivist/whoever cannot license it at all, much less restrively. Licensing requires a copyright claim to begin with. They can use it, but they can't set restrictions on how others use it, at least not by recourse to copyright law.
The only way this would be problematic would be potentially for re-users based in the UK, but I think that falls into the "when you move our content into your legal realm, its up to you to figure out which of our PD categories do not apply where you live." And in any case I'm fairly sure that it is at best legally ambiguous in the UK; not outright prohibitive. (If I'm wrong on this, somebody correct me.)
There is a really handy table which parses out all of the various clauses in US copyright law in relation to the public domain (including works created outside of the US) at: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
FF
On 4/11/06, Drini drini wpdrini@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
According to a number of librarians I've spoken with, a number of US
Museums
and libraries would differ with you on that. They believe that if they
own
the original work, unless they license copies, all images of that work belong to them. They could very well be wrong, but that's what they
think,
and would probably eventually be willing to test in court. For a lot of items they'll severely restrict access, just so that this sort of thing won't happen, and if the precedent is upheld, this is likely only to get worse. It's unclear to me whether we should use this case as a
precedent,
although it's clear that both Wikipedia and the Commons
does. </armchair
lawyering> Makemi
Well of course they would differ on that. They see revenue going out the window as they tried in vain to claim active authorship rights on something that was made two hundred years ago. The only claims I have seen against the reasoning in Bridgeman and Feist are along the lines of "but we'd like the money" and "it takes effort/resources to make this product." Those are realistic economic considerations for a business but it is a sort of argumentation which should have nothing to do with copyright law -- it is the sort of argumentation which leads you down the horrible legislative paths like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act ("We'd like it extended because it's worth money, so fuck the principles"). Fortunately librarians and archivists are not as potent a constituency as the music industry, or else Congress would probably get involved. I have very little tolerance for archivists who think that ownership is the same thing as authorship, and do not care that copyrights are supposed to be LIMITED monopolies on culture.
The long-term effects of Bridgeman v. Corel -- which I don't think anybody is predicting a swift overturning of -- are worth contemplating but are really beyond our personal control. Whether it will result in restriction of access (for the purpose of preserving IP without resorting to IP law) is a possibility, but just one of many. There are other ways to make revenue besides trying to misuse copyright law, thank goodness.
Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them.
FF
Another example in case: [[Image:Milaria Scotia Regium 1595.jpg]] the website license from where ti was taken specifically states you have to ask for a license, it got released "for educational non commercia purposes" (so it should be deleted per Jimbo's rule from last year), it's not being used on an article, yet IFD and WP:CP said the image should stay (due to PD-art) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fastfission wrote:
Well, the UK is a place in particular where the issue raised in Bridgman v. Corel has not been ironed out one way or another.
Hmm. Possibly. The relevant sections [0] of the CDPA[1] are quite clear[2], so the question is whether they are applicable:
| 1. (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with | this Part in the following descriptions of work? | | (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
| 4. (1) In this Part "artistic work" means? | | (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, | irrespective of artistic quality, [...] | (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
It is, AIUI, this last part, s. 4(1)(c), that museums claim mean that anyone taking a photograph of a painting (or whatever) has used his "artistic craftsmanship" to do so; the "mechanical reproduction" argument of Bridgman v. Corel could arguably be discounted by the reference to it being "irrespective of artistic quality" - a perfect reproduction has on its own no artistic quality to speak of, merely that of the original (which is probably quite high, or the photographer wouldn't have bothered, Ms. Tracey Emin's oeuvre aside[3]).
[0] - Sections under Crown Copyright, reproduced under s.29 (or perhaps s.30, if one were to be kind about the worth of my words). [1] - That is, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm. [2] - Well, they are to my eye, though perhaps I'm a tad odd. OK, make that "very odd". :-) [3] - My apologies (and deepest sympathies) to any fans of Ms. Emin.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
James D. Forrester wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fastfission wrote:
Well, the UK is a place in particular where the issue raised in Bridgman v. Corel has not been ironed out one way or another.
