Hi all --
Please 'scuse the phone numbers on my last -- if there's any way to
edit out that part, I'd really appreciate it.
Here's my question. As you know, we've had LOTS of images uploaded
lately. Since Isis was one of the people doing a lot of uploading, I
asked her about the copyright. She claimed that,
"Yes, they're in the public domain because I've put them there now. I
created them from works that were not under copyright, most of which
(the paintings and such) were created 100s of years ago, and my work in
creating and manipulating the digital images makes them my own
work-product, just as a photographer owns the rights to the pictures he
takes but not whatever he takes the picture of."
Montrealis then asked about the use of videotape covers, etc, and this
was the response:
"They fall under the "fair use" doctrine for documenting sources in
scholarly works but, even if they didn't, the remedy for infringement is
disgorgement of the profits, and there are none here. (The covers are
like your face: When you're in public, anyone who wants to can take a
picture of you, but if they try to use it to make money, you can either
stop them from using it or make them pay you what they got from using
it.) But the question is academic, because as a practical matter it's
free publicity to entities that live on publicity. And if you've ever
tried to report bootleg tapes to the companies that own the rights, you
know that they don't care." isis
The thing is, this just sounds wrong to me, based on personal
experience. When I wrote my dissertation, University Microfilms was
very clear on using images from other sources. I couldn't. Not even my
own re-workings from reproductions of old maps. Isis may be a
lawyer and correct about all of this, but it just sounds iffy to me,
especially in light of the second answer, which sounds like "it could
be, but they won't prosecute".
Does anyone have a definite answer?
Jules