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

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/15/2009 11:06:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
fastfission at gmail.com writes:

<<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.>>
I know you don't agree.  But there are others who think that the mere  act of 
making available electronically vast archives of paper, creates an  ethical 
situation where the creator and exerter of all that effort should get  
*some*thing for their effort.

<<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.>>
They are others believe this, or did believe it.  I and others do tend  to 
value effort ethically if not legally.  Do you know of more than one  case?  
I've only heard of a single case.  The issue is not just  whether scanning 
generates a copyright, which it probably does not, but whether  the use of that 
image generates an appropriate ethical treatment of the  creator.

<<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.>>
No it is not illegal to claim copyright over something to which you don't  
own copyright.  If you believe it is illegal, then perhaps you could cite  the 
law that states that, so we can review it.  If you have to prove  "intent to 
deceive" than I would suggest that the law you are thinking of, does  not 
specify copyright at all, but is more general.

<<Please take a look at the discussion I was linking to. Nobody  claimed we
took the image file from Corbis.>>
The case law that has been cited is exactly a case where an image was taken  
from a creator and used without their copyright attached.  As I have said  
repeatedly, even IF a creator exerts a copyright claim over their own image,  
that does not change whatsoever the state of the original item, or any other  
images taken by other creators of that item.

>>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.>>
 
The right to "use" of an image is not "selling [a] copyright license" for  
that image.
I can certainly sell you the right to use my image whether I exert a  
copyright claim or not.
I own the image, even if the underlying document is in the public  domain.
 
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.fr
eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62)