"Permission required" on copyright expired images...

[Steve Bennett-8]

Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm

It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
(ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use
requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."

1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright
expired?
3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
one knows who owns the copyright?

I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer,
imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume
the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
> http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
>
> It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
> (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use
> requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
>
> 1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
> 2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
> demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright
> expired?
> 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
> one knows who owns the copyright?
>
> I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer,
> imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume
> the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.

Taken 1903. Assume photographer was 20 or so. Died aged 80, some 60
years later. You can't assume it has been 70 years since the
photographer died. However, as you don't know the photographer, some
other rule applies. In this case, there probably was a record
somewhere of who the photographer was (probably a news photographer
attending the opening of this railway), or where the photograph first
appeared (probably a newspaper), but it seems this information has
been lost over the years.

The simplest answer is often to contact the people who have published
this image and ask them about the history and provenance of the image.
This requires being friendly, rather than starting out by saying you
intend to demand the right to use the photo (even if you are right,
you still need to be polite if you want people to give you the
information you want).

"What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
one knows who owns the copyright?"

We have categories of photos like that on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_files_with_unknown_copyright_status

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_a_rationale_but_unknown_copyright_status

Those are usually uploads of contemporary pictures, but there are also
large numbers of historical pictures where people fail to fill in the
paperwork, or no-one knows the true copyright status, and such
pictures usually get deleted anyway, out of some sense of needing to
keep things tidy, I suppose, and a failure to realise that for
historical photos, the provenance is not always known. It is something
that Wikipedia needs to tackle, I think. Excluding a large swath of
historical photos because they have poor provenance will make
Wikipedia more verifiable, but less informative.

I can't find the category I was thinking of. It had pictures like that
one of a funny-shaped car.

Some of the old NFCC discussions might help as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_41#Unknown_copyright_holder.3F

If I find that category I was thinking of, I'll post it here.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[James Alexander-3]

It looks like the rule in Australia is currently life of the creator +70 for
public domain but actually thats very new (2005) and before that it was only
50 years after death so anything where the creator died after 1958/9 should
be public domain. (
http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/Australian_Copyright_Blog_Guide.pdf
page
77) In the US anything published before 1923 is public domain already
automatically (which that picture sure seems to be with the date). Between
1923-1949 IF it was published with a copyright notice it can be extended up
to 95 years from published date but thats 28 years with a 47 year renewal
and a 20 year extension (most arts were NOT renewed and so expired after 28
years)http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf
<http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf>So long story short, I think it's
almost guaranteed to be in the public domain... Under both US and Australian
law. I'm not sure why they are trying to claim that you need permission to
use it. The Australian law actually says if the goverment was the one who
published it first (possible) that it's only 50 years from publication
regardless of the authors death date so then it's even more likely it's in
the public domain.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable then I will respond but It looks like
it's in the public domain to me but you may want to shoot them an email or
something to ask about it.

... and Edit Conflict while looking for links another email response just
came in from Carcharoth Oh well I'm going to send anyway so that you get the
links :)

-Jamesofur

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
> http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
>
> It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
> (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use
> requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
>
> 1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
> 2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
> demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright
> expired?
> 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
> one knows who owns the copyright?
>
> I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer,
> imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume
> the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
James Alexander

aim-jralex17
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sarah Ewart-2]

Steve, that image is now PD in Australia. In Australia, the copyright of
photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955 has expired and they are now in
the public domain. The template for using PD Australian images on Wikipedia
is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia and Commons -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia.

There's some old discussion about the Australian libraries claiming
permission requirements for reuse under the first section on the talk page
of the template on Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australia>).
It seems to be pretty much standard now for the Australian libraries (and
other cultural institutions) to have similar permission notes on their
websites, but sometimes their permission requirements are just ensuring they
get credit for where the image came from and backlinks to their site.



On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
> http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
>
> It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
> (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use
> requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
>
> 1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
> 2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
> demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright
> expired?
> 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
> one knows who owns the copyright?
>
> I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer,
> imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume
> the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

Is that "date taken" or "date published"? This is why provenance of
photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is
important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this
photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed
dates are mixed up. Also, the location where something is published
can be important.

To cut a long story short, the more details you have, the better. The
fewer details you have, the more difficult it is to be definitive
about anything. And the requirements at Wikipedia and Commons for as
many details as possible, and a tendency to delete if any of those
details are missing, can make it difficult sometime.

