Biocrawler talk:Copyright FAQ

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

Because the servers are located in the United States, Biocrawler is subject to US copyright law in this matter.

Could something be added explaining what the situation will be when the new servers are installed in France please. It is believed these will be squid caches. Angela. 14:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The last section (fair use) is incomplete right now. I'll see what I can do though. →Raul654 15:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Photos from concerts which ban photo-ing... 2 Copyrighted Art 3 links 4 U.S. renewal records 5 Borrowing images 6 Nursing diagnoses 7 Scanning PD images from copyrighted book 8 Misleading example removed

Photos from concerts which ban photo-ing...

I posted this to Biocrawler talk:Copyrights but got no answer. Perhaps this is a better place?

(William M. Connolley 09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)) If I take pictures at a concert which bans (in the programme, say) photos of the artists but clearly takes no action to enforce this; am I then able to release those pictures under GFDL for use in wikipedia?

(This is not legal advice) - If you took the picture, you own the copyright. If it's an outdoor event, they really have no recourse to stop you from publishing it. Basically, they can kick you out of the concert, but that's about all they can do. I think girls gone wild adjudicated a similiar suit. →Raul654 21:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)) OK, thanks for that. I shall upload some to wiki once I get my video capture properly sorted out and see what people think.

Copyrighted Art

Which tag is preferable for images of copyrighted works of visual art? I'm not very good with legalese, so I would also like a very plain explanation of what would be involved in using such a license? I would also like to know if there are any special stipulations for photographs of sculptures and buildings? Justin Foote 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James and I wrote the Biocrawler:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted. →Raul654 03:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

First thing to say is that if the work of art is sufficiently old it will have passed into the public domain (q.v. that article for the details of what "sufficiently old" means). As for works of art that actually are copyrighted, the same goes as for any other image — the copyright holder has to license them for use, and then on the image description page you need to state this license. As for your other question, displaying a photo of a sculpture or building doesn't violate the "copyright" of that sculpture or building. (Warning, entirely irrelevant fact: in North Korea if you take a picture of a statue it has to be from the front and include the entire body in the frame). If you took the photo you can choose to license it as you see fit. Are there any particular scenarios you have in mind that prompted you to ask the question? If you give the details someone may be able to offer better advice. Thanks. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're generally not interested in images of copyrighted works of visual art. If the copyright holder has decided to release those copyrighted works under a free license, then you'd tag the image with the tag for that license. Otherwise, we don't want it. anthony

(see warning) 13:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, my question is about pictures of sculptures. The FAQ is not explicit about that. Are they derivative works or not? "A new copyright is generated." Does this mean, the copyright (if there is one on the statue/sculpture) is not important? I mean, look, e.g. at Henry Moore. He is dead only 19 years, so his works are not PD. If photos are derivative works, they should be fairuse, right? Could somebody add there and "deconfuse" me? Ben talk contr 10:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

(IANAL) If the work in question is not in the public domain, then yes, your picture is a derivative work. The only way you could use it would be under the guise of fair use (subject to all the limitations thereof). →Raul654 16:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not a lawyer either, but the situation is complex and appears to vary internationally.

1. In the UK, works of artistic expression, including sculptures are covered by the copyright act of 1988. However, 3D works on public display may be photographed without infringing copyright (see for example the section 'Public Exhibitions' at [1] (http://homepages.tesco.net/~p.wilkinson/Copyright.htm) - although there are probably better sources).
2. The situation in the US and Germany may not be the same, in particular Biocrawlerns have had the copyright questioned on a larger version of this sculpture in the US and this sculpture in Germany. Although these were both sculptures displayed inside buildings (art gallery and a cathedral) where it may also be possible to question whether they were on public display.
3. Further, in the US, works of architecture are apparently covered by copyright with exceptions covering photographing buildings from a public highway.
4. Conversely, photographic reproductions of 2D works which are in the public domain are not considered creative and so not eligible for copyright in the US on the basis of the case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. However, this is not thought to extend to photographs of 3D artworks. So a modern photograph of an old PD sculpture, may be copyright of the photographer.

Although I haven't read much of the site, it looks like there is some interesting discussion on these questions at http://www.photopermit.org. Including this story (http://www.photopermit.org/?p=65) about the city of Chicago trying to claim copyright on a city park, with notes suggesting that public sculpture is not covered by copyright in Canada.

