Is it true...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is it true...

Guy Chapman aka JzG
that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?

Leaving aside the baseless allegation of trolling,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-Star_Trek_Cabal_logo.png is
possibly going to be deleted for that reason.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

James Hare
It's surprising how many things can be held under the gun of intellectual
property protection.

Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).

On 12/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
> USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?
>
> Leaving aside the baseless allegation of trolling,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-Star_Trek_Cabal_logo.png is
> possibly going to be deleted for that reason.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Rory Stolzenberg
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
On 12/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
> USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?
>
> Leaving aside the baseless allegation of trolling,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-Star_Trek_Cabal_logo.png is
> possibly going to be deleted for that reason.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

It's quite possible. That could easily be considered a derivative work.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by James Hare
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:54:03 -0500, "James Hare"
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).

So a caricature of Picard would be forbidden?  Really?  I am honestly
confused here.  What about, say, a painting of an aircraft?  Is that
unfree by virtue of the manufacturer's rights, or the airline's logo?
I have a friend who is a commercial artist, that is not an idle
question.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

geni
On 12/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:54:03 -0500, "James Hare"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).
>
> So a caricature of Picard would be forbidden?  Really?

It might count as fair use under certain conditions. A painting of
Patrick Stewart would probably be a safer bet although there would be
other issues with things such as in the US at least the Right of
Publicity.

>I am honestly
> confused here.  What about, say, a painting of an aircraft?  Is that
> unfree by virtue of the manufacturer's rights, or the airline's logo?

It could be under some conditions and depending on the country it is in.

> I have a friend who is a commercial artist, that is not an idle
> question.


If they want legal advice they should talk to a lawyer.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

The Cunctator
This is insane. Noone would EVER EVER EVER consider this a copyright
violation.

On 12/21/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 12/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:54:03 -0500, "James Hare"
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).
> >
> > So a caricature of Picard would be forbidden?  Really?
>
> It might count as fair use under certain conditions. A painting of
> Patrick Stewart would probably be a safer bet although there would be
> other issues with things such as in the US at least the Right of
> Publicity.
>
> >I am honestly
> > confused here.  What about, say, a painting of an aircraft?  Is that
> > unfree by virtue of the manufacturer's rights, or the airline's logo?
>
> It could be under some conditions and depending on the country it is in.
>
> > I have a friend who is a commercial artist, that is not an idle
> > question.
>
>
> If they want legal advice they should talk to a lawyer.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Gregory Maxwell
On 12/21/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is insane. Noone would EVER EVER EVER consider this a copyright
> violation.

You must be kidding. Please see:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/notice.cgi?NoticeID=7

Generally we avoid the problems of derivative illustrations because
they are not encyclopedic. This doesn't mean that such issues don't
exist.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

KillerChihuahua
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
Heh, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were new to WP. Don't you know
"insane" is par for the course for some of our contributors?

The Cunctator wrote:

> This is insane. Noone would EVER EVER EVER consider this a copyright
> violation.
>
> On 12/21/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> On 12/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:54:03 -0500, "James Hare"
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).
>>>>        
>>> So a caricature of Picard would be forbidden?  Really?
>>>      
>> It might count as fair use under certain conditions. A painting of
>> Patrick Stewart would probably be a safer bet although there would be
>> other issues with things such as in the US at least the Right of
>> Publicity.
>>
>>    
>>> I am honestly
>>> confused here.  What about, say, a painting of an aircraft?  Is that
>>> unfree by virtue of the manufacturer's rights, or the airline's logo?
>>>      
>> It could be under some conditions and depending on the country it is in.
>>
>>    
>>> I have a friend who is a commercial artist, that is not an idle
>>> question.
>>>      
>> If they want legal advice they should talk to a lawyer.
>>
>> --
>> geni
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>    
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>  
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
On 12/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
> USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?
>
No, it isn't.  Fair use is not a violation of copyright...