Carcharoth

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Sarah Ewart <sarahewart@...> wrote:

> Steve, that image is now PD in Australia. In Australia, the copyright of
> photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955 has expired and they are now in
> the public domain. The template for using PD Australian images on Wikipedia
> is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia and Commons -
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia.
>
> There's some old discussion about the Australian libraries claiming
> permission requirements for reuse under the first section on the talk page
> of the template on Wikipedia
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australia>).
> It seems to be pretty much standard now for the Australian libraries (and
> other cultural institutions) to have similar permission notes on their
> websites, but sometimes their permission requirements are just ensuring they
> get credit for where the image came from and backlinks to their site.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:
>
>> Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
>> http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
>>
>> It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
>> (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use
>> requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
>>
>> 1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
>> 2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
>> demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright
>> expired?
>> 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
>> one knows who owns the copyright?
>>
>> I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer,
>> imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume
>> the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sarah Ewart-2]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...>wrote:

> Is that "date taken" or "date published"? This is why provenance of
> photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is
> important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this
> photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed
> dates are mixed up. Also, the location where something is published
> can be important.


If the photographer is known, it's 'taken before 1 Jan 1955'.  If the
photographer is not known or they are anonymous or pseudonymous, it's 'taken
or published before 1 Jan 1955'.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.

http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581

"To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due
acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to
publish is obtained prior to publication."
"All requests for permission to publish should be made in writing, giving
details of the item/s required and their proposed use. The requirement for
permission to publish is based on ownership, not copyright, to ensure
copyright and donor provisions are met, the State Library of South Australia
receives due acknowledgement and promotion for use of material from its
collections, material is cited in a way that ensures it can be found by
other researchers."

Am I the only one who follows links?
http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Sarah Ewart <sarahewart@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...
> >wrote:
>
> > Is that "date taken" or "date published"? This is why provenance of
> > photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is
> > important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this
> > photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed
> > dates are mixed up. Also, the location where something is published
> > can be important.
>
>
> If the photographer is known, it's 'taken before 1 Jan 1955'.  If the
> photographer is not known or they are anonymous or pseudonymous, it's
> 'taken
> or published before 1 Jan 1955'.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
>
> http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
>
> "To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due
> acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to
> publish is obtained prior to publication."

Right, this is the issue I raised at the start. The library "requires"
permission - but on what basis? If the image is public domain, and
someone else copies it and republishes it - where do they stand? If
it's not copyright infringement, what is it? Contract violation? On
the basis that you used the website and agreed to the library's terms
and conditions, and have now violated them?

Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see
there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher
quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa
it.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Good point.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> > Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
> >
> > http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
> >
> > "To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due
> > acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to
> > publish is obtained prior to publication."
>
> Right, this is the issue I raised at the start. The library "requires"
> permission - but on what basis? If the image is public domain, and
> someone else copies it and republishes it - where do they stand? If
> it's not copyright infringement, what is it? Contract violation? On
> the basis that you used the website and agreed to the library's terms
> and conditions, and have now violated them?
>
> Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see
> there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher
> quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa
> it.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Liam Wyatt]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> > Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
> >
> > http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
> >
> > "To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due
> > acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to
> > publish is obtained prior to publication."
>

This is absolutely standard, at least in Australia. For example, see the
permission statement here <http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn3696029>(National
Library of Australia) and here
<http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/item/itemLarge.aspx?itemID=6984>(State Library of
New South Wales). They both state words to the effect of "you may use this
for yourself but you must ask permission for anything else. This is a
standard statement placed on every single record item in the collection of
institutions because, more often than not, they have made a risk-assessment
that they do not want to advise people about the copyright status of an item
in case someone complains/sues. So, they will only give copyright advice in
private and on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, because there is no metadata
field about copyright status, this "you must ask us permission" statement
appears next to every single item in the catalogues.

This issue is raised in GLAM-WIKI recommendations "Law section - to GLAM -
number 2: "Pro-actively publish the copyright status of specific content in
the online collection rather than blanket access statements for the whole
collection. Give guidelines for users to make their own copyright
assessment" and number 4: "Remove the policy that requires users to ask
permission for use of public domain content."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_Recommendations

>
> Right, this is the issue I raised at the start. The library "requires"
> permission - but on what basis? If the image is public domain, and
> someone else copies it and republishes it - where do they stand? If
> it's not copyright infringement, what is it? Contract violation? On
> the basis that you used the website and agreed to the library's terms
> and conditions, and have now violated them?
>

Precisely. The approach is taken directly from the institution's policies
about making copies and access with regards to the physical object and
applied online. That is, there is an assumption when you go to a museum or
library that you must abide by the rules of the organisation - the
conditions of entry (e.g. no flash photography). So, these conditions of
entry now become the "terms of use" online... They assume that by accessing
their website then you are under an implied contractual agreement.