Hmm. Possibly. The relevant sections [0] of the CDPA[1] are quite clear[2], so the question is whether they are applicable:
| 1. (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with | this Part in the following descriptions of work? | | (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
| 4. (1) In this Part "artistic work" means? | | (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, | irrespective of artistic quality, [...] | (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
It is, AIUI, this last part, s. 4(1)(c), that museums claim mean that anyone taking a photograph of a painting (or whatever) has used his "artistic craftsmanship" to do so; the "mechanical reproduction" argument of Bridgman v. Corel could arguably be discounted by the reference to it being "irrespective of artistic quality" - a perfect reproduction has on its own no artistic quality to speak of, merely that of the original (which is probably quite high, or the photographer wouldn't have bothered, Ms. Tracey Emin's oeuvre aside[3]).
[0] - Sections under Crown Copyright, reproduced under s.29 (or perhaps s.30, if one were to be kind about the worth of my words). [1] - That is, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm. [2] - Well, they are to my eye, though perhaps I'm a tad odd. OK, make that "very odd". :-) [3] - My apologies (and deepest sympathies) to any fans of Ms. Emin.
My apologies for not being familiar with Ms. Emin.
The way I would read "irrespective of artistic quality" it is to protect even bad artists. This allows the drawings of a 3-year old to be protected, and prevents the argument that something is not good enough to be protected. An interesting case would be over copyrights on the paintings by the elephants in the San Diego Zoo. Would an elephant be capable of exercising artistic craftsmanship?
The fact that the Bridgeman v. Corel situation has not been ironed out in Britain cannot be taken as support for either side of the argument. Subsection 4(c) at first strikes me as a redundancy unless it can be taken to apply prospectively to other formats that are not specified in (a) or (b). I think that any photograph that we may be considering would pass the test in section 4, but it must still pass the originality test specified in paragraph 1(1)(a).
BTW does this copy of the Act include amendments since 1988? I see that it still shows copyright duration as being life + 50. Why have I misunderstood that it would be life + 70?
In any event given the fuss that the museums of Britain have been making over this issue, it is amazing that there would be no British court decision on this. It would, of course, be up to them to initiate any infringement procedings. In the absence of such proceedings they have an infinite capacity to roar like paper tigers for as long as people are willing to take that roar seriously. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia gets bigger it becomes less courageous in taking on these ruffians, because it has assets that it could lose. It would be helpful to have a litigation-proofed organization that operates at arms length to Wikipedia, and that could openly inspire the museums into taking legal action.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
My apologies for not being familiar with Ms. Emin.
Don't be upset. Be thankful. ;-)
The way I would read "irrespective of artistic quality" it is to protect even bad artists. This allows the drawings of a 3-year old to be protected, and prevents the argument that something is not good enough to be protected.
That, certainly, is the way I wish it to be read. Wishes don't make fact, though.
An interesting case would be over copyrights on the paintings by the elephants in the San Diego Zoo. Would an elephant be capable of exercising artistic craftsmanship?
I'd imagine that the animals would be treated in much the same way as minors would be (except that they would never "grow up" to take over ownership), and the creations would be considered as the creations of the responsible adults (keepers? owners?).
The fact that the Bridgeman v. Corel situation has not been ironed out in Britain cannot be taken as support for either side of the argument. Subsection 4(c) at first strikes me as a redundancy unless it can be taken to apply prospectively to other formats that are not specified in (a) or (b). I think that any photograph that we may be considering would pass the test in section 4, but it must still pass the originality test specified in paragraph 1(1)(a).
Possibly.
BTW does this copy of the Act include amendments since 1988? I see that it still shows copyright duration as being life + 50. Why have I misunderstood that it would be life + 70?
The Patents Office has a "consolidated" 252-page PDF of the Act and all of the subsequent modifications[0], which lists 37(!) Acts and Statutory Instruments which have modified it, including the "Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, SI 1995/3297", which did indeed modify the Act from 50 to 70 years after death for artistic works (sound recordings are still at 50, though, which is why Elvis's back catalogue is rapidly entering the public domain.
