Dear smart people:
What procedure I should follow when someone denies that I do not own a copyright that in fact I do own?
I have been assigned the copyrights to my grandfather's books, and I'm even being paid royalties from the publisher of one of them. No one who is qualified to have an opinion has any doubt that I am the copyright holder. One particular user, on the other hands, knows that everyone else is wrong (and that I am lying).
The dispute is focused on an image of the cover of one of the books.
How can this be most effectively resolved?
On 18/05/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Dear smart people:
What procedure I should follow when someone denies that I do not own a copyright that in fact I do own?
Forward scanned copies of the documents assigning you the rights to the WMF, so they can assign it an OTRS ticket number? A letter from the publishers you mentioned would help, too, I suppose.
~Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 18/05/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Dear smart people:
What procedure I should follow when someone denies that I do not own a copyright that in fact I do own?
Forward scanned copies of the documents assigning you the rights to the WMF, so they can assign it an OTRS ticket number? A letter from the publishers you mentioned would help, too, I suppose.
If there is a documented assignment of rights this should pose no problems. In the long term, however, we need to be more open and less bureaucratic when rights are claimed by inheritance. Books that were written long ago are often forgotten when wills are written, or if there is an intestacy. Things can get worse when we are two of three generations removed, or there are large families.
Ec
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 01:34:33AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If there is a documented assignment of rights this should pose no problems. In the long term, however, we need to be more open and less bureaucratic when rights are claimed by inheritance. Books that were written long ago are often forgotten when wills are written, or if there is an intestacy. Things can get worse when we are two of three generations removed, or there are large families.
Ec
That describes this case rather well. Granddad dies, leaving everything to his third wife, my step-grandmother. She dies, leaving everything to her daughter, my half-aunt. She then enters a convent, after assigning all copyrights to me.
Those two previous wills would be a pain to look up. I have my half-aunt's assignment, which is good enough for the publishers to send me the royalties, but will it be enough for the hardcore fetishists?
The $64 question, of course, is how much insulting Hell do we expect someone to go through to earn the privilege of giving us a gift?
On May 18, 2007, at 6:49 AM, sean@epoptic.com wrote:
The $64 question, of course, is how much insulting Hell do we expect someone to go through to earn the privilege of giving us a gift?
Less than this. Tell the user in question to shove it up his or her ass and go back to writing an encyclopedia. We do not, generally speaking, get this nervous about whether someone claiming to hold a copyright is lying. Until we up our copyright paranoia to that general level, you should be fine.
-Phil
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:20:11AM -0400, Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 18, 2007, at 6:49 AM, sean@epoptic.com wrote:
The $64 question, of course, is how much insulting Hell do we expect someone to go through to earn the privilege of giving us a gift?
Less than this. Tell the user in question to shove it up his or her ass and go back to writing an encyclopedia. We do not, generally speaking, get this nervous about whether someone claiming to hold a copyright is lying. Until we up our copyright paranoia to that general level, you should be fine.
-Phil
We are at that point -- I am being called a liar.
On 5/18/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Less than this. Tell the user in question to shove it up his or her ass and go back to writing an encyclopedia. We do not, generally speaking, get this nervous about whether someone claiming to hold a copyright is lying. Until we up our copyright paranoia to that general level, you should be fine.
So wait.. We screwed up by blocking the user (and his four socks) who was claiming to be Trey Parker (of south park) and who was claiming to release southpark episodes under the GFDL?
...
Oh please. Cut the drama. If someone makes an unusual claim we can and should ask them to back it up via correspondence with the permissions queue. This doesn't deserve a goofy mailing list thread over the issue.
It's certainly not productive when the involved parties won't even provide a link to the discussion. Sean, Why must you ask the list to form opinions based on a one-sided retelling rather than just directing us to the discussion to read for ourselves?
On May 18, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So wait.. We screwed up by blocking the user (and his four socks) who was claiming to be Trey Parker (of south park) and who was claiming to release southpark episodes under the GFDL?
Do try to be helpful, Greg. If you can't see the difference between someone showing up out of the blue and making an obviously impossible claim (does Parker even hold the copyright to South Park episodes?) and a long-time, trusted editor making a perfectly believable claim, don't bother getting into the discussion.
-Phil
On 5/18/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 18, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So wait.. We screwed up by blocking the user (and his four socks) who was claiming to be Trey Parker (of south park) and who was claiming to release southpark episodes under the GFDL?
