Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/18/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)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