> Leaving aside the baseless allegation of trolling,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-Star_Trek_Cabal_logo.png is
> possibly going to be deleted for that reason.
>
Is fair use still banned in the user namespace?  If so, that would explain it...

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
On 12/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:54:03 -0500, "James Hare"
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Case in point: Captain Jean-Luc Picard(r).
>
> So a caricature of Picard would be forbidden?  Really?

A caricature of Picard would likely be a derivative work, since Picard
is a copyrighted character.  Of course, it would also likely fall
under fair use, as it would likely be a highly adaptive derivative
work with little potential impact on the original.

> I am honestly
> confused here.  What about, say, a painting of an aircraft?  Is that
> unfree by virtue of the manufacturer's rights, or the airline's logo?

A painting which incorporated a copyrighted logo would be copyrighted
as a derivative work.  If the use was so insignificant as to be fair
use/fair dealing in just about any jurisdiction, I'd still call it
free though.

> I have a friend who is a commercial artist, that is not an idle
> question.
>
Commercial artists rarely care about what is free/unfree, focussing
instead on what is legal/illegal.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 12/21/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 12/21/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > This is insane. Noone would EVER EVER EVER consider this a copyright
> > violation.
>
> You must be kidding. Please see:
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/notice.cgi?NoticeID=7
>
> Generally we avoid the problems of derivative illustrations because
> they are not encyclopedic. This doesn't mean that such issues don't
> exist.


The link therein referred to " various photographs of STAR TREK elements".

Whole different ball of wax.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

theProject
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 12/21/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 12/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
> > USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?
> >
> No, it isn't.  Fair use is not a violation of copyright...


According to what I understand, fair use is a defence for copyright
violation -- thus it assumes that copyright violation has already occurred.

--
theProject
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
Just for those who were interested in this thread, a related topic on
MfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Promotional_Photo_Advocacy

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by theProject
On 12/21/06, theProject <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/21/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
> > > USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?
> > >
> > No, it isn't.  Fair use is not a violation of copyright...
>
>
> According to what I understand, fair use is a defence for copyright
> violation -- thus it assumes that copyright violation has already occurred.
>
You're half right.  Fair use is a defense for copyright violation.
But if you successfully defend against a charge of copyright
violation, it means the copyright violation hasn't occurred.  Copying
may have occurred, but not a copyright violation.

For an analogy, insanity is a defense for murder.  And if the accused
successfully defends against a charge of murder using the insanity
defense, it means a murder hasn't occurred.  Killing might have
occurred, but not murder.

But don't take my word for it.  Just look at Title 17, section 107,
which encodes fair use into law:  "the fair use of a copyrighted
work[...] is not an infringement of copyright".  Doesn't get any more
clear than that.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Anthony DiPierro
On 12/21/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/21/06, theProject <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 12/21/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
> > > > USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?
> > > >
> > > No, it isn't.  Fair use is not a violation of copyright...
> >
> >
> > According to what I understand, fair use is a defence for copyright
> > violation -- thus it assumes that copyright violation has already occurred.
> >
> You're half right.  Fair use is a defense for copyright violation.
> But if you successfully defend against a charge of copyright
> violation, it means the copyright violation hasn't occurred.  Copying
> may have occurred, but not a copyright violation.
>
To change the topic slightly, I was quite pleased to see that the
Wikipedia article on [[Fair Use]] dispels the myth that fair use is a
defense and not a right (a myth that seems to be spread by many
Wikipedians).  From the article:

---
The frequent argument over whether fair use is a "right" or a
"defense" [2] is generated by confusion over the use of the term
"affirmative defense." An affirmative defense is simply a term of art
from litigation reflecting the timing in which the defense is raised.
It does not distinguish between "rights" and "defenses", and so it
does not characterize the substance of the defendant's actions as "not
a right but a defense." The First Amendment, for instance, is
generally raised as an affirmative defense in litigation, but is
clearly a "right." Similarly, while fair use is characterized as a
defense in terms of the litigation posture, Section 107 defines fair
use as a "limitation" on copyright law and states clearly that "the
fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of
copyright."
---

Fair use is a defense (*).  It's also a right (*).  And fair use is
not an infringement of copyright (*).