You might also be interested in this discussion on the Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives02#Image:Eiffel_Tower_blinking.jpg) concerning night time images of the Eiffel Tower, where recently copyright has been claimed on the light display. -- Solipsist 22:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This all sounds very complicated. At least it probably means this kind of pictures should be fairuse internationally (i.e. e.g. nothing for commons). But then, (see head of page) servers are in the US, so copyright matters concern US law (only) in en, if I understand this correctly. So, if somebody could find a case, where photos of a not-PD sculpture could have their own copyright independently from the sculpture copyright in the US, than this is all we need to have them not as fairuse, correct? Ben talk contr 02:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is complicated. And figuring out how it works internationally is even more complicated. My expectation would be that if a photograph doesn't violate copyright in the territory in which it is taken, and is then released under a license that allows Biocrawler to publish it, then that is OK (I could be completely wrong however). This would mean photographing a Henry Moore in a public space in the UK or Canada would be fine, but photographing a similar sculpture in the United States would not be, although FairUse might then apply. -- Solipsist 22:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

links

The two links under the licenses section, labelled "Jimbo has prohibited the use of these" currently appear to be linking to

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012133.html

it doesn't look right, and certainly isn't clear what relevence that post has to licenses...?

I noticed this recently. Someone has been screwing with the mailing list (I suspect one or more older emails were deleted) and *ALL* links to older emails are broken - go to the wrong email. →Raul654 19:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. renewal records

[2] (http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~lesk/copyrenew.html) looks very useful (it includes maps, and presumably other images). First, I'd like confirmation that it's accurate and all. Assuming it is, should it be added to the article? --SPUI (talk) 06:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A clarification - this is for anything made between 1923 and 1964, which not only needed a copyright notice (which everything needed until 1989) but needed to be renewed at some point, or it's public domain. For example, most of the maps in commons:Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation (though those don't seem to have copyright notices either). --SPUI (talk) 20:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Borrowing images

Can I borrow images from other language wiki's, does this cross boundaries ?.

In general you just treat images from other languages wikis as you would images from any other source. If someone uploads a photo to the German Biocrawler and releases it under the GFDL you can put it on the English Biocrawler provided you comply with the terms of the licence, which basically means crediting the person who took it on the image description page and saying that it's GFDL. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nursing diagnoses

I have a question about copyrights. There is an organization (NANDA) whose purpose is to develop a standardized language for nursing diagnoses. The wording of these diagnoses is specific. NANDA claims copyright on the diagnoses, is this valid and if so, what does it mean? Can I write articles about these diagnoses or make a list of nursing diagnoses? Some of the diagnoses seem to be pretty uncopyrightable (eg. risk for infection), but others are less clear (eg. Ineffective community therapeutic regimen management). I've already started to work on some of this (as you can see), but I'd like to know what my boundaries are before I start putting too much effort into it. All the stuff I've generated so far was a) generated from multiple sources, b) paraphrased where possible (eg. the actual terminology wasn't paraphrased because the exact wording is important, though there are some variations that you do see from time to time.) Matt 23:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this is not the right place for this question, could someone direct me to where I could get an answer? Matt 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scanning PD images from copyrighted book

I want to include some photos that were taken in the late 1800s in a wikipedia article. The only source I have for these photos is a book that is under copyright. Based on the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation case, it appears to be permissible for me to scan and upload them, however I'd like to get confirmation from someone else first. I can't be the first person to want to do this, maybe the answer should be included in the Copyright FAQ article itself. Toiyabe 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but yes, I think this is a clearly covered by the case. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though. →Raul654 20:38, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Misleading example removed

Example - Any published writing by William Shakespare or Mark Twain, or published composition by Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach, is so old, it is no longer protected by copyright. It may be copied without restriction.

I deleted this for the following reason: derivative works of material which is in the public domain (such as the text of a Shakespeare play) can sometimes be copyrighted. For example, I think that a critical edition of Romeo and Juliet can be copyrighted as the publishers have had to have it typeset and edited. Similarly, musical scores of old music can be copyrighted, not least because they are often heavily edited (eg to comply with modern musical notation, for stylistic consistency, annotations and commentary added), although the original manuscripts may be out of copyright. The statement above seems to imply that I can photocopy and redistribute any Mozart score without restriction, which is wrong. Lupin 20:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)