4 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
4 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is this copyfraud?

by joe golfer
3 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
This site takes many public domain art images and places a watermark on them as well as a warning not to use the image for commercial work:
The End of the Day - Georges Laugee - WikiGallery.org, the largest gallery in the world

http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/pain...e%2C-The-Dance

Courts in the US have ruled that images of public domain works cannot be copyrighted. Georges Laugee died in 1928 and Henri de Toulouse-Letrec died in 1901.

Is this site committing copyfraud?
Copyfraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    This was on the same webpage as your first link.

    Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d'Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement that rule of the shorter term.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9892160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    While I deal with copyrights on a daily basis I am not an expert in copyfraud, and I have not yet read the 75 page Jason Mazzone Copyfraud paper. That said, as you can see, they are not claiming copyright but apparently they seem to be putting restrictions on use (trying to, at least) and they are telling us not to remove the watermark and it could be for a couple of reasons.

    #1 They want users to be *safe* (just in case a work is copyrighted somehow, somewhere - longer copyright term etc. and/or they are telling us not to use an image commercially because of a real likeness that may or may not be portrayed (no release)) If they are not actually checking the country that the work was originally copyrighted in it may just be a heavy handed general disclaimer.

    #2 They want to slow sharing and/or reposting to other sites etc., and if the images are shared they want that site advertising intact.

    #3 That don't remove watermark or warning thing I think is an empty can of BS...if it's true public domain we can do as we please, just like they can.

    Laugee was French so I assume his paintings were covered under French copyright law, which I believe is life plus 70 years, or 25 years past the publishing date if published posthumously.

    So are they committing copyfraud? I suspect many will say they are. In the U.S. and many other countries you can't simply change the medium of public domain material and claim a new copyright and/or place restrictions, but in a few countries the laws regarding this sort of thing are a bit murkier.

    While this is not directly applicable, it is interesting enough to check out anyway:

    UK National Portrait Gallery threatens Wikipedia over scans of its public domain art

    Britain's National Portrait Gallery is threatening to sue Wikipedia for including some of its high-rez scans of public domain portraits. In Britain, copyright law apparently gives a new copyright to someone who produces an image full of public domain material, effectively creating perpetual copyright for a museum that owns the original image, since they can decide who gets to copy it and then set terms on those copies that prevent them being treated as public domain.
    http://boingboing.net/2009/07/20/uk-...-portrait.html

    On another completely unrelated note, while Wikigallery is not claiming copyright, compilations can be copyrighted...but that does not restrict people from using the individual public domain works contained within the compilation.

    Compilations

    Compilations of data or compilations of preexisting works (also known as “collective
    works”) may also be copyrightable if the materials are selected, coordinated,
    or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes
    a new work. When the collecting of the preexisting material that makes up the
    compilation is a purely mechanical task with no element of original selection,
    coordination, or arrangement, such as a white-pages telephone directory, copyright
    protection for the compilation is not available. Some examples of compilations
    that may be copyrightable are:

    • A directory of the best services in a geographic region
    • A list of the best short stories of 2011
    • A collection of sound recordings of the top hits of 2004
    • A book of greatest news photos
    • A website containing text, photos, and graphics
    http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

    So, Joe... It appears as if Wikigallery (not related to Wikipedia) is running right up to the line and they *may* be crossing it. I have watermarked public domain photos with a website name in the past, but I have not put any kind or restriction warning on the photos, and I never state that you can't remove the website watermark from the photos.

    Below is a nice digital image of that Laugee painting complete with the great texture and no watermarks.

    http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artw...013&size=large

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9892240].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author joe golfer
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post


      UK National Portrait Gallery threatens Wikipedia over scans of its public domain art

      Britain's National Portrait Gallery is threatening to sue Wikipedia for including some of its high-rez scans of public domain portraits. In Britain, copyright law apparently gives a new copyright to someone who produces an image full of public domain material, effectively creating perpetual copyright for a museum that owns the original image, since they can decide who gets to copy it and then set terms on those copies that prevent them being treated as public domain.
      Thanks for the info. I was looking for other opinions because I just LOLd when I first saw their watermark. But you made some good points on why they would want to do that.

      The British situation you mention above is interesting. I only just learned last week about their "sweat of the brow" concept:

      [/QUOTE]
      UK copyright law

      Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, for copyright to subsist in a work, that work must be original. However, courts have not adopted a literal reading of this requirement. For over a hundred years, English courts have held that a significant expenditure of labour is sufficient. The consequence of this is that if A makes a work, in which copyright subsists, and B subsequently adds his skill, judgement and labour, altering the form of A's work, B will potentially have a copyright in the work he produces. This suggests that copyright is not about protecting ideas, because one can acquire a copyright by expending skill, labour, and judgement, but no creativity or inventiveness.


      However, in March 2012, a case was taken to the European Court of Justice, in which Football DataCo claimed copyright infringement over web sites which were reproducing match schedules from several major football leagues. Football DataCo asserted that these schedules were copyrighted works due to the skill and labour involved in their preparation, and that the company was given exclusive rights to license their reproduction. Based on its interpretation of British law, the court rejected the notion that labour and skill was enough to grant protection to a work, since "unless the procedures for creating the lists concerned as described by the national court are supplemented by elements reflecting originality in the selection or arrangement of the data contained in those lists, they do not suffice for those lists to be protected by the copyright laid down in the directive."[5]


      [/QUOTE]


      Sweat of the brow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


      Seems a little misguided to me but that's how they do it.
      Signature
      Marketing is not a battle of products. It is a battle of perceptions.
      - Jack Trout
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9893096].message }}

Trending Topics