Hello,
Maybe someone can answer these questions which came up on the German wikipedia recently.
Someone wanted to place the emblem (coat of arms or whatever the correct english term is) of a city to the article about it and was unsure if this is legal. In Germany there are laws about "Hoheitszeichen" like flags, emblems, which restrict the right to use them.
How is the legal situation? I suppose wikipedia is in the sphere of american law. If it's legal, do we have to redraw the emblems ourselves or can we take the "official" images?
Next question: what's the exact date before which works are copyright free in the U.S.? Does US-law apply for German books, scanned in Germany and put on a server in the US or do we have to ensure that they are copyright free in both countries? German law is "70 years after the death of the author".
greetings, elian PS: I heard something about a lawsuit Eldrigde vs. Ashcroft at the Supreme Court - will Mickey Mouse law finally be abolished?
elian wrote:
Someone wanted to place the emblem (coat of arms or whatever the correct english term is) of a city to the article about it and was unsure if this is legal. In Germany there are laws about "Hoheitszeichen" like flags, emblems, which restrict the right to use them.
What kind of restrictions are there? I'm just curious.
How is the legal situation? I suppose wikipedia is in the sphere of american law. If it's legal, do we have to redraw the emblems ourselves or can we take the "official" images?
It seems unlikely to me that the emblem of a city is copyright. Aren't most of them really old, at the least?
Although wikipedia is in the sphere of American law, German contributors who live in Germany might need to watch themselves with respect to German law.
Next question: what's the exact date before which works are copyright free in the U.S.? Does US-law apply for German books, scanned in Germany and put on a server in the US or do we have to ensure that they are copyright free in both countries? German law is "70 years after the death of the author".
We only have to obey American law. In most respects, this is the most liberal jurisdiction, so that's not really a constraint.
PS: I heard something about a lawsuit Eldrigde vs. Ashcroft at the Supreme Court - will Mickey Mouse law finally be abolished?
It's possible. But some legal experts think that the Supreme Court will rule -- correctly, perhaps -- that the Constitution gives the power to set the term of copyrights to the Congress, and that the recent extensions fall well within the realm of the Congressional public policy setting functions.
http://eldred.cc/ is a good resource to learn more.
Even if the Supreme Court rules one way, it is possible for Congress to change their minds. This is somewhat unlikely because (a) the general public doesn't seem to care much and (b) the people who do care, care a lot (and contribute mightily to congressional campaigns).
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
elian wrote:
Someone wanted to place the emblem (coat of arms or whatever the correct english term is) of a city to the article about it and was unsure if this is legal. In Germany there are laws about "Hoheitszeichen" like flags, emblems, which restrict the right to use them.
What kind of restrictions are there? I'm just curious.
It's forbidden to use them in misleading context, f.e. in letters for the purpose to make them appear as coming from government institutions, or to put them on products or use them in ads.
How is the legal situation? I suppose wikipedia is in the sphere of american law. If it's legal, do we have to redraw the emblems ourselves or can we take the "official" images?
It seems unlikely to me that the emblem of a city is copyright. Aren't most of them really old, at the least?
Yep. I don't think they are really copyrighted, there rather appears to be special laws about them (as above). And the problem I forgot to mention: if we include them in Wikipedia it means we are putting them under a new licence, the GFDL, which knows nothing about these restrictions (which still apply). Or do I misunderstand the concept of GFDL here? So it seems we have a conflict here.
It's possible. But some legal experts think that the Supreme Court will rule -- correctly, perhaps -- that the Constitution gives the power to set the term of copyrights to the Congress, and that the recent extensions fall well within the realm of the Congressional public policy setting functions.
http://eldred.cc/ is a good resource to learn more.
Even if the Supreme Court rules one way, it is possible for Congress to change their minds. This is somewhat unlikely because (a) the general public doesn't seem to care much and (b) the people who do care, care a lot (and contribute mightily to congressional campaigns).
Thanks for the explanations :-)
greetings, elian
elian wrote:
What kind of restrictions are there? I'm just curious.
It's forbidden to use them in misleading context, f.e. in letters for the purpose to make them appear as coming from government institutions, or to put them on products or use them in ads.
O.k., it sounds like we are safe there.
Yep. I don't think they are really copyrighted, there rather appears to be special laws about them (as above). And the problem I forgot to mention: if we include them in Wikipedia it means we are putting them under a new licence, the GFDL, which knows nothing about these restrictions (which still apply). Or do I misunderstand the concept of GFDL here? So it seems we have a conflict here.
Well, the GFDL extends only so far as copyright and license. Any _other_ legal issues are separate and unaffected by GFDL.
For example, some kinds of political writings that are legal in the United States are not legal in Canada. Someone might write a political essay and place it under GFDL. The copyright issues are taken care of by that, and it is of no consequence that these ideas might be banned in Canada.
Another example, more specific to this case. In the United States it would be legal for someone to write a pro-Nazi essay and publish it under the GFDL. This essay would, if I understand things correctly, be illegal in Germany. But that's a separate issue from the copyright issue.
--Jimbo
Ray Saintonge wrote:
For example, some kinds of political writings that are legal in the United States are not legal in Canada.
