Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

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

Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Durova
An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.

Another volunteer at Commons first spotted it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Photo_on_ebay

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-WWII-WARSAW-GHETTO-UPRISING-Jurgen-Stroop-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380794664QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a04728&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
Restored:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg
Unrestored:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06.jpg

Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations
for sale, all without credit.  Other featured picture contributors may want
to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being
exploited.  I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are
copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation.  Made relevant phone
calls this afternoon.

http://cgi.ebay.com/GEORGE-WASHINGTON-MOUNT-RUSHMORE-CONSTRUCTION-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798081QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05481&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Mount Rushmore

http://cgi.ebay.com/1910s-VERNON-IRENE-CASTLE-Ballroom-Dancing-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380821338QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0af5a&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Vernon and Irene Castle

http://cgi.ebay.com/LUDWIG-VAN-BEETHOVEN-German-Composer-Death-Mask-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329176753QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396ab1&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Beethoven

http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-HELENE-DUTRIEU-Female-Aviation-Pioneer-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819313QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a771&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Helene Dutrieu

http://cgi.ebay.com/1873-NAVAJO-DINE-NATIVE-AMERICAN-INDIANS-NM-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819488QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a820&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Navajo family

http://cgi.ebay.com/1900S-RAMALLAH-WOMAN-Palestinian-Costume-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329177046QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396bd6&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Ramallah woman

http://cgi.ebay.com/1882-OSCAR-WILDE-Irish-Playwright-Portrait-Photo-3_W0QQitemZ200380821152QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0aea0&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Oscar Wilde

http://cgi.ebay.com/1879-CHARLES-ROBERT-DARWIN-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380820462QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0abee&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Charles Darwin

http://cgi.ebay.com/1916-LOUIS-DEMBITZ-BRANDEIS-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819778QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a942&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14
Louis Brandeis

http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-TYPHOID-VACCINATION-DOCTOR-SCHOOL-GIRL-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798806QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05756&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Typhoid vaccination

http://cgi.ebay.com/1941-PEARL-HARBOR-HAWAII-USS-WEST-VIRGINIA-RESCUE-Pic_W0QQitemZ130329160904QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392cc8&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
USS West Virginia

http://cgi.ebay.com/WWII-1945-US-Army-63rd-DIVISION-WALDENBURG-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329160282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392a5a&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
Waldenburg, Germany

-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Cary Bass-4
Durova wrote:

> An eBay vendor is exploiting a volunteer restoration of the Holocaust.
>
> Another volunteer at Commons first spotted it.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Photo_on_ebay
>
> Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
> eBay:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-WWII-WARSAW-GHETTO-UPRISING-Jurgen-Stroop-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380794664QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a04728&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
> Restored:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg
> Unrestored:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06.jpg
>
> Going through their online store revealed a dozen more of my restorations
> for sale, all without credit.  Other featured picture contributors may want
> to review the vendor's collection to see whether their work is also being
> exploited.  I also confirmed items in this vendor's collection that are
> copyrighted to the NAACP and Walt Disney Coporation.  Made relevant phone
> calls this afternoon.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/GEORGE-WASHINGTON-MOUNT-RUSHMORE-CONSTRUCTION-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798081QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05481&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Mount Rushmore
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1910s-VERNON-IRENE-CASTLE-Ballroom-Dancing-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380821338QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0af5a&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Vernon and Irene Castle
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/LUDWIG-VAN-BEETHOVEN-German-Composer-Death-Mask-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329176753QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396ab1&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Beethoven
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-HELENE-DUTRIEU-Female-Aviation-Pioneer-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819313QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a771&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Helene Dutrieu
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1873-NAVAJO-DINE-NATIVE-AMERICAN-INDIANS-NM-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819488QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a820&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Navajo family
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1900S-RAMALLAH-WOMAN-Palestinian-Costume-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329177046QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58396bd6&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Ramallah woman
>
> -Durova
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1882-OSCAR-WILDE-Irish-Playwright-Portrait-Photo-3_W0QQitemZ200380821152QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0aea0&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Oscar Wilde
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1879-CHARLES-ROBERT-DARWIN-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380820462QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0abee&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Charles Darwin
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1916-LOUIS-DEMBITZ-BRANDEIS-Portrait-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380819778QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a0a942&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14
> Louis Brandeis
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1943-TYPHOID-VACCINATION-DOCTOR-SCHOOL-GIRL-Photo_W0QQitemZ200380798806QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item2ea7a05756&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Typhoid vaccination
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/1941-PEARL-HARBOR-HAWAII-USS-WEST-VIRGINIA-RESCUE-Pic_W0QQitemZ130329160904QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392cc8&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> USS West Virginia
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/WWII-1945-US-Army-63rd-DIVISION-WALDENBURG-Photo_W0QQitemZ130329160282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item1e58392a5a&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262
> Waldenburg, Germany
>  
These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
requirement even to credit Wikimedia Commons.