Do try to be helpful, Greg. If you can't see the difference between someone showing up out of the blue and making an obviously impossible claim (does Parker even hold the copyright to South Park episodes?) and a long-time, trusted editor making a perfectly believable claim, don't bother getting into the discussion.
Except, ... now having actually having seen Sean's claim (Thanks to Andrew Gray for posting it) I must say that the only people who would call it "perfectly believable" are people who haven't actually seen it, or are completely unqualified to touch anything related to copyright anywhere.
What Sean actually claims is this:
"While the copyright to the actual cover image is held by Dodd, Mead & Company, Dr. Barrett created this particular artistically distressed cover, and I inherited his copyright to it and scanned this image of it."
You can't magically erase someone elses copyright interest in a piece of art by screwing it up. It's a derived work at best. You don't hold the copyright on the cover, so you can't release it. Go follow the procedure for Non-free content, provide a fair use rationale, and move on with life. There is absolutely no need for the drama here.
Looking at the discussion, it seems that everyone has been as polite as possible ... in so far as is possible without accepting Sean's aggressively inserted but obviously incorrect argument.
Phil, would you please stop pontificating about matters which you do not understand and which you are not willing to undertake the most cursory investigation into? Thanks.
On May 18, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Phil, would you please stop pontificating about matters which you do not understand and which you are not willing to undertake the most cursory investigation into? Thanks.
I rather think that, from Sean's initial description, the reaction of "the person opposing this is being querellous, shoot them" was apropos.
And I think the basic question of "What do we do when a copyright holder is subjected to an interrogation assuming no good faith whatsoever, particularly when that copyright holder is a well- respected member of the community" is an important one. And the answer should not be "make them jump through a bunch of hoops." Your response, based on what Sean was actually saying, was unhelpful and ill considered.
-Phil
On 5/18/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I rather think that, from Sean's initial description, the reaction of "the person opposing this is being querellous, shoot them" was apropos.
No something along the lines of "linky?" would be better (certainly one of the first two questions I ask on IRC the other being "what country are you in?")
And I think the basic question of "What do we do when a copyright holder is subjected to an interrogation assuming no good faith whatsoever, particularly when that copyright holder is a well- respected member of the community" is an important one.
Assuming good faith does not mean an assumption of an in depth knowledge of copyright an inheritance law.
And the answer should not be "make them jump through a bunch of hoops."
As long as we keep the hoops relevant it's about the only option. And I'm afraid the more complex the situation the more hoops there will be.
This issue reminds me of a similar dispute. Let me try to summarize its elements briefly:
1) User:SF (a pseudo username) previously uploaded several old photos of a public figure, claiming to have taken them himself. A comparison of his stated age and the dates of the photos made the claim impossible, but he insisted on it without explaining the discrepancy. However he eventually stopped repeating the claims and allowed the images to be deleted.
2) Another user uploaded embarrassing recent photos of the same public figure that had been widely posted on blogs, etc. That user made a dubious claim of ownership. User:Sf demanded to see proof of the ownership and when none was forthcoming he instigated the deletion of the images.
3) User:SF uploaded a diagram that he claims to have created which also appears on several websites across the world and has for several years. I've asked him for proof of his ownership. He has asked me what kind of proof I require and I replied by asking him what proof he can offer.
Based on the discussion here it sounds like I can hand this issue over to the OTRS/permission system. Aside from the concern that an OTRS volunteer won't know of this user's previous bad faith claims, I'm not sure how anyone can establish the provenance of an Illustrator image or diagram. I'd imagine that ownership of photos could often be established if the purported owner has other, unpublished photos taken in the same place and time. How do we establish ownership of a diagram?
Will Beback
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/18/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 18, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So wait.. We screwed up by blocking the user (and his four socks) who was claiming to be Trey Parker (of south park) and who was claiming to release southpark episodes under the GFDL?
Do try to be helpful, Greg. If you can't see the difference between someone showing up out of the blue and making an obviously impossible claim (does Parker even hold the copyright to South Park episodes?) and a long-time, trusted editor making a perfectly believable claim, don't bother getting into the discussion.
Except, ... now having actually having seen Sean's claim (Thanks to Andrew Gray for posting it) I must say that the only people who would call it "perfectly believable" are people who haven't actually seen it, or are completely unqualified to touch anything related to copyright anywhere.
