Re: [WikiEN-l] copyright on old paintings - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Re: [WikiEN-l] copyright on old paintings

copyright on old paintings

Re: [WikiEN-l] threats and abuse...

daniwo59＠aol.com

24 Aug 2003 24 Aug '03

4 p.m.

It's not the painting that is copyrighted but the photgraph of the painting. Unless the book is from before 1923, I would not suggest it. Danny

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 428 bytes)

Reply

Show replies by date

Steve Vertigum

24 Aug 24 Aug

5:43 p.m.

New subject: copyright on old paintings

LOL. How can it be proved that photograph x came from source n? If its the exact same size, and the color histogram matches etc... it might be legally sound. But simply changing a size doesnt wipe the tracks completely, and the obvious issue is do we actually need to *cite a source for all our material -- to prove that it didnt come from source n, by having proof that it did come from source p... Is there any clarity, dear copyright gurus, on this particular distinction? Isnt this a case where altering images (even a little) could be standard protocol to cover this particular track? Happy Sunday/Monday -S- --- daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:

It's not the painting that is copyrighted but the photgraph of the painting. Unless the book is from before 1923, I would not suggest it. Danny

_______________________________________________

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:28 p.m.

New subject: copyright on old paintings

Steve Vertigum wrote:

LOL. How can it be proved that photograph x came from source n? If its the exact same size, and the color histogram matches etc... it might be legally sound. But simply changing a size doesnt wipe the tracks completely, and the obvious issue is do we actually need to *cite a source for all our material -- to prove that it didnt come from source n, by having proof that it did come from source p... Is there any clarity, dear copyright gurus, on this particular distinction? Isnt this a case where altering images (even a little) could be standard protocol to cover this particular track? --- daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote: >It's not the painting that is copyrighted but the >photgraph of the painting. >Unless the book is from before 1923, I would not >suggest it. >

I would be inclined to favour the position that a point and click reproduction of a famous out of original copyright painting is not copyrightable because it does not add anything original to the painting. What's the case law on this sort of thing? Ec

Reply

Alex R.

9:01 p.m.

New subject: copyright on old paintings

See Bridgeman Art Library ltd. v. Corel Corp. SDNY (1999) 36 F. Supp. 2d 191. You can read the case here: http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html Copyright of photographs of works that are in the public domain are not original enough to afford them protection under US copyright law, even when such works might be protected in other countries that afford greater protection than US law. I haven't heard of any jurisprudence that has overturned this ruling; as far as I can tell it is still generally accepted. Feel free to correct me if anyone has any other citations. alex756 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge(a)telus.net>

I would be inclined to favour the position that a point and click reproduction of a famous out of original copyright painting is not copyrightable because it does not add anything original to the painting. What's the case law on this sort of thing? Ec

Reply

Delirium

11:10 p.m.

New subject: copyright on old paintings

Alex R. wrote:

See Bridgeman Art Library ltd. v. Corel Corp. SDNY (1999) 36 F. Supp. 2d 191. You can read the case here: http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html Copyright of photographs of works that are in the public domain are not original enough to afford them protection under US copyright law, even when such works might be protected in other countries that afford greater protection than US law. I haven't heard of any jurisprudence that has overturned this ruling; as far as I can tell it is still generally accepted. Feel free to correct me if anyone has any other citations.

This, along with the typeface copyright issues (typefaces are not copyrightable in the US, but are copyrightable in the UK and Germany), makes it seem like Wikipedia essentially has to remain hosted in the US, and is problematic for overseas distribution and mirroring. If we have to strip out all our images of fontfaces (see [[A]], [[B]], etc., and [[typefaces]], for some examples), and all our images of public domain paintings in order to redistribute in Germany or the UK, that would be quite problematic. -Mark

Reply

erik_moeller＠gmx.de

11:22 p.m.

New subject: copyright on old paintings

Delirium-

This, along with the typeface copyright issues (typefaces are not copyrightable in the US, but are copyrightable in the UK and Germany), makes it seem like Wikipedia essentially has to remain hosted in the US,

Wikipedia should be hosted in the country which has the most liberal policies overall concerning information. Currently, that country is still the United States. As for public domain paintings, these should be no problem in Germany either. We have similar doctrines to the US concerning the amount of expressive content required to make a work copyrightable. Regards, Erik

Reply

7573

days inactive

7573

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

5 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Alex R.
daniwo59＠aol.com
Delirium
erik_moeller＠gmx.de
Ray Saintonge
Steve Vertigum