[WikiEN-l] Copyright dispute

[Ray Saintonge]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 5/18/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at 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