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

[Fastfission]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

By "created" you mean "scanned"? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. If
someone scans an and puts it on the web, I don't think we are required to
follow the wishes of the uploader if the image is in the public domain. They
do not "own" the image content whatsoever if it is in the public domain.



> 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.


As I related, their sole reason is they believe they own the copyright "on
the scan." Which, as pointed out, is not something we value very much around
here, for good reasons (legal and ethical). So far all case law to my
knowledge has gone along with the notion that mere reproduction does not
generate copyright. Scanning should be even less an issue than photography
in this case -- it is even more mechanical.

And yes, it is illegal to claim copyright over something that you don't own
copyright to. It just isn't prosecuted as far as I can tell. Obviously you'd
have to prove intent to deceive.

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.
>

Please take a look at the discussion I was linking to. Nobody claimed we
took the image file from Corbis.


> 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.
>

Um, that's not what is going on. Corbis is selling (expensive) licenses
which give the publisher in question the right to use the image. It's not a
matter of "giving credit," it's a matter of pretending you can sell
copyright licenses for things that are clearly in the public domain.

FF