What's this about?
Since this isn't really relevant to wikipedia, I'd like to move further discussion offlist. A recent case that came to my attention is here:
http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=%7B2934249E-2301-4687-85E8-2C...
But this sort of thing is common in Canada.
--Jimbo
--- elian elian@gmx.li wrote:
Next question: what's the exact date before which works are copyright free in the U.S.?
Everything published before 1911 is in the public domain. Everything published between 1911 and 1978 gets 95 years of copyright protection after the date of publication (in 2006, this will undoubtedly be increased). Everything published after 1978 gets 70 years after the death of the last author, the same as in the European Union. Most other countries give a straight 50 years after author's death, which is required by the Berne convention.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
Everything published before 1911 is in the public domain. Everything published between 1911 and 1978 gets 95 years of copyright protection after the date of publication (in 2006, this will undoubtedly be increased). Everything published after 1978 gets 70 years after the death of the last author, the same as in the European Union. Most other countries give a straight 50 years after author's death, which is required by the Berne convention.
By these rules, the EB1911 is still protected!
-- Toby
Axel Boldt wrote:
Everything published before 1911 is in the public domain. Everything published between 1911 and 1978 gets 95 years of copyright protection after the date of publication (in 2006, this will undoubtedly be increased). Everything published after 1978 gets 70 years after the death of the last author, the same as in the European Union. Most other countries give a straight 50 years after author's death, which is required by the Berne convention.
Toby Bartels reacted:
By these rules, the EB1911 is still protected!
I think the magic date is not 1911 but 1923 - 50 years before the extension from 50 years to 75 years in 1973.
Andre Engels
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
Everything published before 1911 is in the public domain. Everything published between 1911 and 1978 gets 95 years of copyright
protection
after the date of publication (in 2006, this will undoubtedly be increased). Everything published after 1978 gets 70 years after the death of the last author, the same as in the European Union. Most
other
countries give a straight 50 years after author's death, which is required by the Berne convention.
By these rules, the EB1911 is still protected!
Yes, I don't know where I got that 1911 number from. Rereading http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc everything published before 1922 is in the public domain.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
elian wrote:
Maybe someone can answer these questions which came up on the German wikipedia recently.
Someone wanted to place the emblem (coat of arms or whatever the correct english term is) of a city to the article about it and was unsure if this is legal. In Germany there are laws about "Hoheitszeichen" like flags, emblems, which restrict the right to use them.
Are these German restrictions really a question of copyright, or is it about preventing people from using them in inappropriate ways?
How is the legal situation? I suppose wikipedia is in the sphere of american law. If it's legal, do we have to redraw the emblems ourselves or can we take the "official" images?
Simply redrawing the emblems is not likely to solve anything. If it's too similar it would continue to violate the laws you're trying to circumvent; if it's too different it would lose its encyclopaedic merit.
Next question: what's the exact date before which works are copyright free in the U.S.? Does US-law apply for German books, scanned in Germany and put on a server in the US or do we have to ensure that they are copyright free in both countries? German law is "70 years after the death of the author".
This stuff can get terribly complicated, and even though there is a simple US answer of 95 years for works published after 1923, there are numerous exceptions that may apply to earlier works from this time span. A mirror server in Germany would be clearly subject to German law. A mirror server here in Canada would follow the Canadian rule of author's life plus 50 years. One E-book site has an associated site based in Australia, where the rule is similar to Canada's. It warns its American users that it may be illegal fro them to look at these works.
I heard something about a lawsuit Eldrigde vs. Ashcroft at the Supreme Court - will Mickey Mouse law finally be abolished?
I understand that the open court arguments in the US Supreme Court were just made yesterday. It will understandably take some time for the judges to consider their opinion. It's impossible to guess how judges will rule on anything.
Eclecticology
elian wrote:
Next question: what's the exact date before which works are copyright free in the U.S.? Does US-law apply for German books, scanned in Germany and put on a server in the US or do we have to ensure that they are copyright free in both countries? German law is "70 years after the death of the author".
PS: I heard something about a lawsuit Eldrigde vs. Ashcroft at the Supreme Court - will Mickey Mouse law finally be abolished?
That is Eldred v. Ashcroft, http://eldred.cc/
The current U.S. law makes everything published before 1922 free, while the European law makes everything free when 70 years have passed after the *year* of death of the last creator (Urheber). If the Ashcroft side wins the current case, I think the U.S. law will be the same as the European laws, but I'm not sure about this. To be safe, you would be wise to follow both laws. On the other hand, perhaps there is no reason to be paranoid. I'm not a lawyer.
Note that some works are free of copyright, such as law text and some other official government documents. Works that are published with no named creator (e.g. a T-Ford owner's manual) is free when 70 years have passed after the year of publication. Works with many creators (e.g. writer + translator) are owned by all creators together, so a translation into modern German of the Niebelungenlied can be copyrighted by the translator. The old Icelandic book Heimskringla has a free English translation made in 1844, which is available online, but more recent English translations are copyrighted, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla
Wikipedia is a very good place to keep track of the death year of various authors and translators.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org