In any event given the fuss that the museums of Britain have been making over this issue, it is amazing that there would be no British court decision on this.
Not really; it would be quite astoundingly bad press to be seen to be "stealing" from a museum (remembering that essentially all museums are charities, open to the public for free[1], and that the British press love nothing better than to savage the party seen to be attacking the "underdog", which any charity would surely be). Also, we British aren't as litigious as our cousins, which "helps".
It would, of course, be up to them to initiate any infringement proceedings. In the absence of such proceedings they have an infinite capacity to roar like paper tigers for as long as people are willing to take that roar seriously.
Agreed, up to a point.
Unfortunately, as Wikipedia gets bigger it becomes less courageous in taking on these ruffians, because it has assets that it could lose.
Now that the Wikimedia Foundation exists, its Board has a legal duty to avoid any action that might result in harm to its long term ability to exist, of course.
It would be helpful to have a litigation-proofed organization that operates at arms length to Wikipedia, and that could openly inspire the museums into taking legal action.
We've had the same concerns in starting Wikimedia UK; though we'd love to see some case law in our favour, we really can't be the ones involved in the case.
[0] - http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/legislation.pdf [1] - Free at the point of use; funded through both taxes and donations.
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
Drini drini wrote:
Another example in case: [[Image:Milaria Scotia Regium 1595.jpg]] the website license from where ti was taken specifically states you have to ask for a license, it got released "for educational non commercia purposes" (so it should be deleted per Jimbo's rule from last year), it's not being used on an article, yet IFD and WP:CP said the image should stay (due to PD-art)
Putting such notices is often meaningless. Wheteher somethng is copyright or not has nothing to do with the notices except when those notices would make the material more free than it otherwise would have been.
Ec
Fastfission wrote:
Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them.
While I am of course sympathetic, it bears repeating that Bridgeman v. Corel is *not* binding authority, as it was merely a district court case.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them.
While I am of course sympathetic, it bears repeating that Bridgeman v. Corel is *not* binding authority, as it was merely a district court case.
It may not be binding outside of that district or on any higher court but it is influential as long as no contrary decision has been issued. As someone else has noted it has not been appealed, and that may very well be because the losers in the district court were convinced that such an appeal would get nowhere. Saying that is was "merely" a district court case does not mean that we cannot rely on it to some extent.
Ec
And we are hardly the only people out there to rely upon it or its basic premises. There are far bigger fish with far bigger stakes than us who rely on it (Corel as a case in point), and who would be far bigger targets for legal litigation (since they actually derive revenue from it). I would be wary about interpretations which diverge beyond the actual subject matter ruled on in Bridgeman (i.e., I would NOT assume it applied for stained-glass windows, because the element of lighting would be a major creativity issue in that case, despite their two-dimensionality), but since half a decade has passed without appeal or contrary rulings I don't think we have any strong need to be afraid, yet. But again, I'm not a lawyer.
FF
On 4/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go back over the images tagged as such and delete them.
While I am of course sympathetic, it bears repeating that Bridgeman v. Corel is *not* binding authority, as it was merely a district court case.
It may not be binding outside of that district or on any higher court but it is influential as long as no contrary decision has been issued. As someone else has noted it has not been appealed, and that may very well be because the losers in the district court were convinced that such an appeal would get nowhere. Saying that is was "merely" a district court case does not mean that we cannot rely on it to some extent.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/11/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
According to a number of librarians I've spoken with, a number of US Museums and libraries would differ with you on that.
If the work is out of copyright, they can only do that by requiring agreement to a legally valid and binding contract before letting you see the work. This is the case worldwide, in most cases. Nations differ as to whether an accurate 2D copy is itself copyrightable, but my understanding of the law is that once something is out of copyright, it can be legally copied unless you sign a contract stating you won't.
If an 'unauthorised' copy is made, the issue is almost entirely one of contract law, not copyright law.