>
> Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see
> there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher
> quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa
> it.
>

It's rarely the case that the museum/library owns the copyright to the
objects in their collection therefore it is not up to them to chose
Creative-Commons - they don't have the right. But, what happens instead is
that if you purchase a high resolution of something in their collection they
will give it to you only if you sign a contract detailing the ways you are
allowed to use the item. This contract is legal (perhaps immoral, but legal)
and is a way of creating copyright-like restrictions where otherwise they
would have expired. (however this contract is not binding on third parties
who come across the re-publication).

This issue is raised in GLAM-WIKI recommendations "Law section - to GLAM -
number 8: "Remove "clickwrap" and contracts which place copyright-like
restrictions on public domain content."

-Liam [[witty lama]]
wittylama.com/blog


>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Chris Down-2]

> Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see
> there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher
> quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa
> it.

Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself, a
"work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply
resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore,
licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or
whatever) is simply not possible

Also:

"The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not
> copyright"


Does ownership actually allow you to supersede copyright like this? Surely
not.

- Chris
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Chris Down
<neuro.wikipedia@...> wrote:

>> Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see
>> there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher
>> quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa
>> it.
>
> Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself, a
> "work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply
> resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore,
> licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or
> whatever) is simply not possible

What I was getting at, is that the image you see on the web is low
quality. Since it is a different form of the original PD image, you
presumably can do what you want with it. If you want to do something
with the high quality image, you're going to have to get it from them
- regardless of what the copyright situation. (Just like galleries
prevent you taking photos - the images may be PD, but if you can't
physically get a copy, that doesn't help you.)

My reasoning may be totally wrong, I'm just trying to explain my
thought process.

> Also:
>
> "The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not
>> copyright"
>
>
> Does ownership actually allow you to supersede copyright like this? Surely
> not.

That's what I want to know. They're effectively asserting that they
have the right to set conditions on your use of the work. I would like
to know on what basis they make that claim. What I'm presuming is it's
just based on the fact that they physically control the high quality
versions of the work, which means that once you physically get a copy,
they're not in a position to stop you. But again, I could be well and
truly wrong.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Magnus Manske-2]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

>> Also:
>>
>> "The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not
>>> copyright"
>>
>>
>> Does ownership actually allow you to supersede copyright like this? Surely
>> not.
>
> That's what I want to know. They're effectively asserting that they
> have the right to set conditions on your use of the work. I would like
> to know on what basis they make that claim. What I'm presuming is it's
> just based on the fact that they physically control the high quality
> versions of the work, which means that once you physically get a copy,
> they're not in a position to stop you. But again, I could be well and
> truly wrong.

If the image is PD, you can take a copy and do whatever you want with
it. They can see that as a breach of their conditions for you using
their page, and can try to block you from doing it again (IP
filtering, password protection, whatnot). Legally, there's nothing
they can do (IANAL).

Cheers
Magnus

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Chris Down
<neuro.wikipedia@...> wrote:

>> Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see
>> there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher
>> quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa
>> it.
>
> Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself, a
> "work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply
> resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore,
> licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or
> whatever) is simply not possible

Legally, I think you are correct, but in *practice* different-sized
images are used very differently and this is reflected in how they are
(in the commercial world) priced very differently. There is also
sometimes more effort and labour involved in producing a
high-resolution image (i.e. when careful scanning using hi-tech
equipment is involved, as opposed to changing a setting on a digital
camera).

Consider a close-up of a high-res picture, showing previously unseen
detail. The same close-up, with a low-res picture, would be a
pixellated mess. Ask people if the images are different, and they
would say "yes". So while they are both from the same "work", they are
different images. They contain different sets of data and the
information contained in that data is different. Sometimes
high-resolution images will show you things that are not obvious to
the naked eye when looking at the original.

And high-resolution images are the ones used in print media, and to
produce large poster-sized images in adverts. That is where the money
side of things comes in. Low-resolution images are useless for most
print purposes.

So while none of this strictly relates to copyright, it does relates
to the financial side of things, so it is unsurprising that people
want to protect any investment they made have made in producing
high-resolution images. That is something that can be sometimes
forgotten by those taking a stand on the 'free culture' side of
things. We are used to seeing others benefit from the fruit of our
labours. Others are not.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jay Litwyn-2]

"Steve Bennett" <stevagewp@...> wrote in message
news:b8ceeef70909172048yc896bagb11452fdc30452bb@......

> Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
> http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
>
> It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
> (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use
> requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
>
> 1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
> 2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
> demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright
> expired?
> 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
> one knows who owns the copyright?
>
> I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer,
> imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume
> the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.

I do not know, man. I was reading information from one lawyer saying,
effectively, that I could use a Sherman Brothers' lyric with my own tune--
It would not even be a derivative work in legal terms. Then, I hear on
the radio that Coldplay settled out of court because they used someone
else's tune for their lyrics. Could be they would've won in the States and
lost in Canada.

