Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
why the coitus do you care!!
copyright is outdated especially on the net.........
they should be HAPPY that someone is interested enough to put their info into WIKI!!!!
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 2,237
Threads: 275
Joined: Feb 2001
Reputation:
33
Quote:why the coitus do you care!!
copyright is outdated especially on the net.....
Trust me, you do care if you make a living from writing and publishing.
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
Yes i understand that part of course Mike!!! and more than you might think...... work in the film industry myself......
however what i see on the WIKI site is just a medieval picture from an old manuscript showing a paddle wheel boat supposed to be Roman and supposed to have been copied from a relief no one has ever seen since.........
that is what i mean.............
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
OK, Re-think.
Stefan, you're in the clear here. I think. Probably.  //www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/NDcopyright.html:qiw6vaue]This is a page by Luke Ueda (on his Notitia Dignitatum website) about the whole issue[/url]. It's not 100% water-tight (I would not publish a book in the UK using these images), but it comes down to the fact that the taking of a picture of a non-copyrighted object does not mean a renewed copyright.
Under US law, reproductions, in the sense of an as-true-to-the-original-as-possible copy, in the case here as colour transparencies (ie. slides), cannot confer a new copyright.
Under Australian law, the "sweat of the brow" approach essentially rewards the effort that goes into making a work: the work need not have any "creative spark" to be "original".
Or, in this case - the Bodleian making a slide image from the DRB images (or the ND) does not create a new copyright since it took (according to the author of this page) not enough effort to do that. But if the Bodleian would argue that it had taken them weeks to created the pictures with difficulty, the case would be different in Australia.
Posts: 2,237
Threads: 275
Joined: Feb 2001
Reputation:
33
Quote:OK, Re-think.
Stefan, you're in the clear here. I think. Probably. This is a page by Luke Ueda (on his Notitia Dignitatum website) about the whole issue. It's not 100% water-tight
Holed below the water-line, I'd have said ;-)
The problem is not just one of legal interpretation (and anyone in the UK wanting to make use of these images should make sure they know a very good copyright lawyer) but one of perception of being seen to be doing the right thing. Muggins here has dutifully gone through the whole license fee business acquiring images for books (like B&C2, although most of those were favours from generous friends), but what is to stop somebody using those DRB images to get a publishable colour plate out of it (trust me, I have the technology, and so have others) and what is that going to do to the Bod's attitude to licensing images of its works? I have photos I took of tombstones in Köln museum which are my copyright, but I was allowed to take them on the understanding that I did not publish them, so I don't (I even ask occasionally, just in case they've mellowed;-). The point is that by doing so I could screw things up for others. That is what I mean by 'perception of being seen to be doing the right thing'.
Okay, enough of this; the images exist, I think they're way too dodgy, others don't. The end.
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
The is also the issue of copyright in the display itself. Even though one might argue that a photo of the item in question is not copyrighted by the museum, the very act of taking a pile of objects and arranging them in an original layout is. Any photo taken of any item in this display without permission is also a violation of copyright. One might argue that if the item in question was moved by the photographer before taking the photo then it is no longer part of the museum's original layout and hence no longer covered by this aspect of copyright.
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
nonsense!
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Quote:nonsense!
And your argument, m'lord?
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
From the 'Copyright and the Notitia Dignitatum' page:
Quote:The following remarks are merely my own understanding of the situation, and legally speaking are worth exactly what you are paying to read them: ie. nothing whatsoever. If you want legal advice, you will need to speak to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
Quote:the very act of taking a pile of objects and arranging them in an original layout is.
An original composition.
'Nuff said.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
I'm moving this to OT - subject seems to be copyright, not the DRB.
Posts: 2,462
Threads: 93
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
If I go to a museum, photograph one of their displays, and put it on the internet on a personal or hobby page and write some article about how i liked the museum, who will sue me?
even if i put it in WIKI............
this is a silly discussion .
M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.
Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!
H.J.Vrielink.
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Well I'm glad you find it silly - anything for a laugh. But you know our 'own' Dick Bruna? that cuddly artist who draws that cuddly Nijntje? he sued a Dutch hobby Nijntje fan-site. it happens, even if you can't imagine so.
Copyright is a real issue that threatens the liberties we're accustomed to on the internet. And frankly, blatant breaches of copyright don't do good to the cause of those who advocate a free internet without restrictions.
Copyright does exist. 'Uncopyrightable' images may exist, but I'm afraid that they're mostly wishful thinking than real. For instance, Stefan claimed that images of certain events were uncopyrightable. Well, in my opinion that's not the case. The example of the Hindenburg disaster may be an unlucky one - that happened a long time ago. Much depends on whether the owners claim copyright or not. If you publish your picture on an internet forum without any claim, that almost certainly makes it free to use. But images of, say, 9-11, published with copyright claims, are certainly not free of copyright, despite the subject.
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:For instance, Stefan claimed that images of certain events were uncopyrightable.
One thing some aren't considering is, why should I pay out the travel expenses, the cost of the camera, film/data card, my own personal time or my employers, the cost of the PC and software, just to have someone use it as they wish without notifying or telling me, or even contributing to those costs? In most cases without even a simple credit.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 1,313
Threads: 193
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
4
Since it hadn't been mentioned yet...that is one of the key terms for those who argue 'not copyrightable':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Posts: 1,030
Threads: 149
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Does this mean that if an image is on the web and someone copies it ( exactly i.e. by download ) that is then their image to use ?
I had it in mind that if someone posted a copyrighted ppicture on the web it did not put in the public demain for anyone else to use ?????
I assumed also that if I were to copy a picture by hand i.e. by a line derawing of a photo of a statue it is mine to use as i like ?
Conal Moran
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
|