I too thank Andrew for the link. Having now seen it I see no reason to find sean anything but "perfectly believable"
What Sean actually claims is this:
"While the copyright to the actual cover image is held by Dodd, Mead & Company, Dr. Barrett created this particular artistically distressed cover, and I inherited his copyright to it and scanned this image of it."
That certainly answers my questions about the image as something separate from the text of the book. If Dr. Barrett had a creative hand in the design of the cover this would suggest his having been at least a joint creator of the cover. How would Dodd, Mead's rights have become exclusive? It would be up to Dodd, Mead to establish that Barrett had waived his copyrights to their cover. The book itself had its copyrights renewed on Nov. 1, 1990 in the name of Marie Barrett. What evidence is there that Dodd, Mead renewed its exclusive copyrights? Remember too that there were restrictions on who could seek renewals.
There are two possibilities. If Barrett's copyrights included the cover picture, the same licence rules would apply to the cover as to the text. If the copyrights to the cover belonged to Dodd, Mead they are now in the public domain through a failure to renew.
For that matter, what evidence is there that any publisher ever renewed a cover illustration separately from the text.
You can't magically erase someone elses copyright interest in a piece of art by screwing it up. It's a derived work at best.
Who derived from whom?
You don't hold the copyright on the cover, so you can't release it. Go follow the procedure for Non-free content, provide a fair use rationale, and move on with life. There is absolutely no need for the drama here.
So who's creating the drama? As much as I strongly support using fair use material, I also believe that it should be a last resort for justifying the use of a picture. If there is a freer argument, that should be preferred. I am convinced that there is a strong rationale provided to say that this is free content. It may not be absolutely conclusive, but I think that it's enough to shift the burden of proof to those who claim that the image is not free.
Looking at the discussion, it seems that everyone has been as polite as possible ... in so far as is possible without accepting Sean's aggressively inserted but obviously incorrect argument.
There is nothing obvious about the alleged incorrectness.
Phil, would you please stop pontificating about matters which you do not understand and which you are not willing to undertake the most cursory investigation into? Thanks.
At least now you have a cursory investigation to answer. :'(
Ec
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:01:38PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It's certainly not productive when the involved parties won't even provide a link to the discussion. Sean, Why must you ask the list to form opinions based on a one-sided retelling rather than just directing us to the discussion to read for ourselves?
Please go upthread to review exactly what I asked for -- pointers to methods that I (or anyone else) could use to back up claims of copyright ownership. That particular discussion is (in my opinion) settled by claiming fair use of any aspect of that image that I am unable to grant a license to. We display images of ''Harry Potter'' books; we can display an image of a particular book that I own.
On 5/19/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:01:38PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It's certainly not productive when the involved parties won't even provide a link to the discussion. Sean, Why must you ask the list to form opinions based on a one-sided retelling rather than just directing us to the discussion to read for ourselves?
Please go upthread to review exactly what I asked for -- pointers to methods that I (or anyone else) could use to back up claims of copyright ownership. That particular discussion is (in my opinion) settled by claiming fair use of any aspect of that image that I am unable to grant a license to. We display images of ''Harry Potter'' books; we can display an image of a particular book that I own.
You may own the copyright of the text, but do you own the copyright of the cover image? That is the pertinent question. We do display images of book covers, but that is normally covered by fair use; if we want to use the image in question, we have to use fair use unless the copyright of the cover image itself is yours, in which case you can use a copyleft licence.
Johnleemk
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 03:36:08AM +0800, John Lee wrote:
You may own the copyright of the text, but do you own the copyright of the cover image? That is the pertinent question. We do display images of book covers, but that is normally covered by fair use; if we want to use the image in question, we have to use fair use unless the copyright of the cover image itself is yours, in which case you can use a copyleft licence.
I surrender unconditionally and apologize for wasting so much time. I have replaced my attempt to grant a licence with a fair-use claim. Delete the image or keep it; I won't complain one way or the other.
On 5/18/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
I surrender unconditionally and apologize for wasting so much time.
Not all if it helps people understand copyright issues.
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:53:19PM +0100, geni wrote:
On 5/18/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
I surrender unconditionally and apologize for wasting so much time.
Not all if it helps people understand copyright issues.
I hope this reply doesn't violate the terms of my surrender, but I have to point out one small irony -- a fair use claim to that unique cover is extremely weak. That particular cover is Dr. Barrett's signed personal creation, and Wikipedia has no need to use it when there are more generic images available.
How deep does the copyright paranoia go?