I'm uncertain of what the legal position is if the owner of a work insists that "since we require everyone accessing this work to agree to a contract, this copy must be illegal" but fails to identify who was in breach of their contract and thus prove the breach of contract.
There's also the issue of how binding are unsigned contracts, in the case of things exhibited to the public.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 4/11/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
According to a number of librarians I've spoken with, a number of US Museums and libraries would differ with you on that.
If the work is out of copyright, they can only do that by requiring agreement to a legally valid and binding contract before letting you see the work. This is the case worldwide, in most cases. Nations differ as to whether an accurate 2D copy is itself copyrightable, but my understanding of the law is that once something is out of copyright, it can be legally copied unless you sign a contract stating you won't.
If an 'unauthorised' copy is made, the issue is almost entirely one of contract law, not copyright law.
I'm uncertain of what the legal position is if the owner of a work insists that "since we require everyone accessing this work to agree to a contract, this copy must be illegal" but fails to identify who was in breach of their contract and thus prove the breach of contract.
There is also a question of how binding a contract is on third parties. If you break your contract by passing the image to someone else to publish, only you are in breach of contract.
Ec
On 4/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I'm uncertain of what the legal position is if the owner of a work insists that "since we require everyone accessing this work to agree to a contract, this copy must be illegal" but fails to identify who was in breach of their contract and thus prove the breach of contract.
There is also a question of how binding a contract is on third parties. If you break your contract by passing the image to someone else to publish, only you are in breach of contract.
Indeed. There are some instances in law when third parties are brought into a suit and ordered to stop, and others where they're not. Although I've read extensively on the subjects of copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret law, I am not a lawyer and have little knowledge of contracts law, and thus what the likely outcome there is.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Bridgeman v. Corel was a district court case, never litigated at the appeals court level, and therefore is not a strong precedent. It is, as far as I have been able to determine, a fairly unusual result not likely to be followed by other courts.
I wouldn't go that far, personally. In fact, my reading of why it was never litigated at the appeals court level is that Bridgeman and others feared setting a better precedent thereby, and one not in their interest.
I believe fear of an adverse precedent is exactly why there have been few cases to cite post-Bridgeman, as well.
Within the sensible reading of the law as it stands, Bridgeman v. Corel reached the correct verdict; /however/, as we all know, the law is not sensible and courts frequently side with the vested interests in copyright cases.
I truly doubt anyone would try to use Wikipedia in a precedent-setting test case - we're a sympathetic defendent. Corel, as a commercial company making money from their alleged copyright infringement, was a better test case, and they lost.
However, we should certainly keep track of any image we use under the assumptions of Bridgeman v. Corel, so that if the law or precedent changes we can re-evaluate them.
Note that none of this applies if you scan or photograph the image yourself, or if it is licensed under a Wikipedia-compatible license by someone who did.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
However, we should certainly keep track of any image we use under the assumptions of Bridgeman v. Corel, so that if the law or precedent changes we can re-evaluate them.
In other words, basically every public-domain image except PD-self and some PD-USGov.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 4/11/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, basically every public-domain image except PD-self and some PD-USGov.
Not at all.
Bridgeman v. Corel only applies when you are using a copy (scan, book print, etc) made by someone else, and that copy, if able to be independently copyrighted, would still be in copyright.
If you own, or can get your hands on without signing a restrictive license, the original work or a copy which is itself old enough to be out of copyright, then it does not apply.
E.g. I have a copy of the 1922 Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice. Being published and printed in 1922, it is now out of copyright in the US - not only the original work being out of copyright, but any possible new copyright created by making the copy, since the copy I own is itself old enough to be independently out of copyright.
I can legally scan any image in the book and place it on Wikipedia. I do not need to assume the validity of Bridgeman v. Corel in order to do so.
If Bridgeman v. Corel is overturned, then I can still copy MY copy of the book, but I cannot take someone else's scans from their website and use those.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, basically every public-domain image except PD-self and some PD-USGov.
Not at all.