Anthony

(*) in the US
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
On 12/21/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The link therein referred to " various photographs of STAR TREK elements".
>
> Whole different ball of wax.

"These rights are protected by numerous copyrights trademarks in both
the programs themselves and the characters, sets, and other elements
appearing in those programs."

It is common for rights holders to go after the authors of
fanfiction/fanartwork with the argument that it is a derivative work.
They are successful, although sometimes the courts decide the use is
fair use (esp with respect to parody).  For us, because we are not
engaging in parody, our claim of fair use will be stronger if we use a
photograph of the actual show.

In any case, I wasn't claiming to like it or that I thought that we
were in some great legal peril .. only that such complaints to happen.
 I went to google and typed in "fanfiction star trek infringing" and
smacked I'm feeling lucky.  I have no doubt that you can find no
shortage of similar cases.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Mark Wagner-2
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
On 12/21/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is insane. Noone would EVER EVER EVER consider this a copyright
> violation.

What world are you living in?  In my experience, an IP holder
generally considers any use of something even remotely resembling
their IP to be a copyright infringement unless they're getting paid.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 12/21/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/21/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The link therein referred to " various photographs of STAR TREK elements".
> >
> > Whole different ball of wax.
>
> "These rights are protected by numerous copyrights trademarks in both
> the programs themselves and the characters, sets, and other elements
> appearing in those programs."
>
> It is common for rights holders to go after the authors of
> fanfiction/fanartwork with the argument that it is a derivative work.
> They are successful, although sometimes the courts decide the use is
> fair use (esp with respect to parody).  For us, because we are not
> engaging in parody, our claim of fair use will be stronger if we use a
> photograph of the actual show.
>
{{citation needed}}.  Most fanfiction/fanartwork is parody, but that
doesn't mean that parody makes for a stronger claim of fair use.

In fact, if anything, I'd think that a work which infringes on a much
smaller portion of the work (such as a caricature) would have a
stronger claim of fair use than a work which infringes on a much
larger portion of the work (a photograph of the actual show).

> In any case, I wasn't claiming to like it or that I thought that we
> were in some great legal peril .. only that such complaints to happen.
>  I went to google and typed in "fanfiction star trek infringing" and
> smacked I'm feeling lucky.  I have no doubt that you can find no
> shortage of similar cases.

Have any of them actually been litigated?  The whole point of
"chilling effects" is that these are examples of threats of litigation
which anyone with a real knowledge of the law knows would never hold
up in court.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> that one may not upload a small, low resolution line drawing of the
> USS Enterprise? without violating copyright?
>
> Leaving aside the baseless allegation of trolling,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-Star_Trek_Cabal_logo.png is
> possibly going to be deleted for that reason.
>

To quote http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works

> And no, it doesn't matter whether Mickey Mouse is printed on a
> T-shirt, which you bought with your own money and which is worn by
> yourself while you're walking in a public place, loudly reciting the
> GFDL. That doesn't at all give you the right to take a picture of the
> T-shirt, cut out Mickey Mouse and upload it as "free" material.
> Nothing you'll ever do, whether you draw Pikachu with your own crayons
> or sculpt a giant Sailor Moon figurine, will ever lead to the point
> where you magically turn copyrighted material into "free" material.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it true...

Stephen Bain
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 12/22/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> You're half right.  Fair use is a defense for copyright violation.
> But if you successfully defend against a charge of copyright
> violation, it means the copyright violation hasn't occurred.  Copying
> may have occurred, but not a copyright violation.
>
> For an analogy, insanity is a defense for murder.  And if the accused
> successfully defends against a charge of murder using the insanity
> defense, it means a murder hasn't occurred.  Killing might have
> occurred, but not murder.

A fitting analogy. It evokes particularly well the "shoot first and
hope for the best" attitude of many users around here to copyright law
:)

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12