Re: Re: Copyright free images-clipart

Another restriction found in many clip art licenses is that the images cannot be used for commercial purposes. They are restricted to personal use only.

>
> From: David Dailey <david.dailey[_at_]sru.edu>
> Date: 2006/05/17 Wed AM 11:15:15 EDT
> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property"
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Copyright free images-clipart
>
> At 12:10 PM 5/16/2006, Larry Steller wrote:
> >If someone digitizes an embroidery design from copyright free clipart,
> >can they claim to own the copyright to the design ?
> >
> > From what I've read, my conclusion was once something was copyright
> >free, in the public domain, it couldn't be copyrighted. Am I wrong ?
> >
> >Example, I created hundreds of digitized red work embroidery designs
> >from copyright free clipart over the past 7 years, only to have a company
> >claim to Ebay I was infringing on their intellectual property rights. Since
> >the clipart used was copyright free, I thought the designs couldn't be
> >copyrighted, so how can I be infringing on their intellectual property rights,
> >when I have the right to sell what I created from copyright free clipart/
> >images ?
>
> The attorneys on this list will have more authoritative answers than
> I, but I am familiar with some of the issues and may be able to comment.
>
> 1. Clipart usually comes with a license agreement. Clipart on CD's
> usually says something like "you may print as much as you like, but
> don't upload to wide area networks (like the web)." Clipart in books
> often says (in the permissions section of the book) something like
> "use the images freely but don't put more than five of them on a
> place from which they may, in turn be copied."
>
> 2. In the case that such "licensed" clipart originates with public
> domain sources, the publisher is generally relying on a "compilation
> copyright." That is, though each individual image may be in the
> public domain, the decisions about how to assemble these individually
> unprotected items are sufficiently original to qualify (in the eyes
> of the publisher) for a copyright in the assemblage, just as a
> protected poem consists of individually uncopyrighted words. The
> publisher can argue that without such protection there is no
> financial incentive for them to produce the work.
>
> 3. Some might argue that an individual work reproduced by a publisher
> of works from public domain sources somehow qualifies for a new
> copyright, but the ruling in the case of Bridgeman Art Library v
> Corel (see for example
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm)
> yielded that there is insufficient originality in a "faithful
> reproduction" (my quote) of a 2 dimensional artwork to qualify for
> new protection. Having done a good deal of faithful reproduction
> myself (see for example
> http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/public/public_domain.htm), I
> am aware that many of the decisions that go into that reproduction
> require skill, and sometimes decisions about when to discard
> "useless" pixels introduced through discoloration through aging of
> the original, moire patterns from interactions of the pixel density
> with the engraver's line frequency, etc., etc. One could argue that
> veridical depiction in the case of preservation of engravings might
> require more originality than the case decided in Bridgeman, and I
> can certainly imagine that some publishers might be willing to make
> such an argument in court.
>
> 4. In an instance such as when a publisher reproduces all
> illustrations in a famous PD work, ( for example, l'Ornament
> Polychrome by Racinet from the 1880's) then one could question
> whether sufficient originality exists for either the compilation
> copyright or a "thin" copyright on the reproduction. Whether a
> publisher's license agreement with such a republication would, in
> fact, hold up in court, is not clear (given the precedent in
> Bridgeman), but what devotee of the public domain would wish to be
> the defendant in such a case?
>
> As a little bit of advice (of the non-legal sort), you will be more
> comfortable if you can use "public domain images" rather than "clip art."
>
> Hope this helps,
> David Dailey
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>
Received on Thu May 18 2006 - 02:05:01 GMT