Hallo,
I just found a source for tons of bird images on http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/birds/naumann.htm, and I am eager to use them. But I am not 100% sure, if I am allowed to use them.
All images on that site are drawings from a 1905 field guide, and so they should be public domain. BUT all images were (as they describe on their page) scanned and reworked with a graphics tool in order to change contrast, lightness and hue. I don't know, if this makes the owners of the website new copyright holders.
Of course I tried to contact them, but the e-mail address on that page is invalid, so there is no contact person.
Can anyone tell me, if I am allowed to use these images?
Mirko.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:22:45AM +0100, Mirko Thiessen wrote:
Hallo,
I just found a source for tons of bird images on http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/birds/naumann.htm, and I am eager to use them. But I am not 100% sure, if I am allowed to use them.
All images on that site are drawings from a 1905 field guide, and so they should be public domain. BUT all images were (as they describe on their page) scanned and reworked with a graphics tool in order to change contrast, lightness and hue. I don't know, if this makes the owners of the website new copyright holders.
Of course I tried to contact them, but the e-mail address on that page is invalid, so there is no contact person.
Can anyone tell me, if I am allowed to use these images?
Hi Mirko,
the page you referenced above contains the following paragraph:
Ganz anders sieht es mit den Abbildungen aus. Wo sonst steht heutzutage eine vollst�ndige Sammlung von Abbildungen aller mitteleurop�ischen (und etlichen anderen) V�gel zur Verf�gung, die nach entsprechender Bearbeitung in die PUBLIC DOMAIN des Internets eingegeben werden, und somit frei f�r jedermann zug�nglich gemacht werden kann. Die Abbildungen, hingegen, k�nnen f�r Unterrichtszwecke sehr wohl genutzt, mit neuen Texten, zus�tzlichen Abbildungen, Filmabschnitten und Tonsequenzen kombiniert werden, um dadurch unter Einbeziehung neuer Multimedia - Techniken Interesse an der heimischen Vogelwelt zu wecken.
I read this paragraph as a donation of the scanned images to the PD.
Best regards,
jens frank
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Jens Frank wrote:
the page you referenced above contains the following paragraph:
Ganz anders sieht es mit den Abbildungen aus. Wo sonst steht heutzutage eine vollständige Sammlung von Abbildungen aller mitteleuropäischen (und etlichen anderen) Vögel zur Verfügung, die nach entsprechender Bearbeitung in die PUBLIC DOMAIN des Internets eingegeben werden, und somit frei für jedermann zugänglich gemacht werden kann. Die Abbildungen, hingegen, können für Unterrichtszwecke sehr wohl genutzt, mit neuen Texten, zusätzlichen Abbildungen, Filmabschnitten und Tonsequenzen kombiniert werden, um dadurch unter Einbeziehung neuer Multimedia - Techniken Interesse an der heimischen Vogelwelt zu wecken.
I read this paragraph as a donation of the scanned images to the PD.
I agree.
Andre Engels
All images on that site are drawings from a 1905 field guide, and so they should be public domain. BUT all images were (as they describe on their page) scanned and reworked with a graphics tool in order to change contrast, lightness and hue. I don't know, if this makes the owners of the website new copyright holders.
If the page doesnt say copyrighted ... (sometimes its only on the home page..... ) it should be fair game.. especially if you know the original source, and... if you modify the image a bit yourself... Look at the Redd Foxx portrait which i merged from two crappier photos I found on the web... neither one of these can directly be tied to this one, and theirs were rip- offs anyway... But either way, Ive run across a few images that were questionable in origin, and the solution to removing any tie to the original is to modify the image... Explanation: A company I worked for was engaged in the shady business of scanning other peoples high-end catalogs for use of the images on the web. After consulting a lawyer, who said that it was ok to use the images provided there were seven changes made to them... seven degrees of removal from the original... I don't know if this holds water well enough for here.. (Most places dont worry at all...) but... in the strictest sense, its not hard to alter a photo with a few different operations... 豎眩:sv
Stevertigo wrote:
A company I worked for was engaged in the shady business of scanning other peoples high-end catalogs for use of the images on the web. After consulting a lawyer, who said that it was ok to use the images provided there were seven changes made to them... seven degrees of removal from the original... I don't know if this holds water well enough for here..
The "seven changes" rule doesn't make sense. Consider the picture of a famous man sitting at a desk. On his desk, among many other things is a yellow pencil. One change could be to change the colour of that pencil to blue. I could easily find another six such minor changes. Using this seven-changes rule strikes me as contrary to the spirit of the law.
Eclecticology
Stevertigo wrote:
page..... ) it should be fair game.. especially if you know the original source, and... if you modify the image a bit yourself... Look at the Redd Foxx portrait which i merged from two crappier photos I found on the web...
This is almost certainly a useless activity. Merging two photos into one doesn't reduce the copyright problems, it compounds them. The new work would be a "derived work" from both the originals, and a violation of the copyright on both of the originals.
neither one of these can directly be tied to this one, and theirs were rip- offs anyway...
"I ripped it off from someone who ripped off the original copyright holder" is not a valid defense.
But either way, Ive run across a few images that were questionable in origin, and the solution to removing any tie to the original is to modify the image...
This solves absolutely nothing.
A company I worked for was engaged in the shady business of scanning other peoples high-end catalogs for use of the images on the web. After consulting a lawyer, who said that it was ok to use the images provided there were seven changes made to them... seven degrees of removal from the original... I don't know if this holds water well enough for here.. (Most places dont worry at all...) but... in the strictest sense, its not hard to alter a photo with a few different operations...
This is just wrong. I strongly encourage people not to follow this kind of advice here.
--Jimbo
From: "Mirko Thiessen" mt@mirko-thiessen.de
All images on that site are drawings from a 1905 field guide, and so they should be public domain. BUT all images were (as they describe on their page) scanned and reworked with a graphics tool in order to change contrast, lightness and hue. I don't know, if this makes the owners of the website new copyright holders.[...] Can anyone tell me, if I am allowed to use these images?
Hi Mirko, If you rework them yourself also I would think you'd be just as much a re-author of the images. I'm not sure of the legalities, but I was under the impression that if you use other images to create a third image but not for profit that this was allowed under artistic expression. Again, I'm not sure of the legalities but projects I've worked on for schools have followed this procedure, of course the field of education can get away with a lot in this regard... akin to cutting and pasting photos from magazines to make a collage for a class project.
Are there sites which one could look up the legalities of this issue?
I can pass it by our school district legal advisor and I'll see what I can learn about it... It's definitely a situation that could come up again and again...
Cheers, Jay B.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org