In a similar vein, the wikipedia decision on whether patents on MP3
encoders and players hav expired is either out of date or not
internationally applicable. (Last year I saw was 2007). A lot more MP3
hardware is out there
than there is of OGG.
_______
Create a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Mathematicians do it in fields.
Words you do not want to hear from your driver: "Watch This!".
Where in the war does Micro$oft want to take me today?




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Actually the Bundesarchiv did something along those lines with 100,000
images last December.  They owned unambiguous copyright over the collection
so they relicensed medium resolution versions under CC-by-sa and uploaded
those to Commons while they retained full copyright over the high resolution
versions.

Of course Germany isn't Australia, and WMF servers are in the States, and
the readers of this list are scattered across a variety of countries.  It
bears repeating that cultural institutions have been asserting a variety of
innovative claims in order to assert proprietary control over media in their
collections.  One runs into these kinds of obstacles all the time when
working with historic media.  The claims range across copyright and contract
law, often entering untested areas.

There are basically four ways of responding:
1. Ignore the claims and use the material.
Probably nothing bad will happen to you although you might win the 'lottery'
and end up in the same legal position as Derrick Coetzee.  Do you want to
risk that hassle?

2. Jump through the institution's hoops.
You may have qualms about acting in ways that validate an assertion of
rights that you basically disagree with, but if the requirement isn't very
onerous it's one clear way of avoiding problems later on.  In the particular
instance of this library, part of the 'permission' requirement amounts to an
offer to have the staff research copyright status.  If it would take about
the same effort to do that research yourself then it might be worthwhile.

3. Back away sheepishly.
Not very satisfying, but safe.

4. Persuade the staff to change policy.
This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time.  A
group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward that
end.  We've had some successes and are gaining momentum.  For more
information see the open letter I coauthored for Signpost in July.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Open_letter

And one of our subsequent successes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-10/Tropenmuseum_partnership

If this sounds intriguing, write to me off list.  Especially if you happen
to live near Montreal, Canada or Santa Barbara, California. ;)

-Durova

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Chris Down
> <neuro.wikipedia@...> wrote:
> >> Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see
> >> there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher
> >> quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa
> >> it.
> >
> > Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself,
> a
> > "work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply
> > resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore,
> > licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or
> > whatever) is simply not possible
>
> Legally, I think you are correct, but in *practice* different-sized
> images are used very differently and this is reflected in how they are
> (in the commercial world) priced very differently. There is also
> sometimes more effort and labour involved in producing a
> high-resolution image (i.e. when careful scanning using hi-tech
> equipment is involved, as opposed to changing a setting on a digital
> camera).
>
> Consider a close-up of a high-res picture, showing previously unseen
> detail. The same close-up, with a low-res picture, would be a
> pixellated mess. Ask people if the images are different, and they
> would say "yes". So while they are both from the same "work", they are
> different images. They contain different sets of data and the
> information contained in that data is different. Sometimes
> high-resolution images will show you things that are not obvious to
> the naked eye when looking at the original.
>
> And high-resolution images are the ones used in print media, and to
> produce large poster-sized images in adverts. That is where the money
> side of things comes in. Low-resolution images are useless for most
> print purposes.
>
> So while none of this strictly relates to copyright, it does relates
> to the financial side of things, so it is unsurprising that people
> want to protect any investment they made have made in producing
> high-resolution images. That is something that can be sometimes
> forgotten by those taking a stand on the 'free culture' side of
> things. We are used to seeing others benefit from the fruit of our
> labours. Others are not.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@...> wrote:
> This is absolutely standard, at least in Australia. For example, see the

<snip>

Thanks for that informative reply, that was really helpful. I wish I'd
gone to GLAM-WIKI, I probably could have gotten work to pay for it
too...

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> 4. Persuade the staff to change policy.
> This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time.  A
> group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward that
> end.  We've had some successes and are gaining momentum.  For

Interesting, what's in it for them? They're giving up control over
their "property", but what do they get in return?

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Most of these institutions have a mission to inform the public.  Openness
helps fulfill that mission.  In the Bundesarchiv's case, donation of 100,000
images significantly increased their sales of images.  That may seem
counterintuitive but if an organization is smart about it everyone
benefits.  We're working to build synergies.  Various kinds of synergies can
develop.  That's one of them.

-Durova

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> > 4. Persuade the staff to change policy.
> > This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time.  A
> > group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward
> that
> > end.  We've had some successes and are gaining momentum.  For
>
> Interesting, what's in it for them? They're giving up control over
> their "property", but what do they get in return?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l