[Wikipedia-l] Image usage

Sun Mar 9 15:31:33 UTC 2003

> All images on that site are drawings from a 1905 field guide, and so
> they should be public domain. BUT all images were (as they describe on
> their page) scanned and reworked with a graphics tool in order to
> change contrast, lightness and hue. I don't know, if this makes the
> owners of the website new copyright holders.

If the page doesnt say copyrighted ... (sometimes its only on the home
page..... ) it should be fair game.. especially if you know the original
source, and... if you modify the image a bit yourself... Look at the Redd
Foxx portrait which i merged from two crappier photos I found on the web...
neither one of these can directly be tied to this one, and theirs were rip-
offs anyway... But either way, Ive run across a few images that were
questionable in origin, and the solution to removing any tie to the original
is to modify the image... Explanation:
A company I worked for was engaged in the shady business of scanning other
peoples high-end catalogs for use of the images on the web. After consulting
a lawyer, who said that it was ok to use the images provided there were
seven changes made to them... seven degrees of removal from the original...
I don't know if this holds water well enough for here.. (Most places dont
worry at all...)   but... in the strictest sense, its not hard to alter a
photo with a few different operations... 豎眩:sv