[Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)

[teun spaans]

On 1/31/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> >Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> >
> >>I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved
> >>with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and
> >>I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork
> >>unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used
> >>under the GFDL.  The response was that the images were being used on
> >>Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks?  The Escher reproductions are claiming
> >>fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe
> >>these to be merely a copyright violation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >I would observe that there is one significant difference between the two
> >situations.  It is one thing to use a couple of Escher's art works in
> >Wikipedia to illustrate a biographical article about him; in my mind
> >that could reasonably be viewed as fair use.  The wholesale reproduction
> >of his works in Wikibooks would probably not be.  The difference is in
> >the application in the substantiality rule of fair use law.
> >
> >Of course, it doesn't help to know that some of Escher's works MAY be in
> >the public domain, but it's not up to us to research and make that case
> >on behalf of the uploader.


I have one or two books with his works. Afaik there are no works of Escher
in the PD.

>
> >Ec
> >
> I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing
> list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka
> Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art
> works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since
> 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only
> justification for their inclusion?


Not me. I have three paper encyclopedias, none of them mentions anything on
the source of photographs.

I have asked this question repeatedly, and the deafing silence on the
> response is leading me to strongly think that there is no major
> publisher who would want to touch these kind of images in the first
> place without formally contacting the copyright owner in advance and
> obtaining permission to use these sorts of images.  I can't imagine even
> a book about modern art that is being used as a textbook (by any
> publisher selling to a college market) that would go into critical depth
> about a few iconic works of modern art that would be using fair use
> rationale for reproducing that artwork.


Any serious publisher has its own library of photos. Both big and small
publishers employ their own illustrators or have a pool of free lancers they
employ. I once had a question from a publisher asking permission to use one
of my photos in a book, so smaller ones also tend to look around on the web.
They dont suffer from paranoia, but they certainly do a good job of checking
the copyright status of anything they use.


Having been published by Prentice-Hall for a Spanish-language textbook
> suppliment where I was a co-author, I vaguely remember this issue coming
> up when I was working with my main editor.  Fortunately, I was given
> access to an image repository that was owned by the textbook publisher,
> and had so much content that trying to find something that might have
> pushed the envelope was more a waste of time for me.
>
> I do know that copyright paranoia is hardly the best way to describe the
> attitude they had regarding the content we were putting together.  It
> was more like copyright insanity where they were questioning nearly
> every word that was written, and in my case every word that was used in
> the software code (it was a CD-ROM suppliment).  The rationale that is
> being used here by some Wikipedia users wouldn't have been tolerated for
> 5 minues if they had tried to get away with some of the more
> questionable images and been working for this particular publisher.


I agree 100%.

--
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>