Bridgeman v. Corel only applies when you are using a copy (scan, book print, etc) made by someone else, and that copy, if able to be independently copyrighted, would still be in copyright.
If you own, or can get your hands on without signing a restrictive license, the original work or a copy which is itself old enough to be out of copyright, then it does not apply.
That's the theory. In practice, the majority of our "public domain because of age" images were grabbed off the Internet somewhere, so someone other than the uploader did the scanning.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I can legally scan any image in the book and place it on Wikipedia. I do not need to assume the validity of Bridgeman v. Corel in order to do so.
Perhaps but you do need to in order to tag it correctly.
-- geni
On 4/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I can legally scan any image in the book and place it on Wikipedia. I do not need to assume the validity of Bridgeman v. Corel in order to do so.
Perhaps but you do need to in order to tag it correctly.
In that, if there is ever a legal decision that permits copyright for slavish reproductions of 2D art, I need to explicitly release my scan into the public domain (or other Wikipedia-approved licensing) as well? Noted.
-Matt, who was going to make a snarky comment then realised you had a point
geni wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I can legally scan any image in the book and place it on Wikipedia. I do not need to assume the validity of Bridgeman v. Corel in order to do so.
Perhaps but you do need to in order to tag it correctly.
But what can legally be done according to copyright law and Wikipedia tagging are separate issues.
Ec
Matt Brown wrote:
E.g. I have a copy of the 1922 Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice. Being published and printed in 1922, it is now out of copyright in the US - not only the original work being out of copyright, but any possible new copyright created by making the copy, since the copy I own is itself old enough to be independently out of copyright.
I can legally scan any image in the book and place it on Wikipedia. I do not need to assume the validity of Bridgeman v. Corel in order to do so.
If Bridgeman v. Corel is overturned, then I can still copy MY copy of the book, but I cannot take someone else's scans from their website and use those.
If the original image was in the public domain there is nothing wrong about your using someone else's scan of the image. That other person's scan of a public domain work is not copyrightable.
Ec
On 4/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
If Bridgeman v. Corel is overturned, then I can still copy MY copy of the book, but I cannot take someone else's scans from their website and use those.
If the original image was in the public domain there is nothing wrong about your using someone else's scan of the image. That other person's scan of a public domain work is not copyrightable.
Ah, you're missing the point, or rather the IF statement that the rest of the sentence depends on. I personally believe the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel is correct and that a scan, photograph, or other "slavish copy" of 2-dimensional artwork does not create new copyright.
/However/, I was discussing the case IF Bridgeman v. Corel was overturned and, say, Supreme Court precedent is set that even such a slavish copy creates copyright, THEN you can't use other peoples' scans without permission.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 4/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
If Bridgeman v. Corel is overturned, then I can still copy MY copy of the book, but I cannot take someone else's scans from their website and use those.
If the original image was in the public domain there is nothing wrong about your using someone else's scan of the image. That other person's scan of a public domain work is not copyrightable.
Ah, you're missing the point, or rather the IF statement that the rest of the sentence depends on. I personally believe the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel is correct and that a scan, photograph, or other "slavish copy" of 2-dimensional artwork does not create new copyright.
/However/, I was discussing the case IF Bridgeman v. Corel was overturned and, say, Supreme Court precedent is set that even such a slavish copy creates copyright, THEN you can't use other peoples' scans without permission.
My apologies for the misreading. Of course, until that happens a lot of people will be making good faith copies, and it's hard to imagine a situation where there will be attempts to retroactively punish people for their scans. It has already been 6(?) years since the Bridgeman decision to which the doctrine of laches may apply.
Ec
Pretty much. But if scanning things gives you a copyright claim, that's the way it would work. This is one of the reasons I have little respect for archivists/museums who are afraid of losing revenue because of this; the alternative implications for copyright law and cultural material are absolutely bonkers and positively short-sighted. It's not my problem that their past revenue models were based on bad legal models.
But fortunately there's nothing in US precedent to make us think it is going in that direction.
