<div class="gmail_quote">2009/3/26 John Olsen <<a href="mailto:johnny_automatic@mac.com">johnny_automatic@mac.com</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style=""> On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:18 AM, <a href="mailto:clipart-request@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">clipart-request@lists.freedesktop.org</a> wrote: From: chovynz <<a href="mailto:chovynz@gmail.com" target="_blank">chovynz@gmail.com</a>> <blockquote type="cite">I can't comment on Obama as I dont know US Govt rules on PD and presidential </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">figures. </blockquote> First, people's own images are not copyright issue ,but privacy issue. Public figures do not have the same rights and thus images of them are generally protected <blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I'm not an expert on copyright, and I am not a lawyer, however I did study </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite">copyright in University on my Advanced Diploma in Design and Multimedia. </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">About the other Darth Vader pictures, after reading Lucasfilms copyright </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite">statement I can tell you that unless they got permission to use him, then </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">they probably are breaking copyright......I feel that maybe some of my comments are or might be taken the wrong way, </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">so I'll clarify that now. What I'm doing is being a "devil's advocate." I'm </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">being hard-nosed about it because, especially in America, I've seen people </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">get sued over the stupidest little thing. </blockquote> I have never heard of a case of someone being sued straight out and I work in a field that blatantly steals images and logos for their own purposes ( action sports like surf and skate). The standard procedure is to send a cease and desist letter requesting the immediate removal of an image. Even the most rabid copyright protectors like Disney do this. Nicu's image is a Nicu drawing inspired by the Star Wars world. No one would confuse it with the actual Lucasfilm art. BTW, we have actual Lucas film images here in the library - those images were specifically placed in the PD in the USA as drawings for Star Wars patented toys. All images used to support a patent claim in the US must be placed in the PD. That brings me to the point about "especially in America" and US Govt rules. In the US ANYTHING produced by the government that isn't a security issue is the property of the citizens of the US and is thus placed in the public domain. So many of the images here were produced with our tax dollars and we Americans can use them as we want. This is very different from countries like Australia where the govt. specifically retains copyright on all of its work. John Olsen </div></blockquote></div> As I said, I'll I'm doing is raising my voice to an issue that I see, with the viewpoints and information that I know of. Is it really an issue? That's not up to me, but I think it is, or might be in the future. Is it my call? No. I've said my bit, and what I see. if Darth stays up there then that's fine. If it goes that's also fine with me. I dont know who's call it is, I dont particularly care :-) I'm happy I said my bit. >Nicu's image is a Nicu drawing inspired by the Star Wars world. No one would confuse it with the actual Lucasfilm art But no-one would mistake it for Ronald McDonald either. Even if the name was changed it still resembles Darth Vader. Black, triangle, lightsaber, gloves, helmet, gloves, boots, lights (on chest) What happens when a fan of DragonballZ is really good at drawing and uploads a picture? Or of Spiderman? There is nothing different to what Nicu did and what a supergenuis in drawing might do. Anything uploaded to OCAL is placed in the public domain. Do we draw the line (haha pun!) at "not up to commissioned standard" drawn. Darth Vader, the character is still copyrighted. I guess I'm more talking about the ethics of such a picture. This is what I mean about the "Bane of Clipart" - being unable to upload and use pictures of the characters that everyone loves. But that's the way Copyright is. With the OCAL providing PD clipart to anyone for any use, what are we to do? Get as much clipart art on as possible, even if it breaks copyright, hoping that no-one notices the copyright infringment, allowing anyone to use it as they see fit, including making money off the PD copyright-infringing clipart? Does Ocal want to stay legal? or not? that's basiclaly what it comes down to. In my understanding, if Ocal wants to stay legal then we need to avoid breaking copyright, while at the same time providing PD images that dont break copyright to the public. It doesn't matter who draws famous fictional protected characters, whether it be Nicu, me, or some 14 year old ghetto kid with amazing drawing talent and Net access; you are'nt allowed according to various copyright statement to make an image that has the potential to make money off; (LucasFilm Ltd copyright statement about Darth Vader specifically). My raising this concern is not to disparage Nicu or anyone else at OCAL, but it is to raise discussion. So far, no reply has satisfied the "It's not legal" challenge. If it's not legal, OCAL is not safe. This is not an issue that can be solved on certain business practices, or different country copyright legal states. It can be more informed by a copyright lawyer. It will be decided by OCAL's directors/admins. But I would like to understand what OCAL's policy on this kind of thing is. Do we accept any person's drawing of famous fictional characters, no matter the quality - or potential for trouble? Or do we reject only the "better drawn ones"? Do we make a distinction between hand-drawn or scanned? What are the limits to Clipart? What can be drawn freehand, to what level can it be considered Public Domain if the original character is copy protected? -- Cheers Chovynz