teun spaans wrote:
I am curious if
anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing
list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka
Britannica or a major website like cnn.com
) that would use modern art
works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since
1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only
justification for their inclusion?
Not me. I have three paper encyclopedias, none of them mentions anything on
the source of photographs.
Encyclopedias sometimes put photo credits on a page that is not
necessarily adjacent to the article, but on some sort of "credits" page
that is listed elsewhere. Encyclopedia Brittanica used to acknowledge
authorship of its artlces with just the author's initials, and it was
only in the first volume that even listed the names of the authors. At
least this is something to look at before jumping to too much of a
Also, even if no source was explicitly mentioned, that reference is not
strictly necessary for a photographic license.
I know this is a tough thing to prove, but one really good example is
all I'm asking for here. The rationale for using such images is very
weak if you can't find a clear example in other published media, proving
that this is a bleeding edge copyright situation instead of common
publishing industry practice. While not perfect for a legal defense, it
does help if you can show that others who might be peers have done this
and nobody has cared.
Robert Scott Horning