[Clipart] clipart Digest, Vol 60, Issue 31

[John Olsen]

We haven't put Dover out of business yet?  I need to get busy and scan  
more stuff.  :)

Johnny

On Mar 19, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Greg Bulmash wrote:

> I think the Dover books make the same claim as the usf.edu site.   
> That's why I haven't vectorized anything out of a Dover book.
>
> But I think there's a real difference between saying:
>
> "These are Public Domain works"
>
> and
>
> "These are copyrighted works derived from Public Domain works"
>
> If you say the first in a prominent place on the page where you  
> display the artwork(s), then put the second in the fine print, it's  
> a bit of bait and switch.  It sucks, but the safest route is to just  
> back off.
>
> - Greg
>
> John Olsen wrote:
>> Seems if something is stated as being PD, then it is PD at least  
>> from  our legal position.  And I would not worry unless we got a  
>> request to  remove them.  Then it would be a matter of the  
>> requester proving some  proof of ownership.  Having a statement  
>> saying the images are public  domain and from prior to 1923 does  
>> not seem like a good way to make a  case for ownership.  I have  
>> seen one site that claims the work they  have done in scanning and  
>> cleaning up public domain images now make  them their property http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/ 
>>  .
>> "It is true that the original drawings that many items in this   
>> collection are based on have long passed into the public domain.   
>> However, by the time we have scanned, cropped, cut out  
>> backgrounds,  fixed broken lines, simplified, sharpened, and  
>> otherwise cleaned up  the original drawing, the result is a new  
>> artwork derived from the  earlier drawing. The derivative work is  
>> protected by copyright even  though the original is in the public  
>> domain."
>> This is a questionable argument as the SCOTUS has ruled that   
>> reproducing an image of a public domain item does not make the  
>> image  of the item now a copyrightable item.  I suppose I could  
>> make the same  claim on the things I scan.  Indeed I can find the  
>> original sources  for many of their files.  So it would merely be a  
>> matter for me to  scan them and place them directly in OCAL.  All  
>> in all, I think it is  a weak argument.
>> As to wpclipart, I know we have worked back and forth with this  
>> site -  a lot of images that are there were obtained from OCAL.   
>> Keep in mind  these sites could just as likely be getting images  
>> from us as we  getting them from their sites.
>> John Olsen
>> On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:08 PM, clipart-request at lists.freedesktop.org   
>> wrote:
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:36:52 +0100
>>> From: Joanna Pszenicyn <papapishu at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Clipart] - Possible Violation?
>>> To: clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> Message-ID:
>>> 	<37214d760903191336i4674742fk1e9db1eca33f75d6 at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> Nicu Buculei wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not the person who flagged it, but I suspect is about this:
>>>> http://karenswhimsy.com/image-ordering.shtm#terms<http://karenswhimsy.com/image-ordering.shtm#terms
>>> We have about 7 images from that page, mainly angel wings, as   
>>> searching for
>>> "karenswhimsy" shows.
>>> We also have many images from wpclipart.com (search for   
>>> "wpclipart"), and
>>> his terms of use are:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> These images are public domain (PD), and that means they can be  
>>> used  and
>>> edited for whatever purpose you wish, personal or commercial. No
>>> attrribution or linking is required, (although a link would be   
>>> nice...)
>>>
>>> I only make one request:
>>>
>>> My website is mine. I do not expect anyone to copy my site or the   
>>> image
>>> collection (in large part) to host online or sell. This would   
>>> compete with
>>> my site, draining what revenue I generate through online ads.  
>>> These  pay for
>>> hosting and modestly compensate me all the ink I use in test   
>>> printing and
>>> for the hundreds of hours I spend finding, creating and editing   
>>> images.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> What is the difference between this statement and that from   
>>> karenswhimsy?
>>> Karen, the owner of karenswhimsy, also calls her collection  
>>> "Public  Domain",
>>> but then adds some restrictions. Yeah, I know that she has right  
>>> to  do so,
>>> but why write on top of the page
>>> http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/:
>>>
>>> "WELCOME! :: You have arrived at the main page for my *public  
>>> domain  images*.
>>> On the following pages you will find hundreds of beautiful images   
>>> gleaned
>>> from my collection of old books, magazines, and postcards. They  
>>> are  all from
>>> material printed prior to 1923 and are in the public domain."
>>>
>>> It is at least misleading :(
>>>
>>> So, should delete at once all images from karenswhimsy.com or  
>>> only  tag them
>>> as pd_issue? And what about wpclipart? _Do_ we have a permission  
>>> for  every
>>> single image, or do we just feel that the words "[...] That said,  
>>> if  you
>>> wish to include the collection within a GPL-ed Linux distribution  
>>> or  create
>>> a package for that distribution, you are more than welcome to do  
>>> so.  I am a
>>> big proponent of Open Source [...]" are a "general" permission?????
>>>
>>> Somewhat lost again,
>>> Papapishu
>>> set=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>> _______________________________________________
>> clipart mailing list
>> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart

Johnny

"The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness. "

-- Annie Savoy  in Bull Durham