[WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...

[WJhonson at aol.com]

<<In a message dated 1/13/2009 4:20:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
fastfission at gmail.com writes:

The  entire point of me posting this was to point out that this was exactly
what  we were doing in practice. In the instance of the Einstein-Planck
photo, we  were using the fact that Corbis had claimed it as a reason to
suspect it  must be copyrighted. My point was that just because Corbis claims
it,  doesn't mean it is copyrighted.>>
Agreed.  But if a possessor of an image, which they themselves  created, 
denys our use of that image, we should respect such a denial.  The  image belongs, 
is owned, by them, regardless of whether it can be copyrighted or  not, and 
regardless of whether they claim such a copyright.
 

<<You can't use whether Corbis claims something as evidence of  its 
copyrighted
status, if you have other reasons to suspect it is in the  public domain.
That's my point. Don't trust Corbis to be up front about  copyrights. They
aren't.>>
Agreed.  You can only use it as evidence that they make such a  claim.  
Anyone can make a claim of copyright status on things which are not  copyrightable 
in court.  That is why there are court fights over it.   It is not illegal to 
suggest that you have a copyright over something which  later in court is 
denied.  Exerting a copyright claim does not make you  immoral, as you seem to 
suggest by saying "they aren't upfront".  They may  have a valid reason for the 
belief that their effort makes their work  copyrightable.
 

<<When we get to the point where we all start trusting Corbis,  then Corbis
has, _in effect_, taken something from the public  domain.>>
I deny this claim.  We can trust Corbis, that they make copyright  claims 
that are or aren't defensible.  However provided we *stop using  THEIR images* 
and use other images of the same material, than what Corbis does  or doesn't 
claim is not relevant.  I have a photograph of the Declaration  of Indenpendence, 
which I took with my own camera.  I give it to the  project.  Whether Corbis 
also has a photo of that, does not stop me or the  project in any way from 
using *my own image*.  You seem to be confusing the  use of a particular image, 
with the use of any image of the same work.

<<I see lots of stuff I know to be public domain in news media in  particular
that credits it to Corbis, Getty, etc. This happens even in very  obvious
cases, like US military photos of atomic  tests.>>
 
Of course this is perfectly normal and in fact to do otherwise would be  
scandalous.
IF you use my image, you had better give ME credit regardless of whether my  
image is of my toaster or the Taj Majal.  The image belongs to me, and I  give 
you permission to use it only if I'm credited, and not otherwise.
 
That's S.O.P. in the image world.
Nothing to do with copyright.  Seperate issue.
 
Will Johnson
 
 

 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)