On 5/18/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
I hope this reply doesn't violate the terms of my surrender, but I have to point out one small irony -- a fair use claim to that unique cover is extremely weak. That particular cover is Dr. Barrett's signed personal creation, and Wikipedia has no need to use it when there are more generic images available.
Now I'm very confused. How does this version of the cover differ from the generally released cover - simply Dr. Barrett's signature?
I don't think that part of our fair use requirements, or the law's for that matter, require the most generic image available.
-Matt
On 5/18/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:53:19PM +0100, geni wrote:
On 5/18/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
I surrender unconditionally and apologize for wasting so much time.
Not all if it helps people understand copyright issues.
I hope this reply doesn't violate the terms of my surrender, but I have to point out one small irony -- a fair use claim to that unique cover is extremely weak. That particular cover is Dr. Barrett's signed personal creation, and Wikipedia has no need to use it when there are more generic images available.
How deep does the copyright paranoia go?
But those generic images would also be protected by copyright. Since we should be able to write more about this unique cover it could be argued that the fair use case is stronger.
sean@epoptic.com wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 01:34:33AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If there is a documented assignment of rights this should pose no problems. In the long term, however, we need to be more open and less bureaucratic when rights are claimed by inheritance. Books that were written long ago are often forgotten when wills are written, or if there is an intestacy. Things can get worse when we are two of three generations removed, or there are large families.
That describes this case rather well. Granddad dies, leaving everything to his third wife, my step-grandmother. She dies, leaving everything to her daughter, my half-aunt. She then enters a convent, after assigning all copyrights to me.
I presume that the Marie who renewed the copyright in 1990 was that third wife?
Those two previous wills would be a pain to look up. I have my half-aunt's assignment, which is good enough for the publishers to send me the royalties, but will it be enough for the hardcore fetishists?
No argument from me, but in the general scheme of things looking up those wills would be relatively easy compared to the hurdles others may face when confronted by these robots..
Ec
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:32:32PM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I presume that the Marie who renewed the copyright in 1990 was that third wife?
Yep, Marie Hamilton Barrett, nee McDavid, was the mother of Ellen, my half-aunt, who joined a convent (the name of which escapes me at the moment) in Wantage, England. She's still living, but convents in general aren't that eager to have their members distracted by squabbles over mundane items like whether an image appears on a Web site.
On 5/17/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Dear smart people:
What procedure I should follow when someone denies that I do not own a copyright that in fact I do own?
[snip]
The dispute is focused on an image of the cover of one of the books.
How can this be most effectively resolved?
By making it clear that you own the copyright to the book including its cover. Do you actually hold the copyright to every element of the book's cover, including that of the photograph used on it - or at least, the copyright to everything not PD already?
If you are not absolutely sure you own the copyright to every element of that cover, stating that you release all the copyright you hold and that any remaining copyright is being used under fair use as an identifying image of a work in the article about that work should be sufficient.
I'd add that the user in question is being an ass, and that unfortunately our image use policies make some users feel that going round and being an ass is supported by policy.
-Matt
sean@epoptic.com wrote:
What procedure I should follow when someone denies that I do not own a copyright that in fact I do own?
I have been assigned the copyrights to my grandfather's books, and I'm even being paid royalties from the publisher of one of them. No one who is qualified to have an opinion has any doubt that I am the copyright holder. One particular user, on the other hands, knows that everyone else is wrong (and that I am lying).
The dispute is focused on an image of the cover of one of the books.
One possibly interesting problem: Did he design the cover? There may be no dispute about the contents, but the cover rights may still belong to the publisher.
Ec
On 18/05/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Dear smart people:
What procedure I should follow when someone denies that I do not own a copyright that in fact I do own?
I have been assigned the copyrights to my grandfather's books, and I'm even being paid royalties from the publisher of one of them. No one who is qualified to have an opinion has any doubt that I am the copyright holder. One particular user, on the other hands, knows that everyone else is wrong (and that I am lying).
The dispute is focused on an image of the cover of one of the books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:5CSL.jpg - I assume?
I note that - as far as I can tell - the issue at use isn't really that you own the copyright to the books, it's that you state that "the copyright to the *actual cover image* is held by Dodd, Mead & Company" [emphasis mine].
The fact that he was the author is, as far as I can tell, not really relevant here... you're not uploading the text, which you own the rights to, but a derivative of the cover image, which you state you don't.
(Yes, they are being rude in not accepting your perfectly upfront explanation. But it doesn't seem to matter - whether true or not, the image is still apparently unfree)