FF
On 4/11/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
However, we should certainly keep track of any image we use under the assumptions of Bridgeman v. Corel, so that if the law or precedent changes we can re-evaluate them.
In other words, basically every public-domain image except PD-self and some PD-USGov.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/7/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that the only verifiability problem here is the name of the organisation, which is not mentioned in any of the sources that I checked. That there was a major child pornography ring using child modeling as a front in Kharkov and Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is well sourced by references to, inter alia, Pravda and Reuters.
That's precisely the point, and precisely the reason why I rewrote the article and moved it to [[2004 Ukranian child pornography raids]]. The article is now a discussion of the police raids, the only verifiable component of the original article.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Ryan Delaney wrote:
This is a kind of weird verifiability case. We don't say "God exists" in Wikipedia because such a statement couldn't be verified. But the statements in [[LS Studio]] could be verified if someone got their hands on an FBI report on the organization or somesuch. Since no one has yet, nothing in the article is verifiable... so do we delete it?
I think we absolutely should delete it, if it is as unverifiable as people are saying.
This could be done in multiple steps, if that would help.
First, remove all unverifiable statements from the article. Insist firmly on the talk page that nothing goes back into the article without a solid site to a mainstream publication.
Second, after a couple of weeks of demonstrating that there is therefore nothing to be said, AfD would be appropriate and likely to succeed.
--Jimbo
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:56:46 -0500, you wrote:
First, remove all unverifiable statements from the article. Insist firmly on the talk page that nothing goes back into the article without a solid site to a mainstream publication. Second, after a couple of weeks of demonstrating that there is therefore nothing to be said, AfD would be appropriate and likely to succeed.
You forget - this is a sex-related article. On AfD, the fact that it scores thousands of Google hits will mean that it is "notable" and therefore it will be kept. The lack of content will be swiftly reverted by reference to those Google hits.
That's what happened to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_steamer anyway. We now have all the "popular culture" cruft back in there, and still absolutely no reliable sources. Unless you count the entry in the online dictionary of sex added by the well-known and trusted user "Anonymous", which some people apparently do. Guy (JzG)
On 4/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
That's what happened to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_steamer anyway. We now have all the "popular culture" cruft back in there, and still absolutely no reliable sources. Unless you count the entry in the online dictionary of sex added by the well-known and trusted user "Anonymous", which some people apparently do.
In that case, what seems appropriate is moving the content into some other article. There is clearly not enough verifiable information to write a whole article, yet the topic is notable. No problem - make a brief mention in another article.
Steve
On 4/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think we absolutely should delete it, if it is as unverifiable as people are saying.
This could be done in multiple steps, if that would help.
First, remove all unverifiable statements from the article. Insist firmly on the talk page that nothing goes back into the article without a solid site to a mainstream publication.
Second, after a couple of weeks of demonstrating that there is therefore nothing to be said, AfD would be appropriate and likely to succeed.
That's basically what I did already: I cut all the unverifiable stuff and moved it to [[2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids]]. There have been no substantive changes in the five days since, after raging activity beforehand, clearly there is nothing of encyclopaedic value left.
Nominating it for deletion is a good idea.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 4/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think we absolutely should delete it, if it is as unverifiable as people are saying.
This could be done in multiple steps, if that would help.
First, remove all unverifiable statements from the article. Insist firmly on the talk page that nothing goes back into the article without a solid site to a mainstream publication.
Second, after a couple of weeks of demonstrating that there is therefore nothing to be said, AfD would be appropriate and likely to succeed.
That's basically what I did already: I cut all the unverifiable stuff and moved it to [[2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids]]. There have been no substantive changes in the five days since, after raging activity beforehand, clearly there is nothing of encyclopaedic value left.
Nominating it for deletion is a good idea.
Had you {{prod}}ed it at the time, it would most likely have been deleted by now. No need to drag it through AFD...
On 4/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Had you {{prod}}ed it at the time, it would most likely have been deleted by now. No need to drag it through AFD...
Unfortunately, until someone gets the toolserver to work with the new separate en: cluster, PROD is down.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com