On 1/31/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>>I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved
>>with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and
>>I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork
>>unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used
>>under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on
>>Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming
>>fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe
>>these to be merely a copyright violation.
>>
>>
>>
>I would observe that there is one significant difference between the two
>situations. It is one thing to use a couple of Escher's art works in
>Wikipedia to illustrate a biographical article about him; in my mind
>that could reasonably be viewed as fair use. The wholesale reproduction
>of his works in Wikibooks would probably not be. The difference is in
>the application in the substantiality rule of fair use law.
>
>Of course, it doesn't help to know that some of Escher's works MAY be in
>the public domain, but it's not up to us to research and make that case
>on behalf of the uploader.
I have one or two books with his works. Afaik there are no works of Escher
in the PD.
Ec
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.
I have asked this question repeatedly, and the deafing silence on the
response is leading me to strongly think that there is
no major
publisher who would want to touch these kind of images in the first
place without formally contacting the copyright owner in advance and
obtaining permission to use these sorts of images. I can't imagine even
a book about modern art that is being used as a textbook (by any
publisher selling to a college market) that would go into critical depth
about a few iconic works of modern art that would be using fair use
rationale for reproducing that artwork.
Any serious publisher has its own library of photos. Both big and small
publishers employ their own illustrators or have a pool of free lancers they
employ. I once had a question from a publisher asking permission to use one
of my photos in a book, so smaller ones also tend to look around on the web.
They dont suffer from paranoia, but they certainly do a good job of checking
the copyright status of anything they use.
Having been published by Prentice-Hall for a Spanish-language textbook
suppliment where I was a co-author, I vaguely remember
this issue coming
up when I was working with my main editor. Fortunately, I was given
access to an image repository that was owned by the textbook publisher,
and had so much content that trying to find something that might have
pushed the envelope was more a waste of time for me.
I do know that copyright paranoia is hardly the best way to describe the
attitude they had regarding the content we were putting together. It
was more like copyright insanity where they were questioning nearly
every word that was written, and in my case every word that was used in
the software code (it was a CD-ROM suppliment). The rationale that is
being used here by some Wikipedia users wouldn't have been tolerated for
5 minues if they had tried to get away with some of the more
questionable images and been working for this particular publisher.
I agree 100%.
--
Robert Scott Horning
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l