While the project can request that reusers credit you for these works,
we certainly cannot demand it.

--
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Sage Ross
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Cary Bass <[hidden email]> wrote:

> These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
> your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
> requirement even to credit Wikimedia Commons.
>
> While the project can request that reusers credit you for these works,
> we certainly cannot demand it.
>

With most of the restorations we have, including Durova's, there isn't
any indication on the file page that the restorationist would like
credit, or even that the restoration was done by the uploader.  One
way to give a strong hint to those who want to use or sell the images
would be to add a note about the restoration in either the source or
author field.  "Author: Unknown.  Restoration by Durova" or like.  If
I came to one of the restorations and wasn't familiar with how commons
works already, I would have no clue that anyone would expect or want
me to credit the restorationist.

If someone really, really wants credit, then depending on what an
individual restoration entails and how much subjective judgment goes
into it, it might even be plausible to classify restorations as
derivative works and say "Original is PD, restoration is a derivative
work released under CC-by".  Although that would likely be a bad
precedent that blurs the lines between derivative works and
"sweat-of-the-brow" copyright.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Cary Bass-4
Дана Wednesday 16 September 2009 00:26:18 Cary Bass написа:
> These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
> your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
> requirement even to credit Wikimedia Commons.

Since restoring an image could include some amount of creativity, a
restoration could be copyrightable. Certainly, there are people claiming
copyright on digital restorations.

But since Durova didn't claim copyright on her restorations, didn't even
mention herself anywhere on the image description page, and did mark the
images as being in public domain, I don't see how could any reuser be held
responsible for not mentioning her as the restorer.

(I have only looked at the image at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg )

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Robert Rohde
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Дана Wednesday 16 September 2009 00:26:18 Cary Bass написа:
>> These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
>> your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
>> requirement even to credit Wikimedia Commons.
>
> Since restoring an image could include some amount of creativity, a
> restoration could be copyrightable. Certainly, there are people claiming
> copyright on digital restorations.

<snip>

It is settled case law in the US that restorations are not
copyrightable as they lack sufficient originality.  The intent is to
create a slavish copy of the original work.  Even if it takes a great
deal of skill and judgment to do that, there are insufficient grounds
for copyright in the US system.

This may not be the case in other jurisdictions (such as the UK) which
place a greater emphasis on effort in determining eligibility for
copyright.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Sage Ross
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> It is settled case law in the US that restorations are not
> copyrightable as they lack sufficient originality.  The intent is to
> create a slavish copy of the original work.  Even if it takes a great
> deal of skill and judgment to do that, there are insufficient grounds
> for copyright in the US system.
>
> This may not be the case in other jurisdictions (such as the UK) which
> place a greater emphasis on effort in determining eligibility for
> copyright.
>
> -Robert Rohde

What case(s) settled this issue?  I haven't been able to find anything
credible one way or the other, but a number of organizations without
an obvious financial interest in the issue seem to assume that
restorations do create new copyrights.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Robert Rohde
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Sage Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It is settled case law in the US that restorations are not
>> copyrightable as they lack sufficient originality.  The intent is to
>> create a slavish copy of the original work.  Even if it takes a great
>> deal of skill and judgment to do that, there are insufficient grounds
>> for copyright in the US system.
>>
>> This may not be the case in other jurisdictions (such as the UK) which
>> place a greater emphasis on effort in determining eligibility for
>> copyright.
>>
>> -Robert Rohde
>
> What case(s) settled this issue?  I haven't been able to find anything
> credible one way or the other, but a number of organizations without
> an obvious financial interest in the issue seem to assume that
> restorations do create new copyrights.

Hhmmmm.  I may have been mistaken.  I distinctly recall a case with a
fact pattern directly on point, involving a copyright claim in a work
that was restored via a restorer's technical skill and judgment to
create a "reproduction" of a original master's work that had been
degraded over time, and that the restorer was denied copyright.
However, I am not able to locate such a case upon searching.  I
suppose I may be misremembering (or it is possible I am remembering a
case that is not US).

For the US, I would say the logic of Bridgeman vs. Corel makes plain
that technical skill in copying is insufficient for copyright;
however, it is not directly on point since it didn't directly address
the issue of restorations.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

Mike Godwin-2
In reply to this post by Durova
Sage Ross writes:

>
> What case(s) settled this issue?  I haven't been able to find anything
> credible one way or the other, but a number of organizations without
> an obvious financial interest in the issue seem to assume that
> restorations do create new copyrights.


The issue of whether originality is required to create a new copyright was
addressed in the United States Supreme Court case Feist v. Rural Telephone
(1991).  There's a pretty good Wikipedia article on the case.  The essence
of the ruling is that some degree of creativity and originality is required
to create a copyright interest.

In general, organizations that believe "restorations" create new copyrights
either don't accept Feist's reasoning (perhaps because they operate in a
non-U.S. jurisdiction that honors "sweat of the brow" theory, as some
believe the U.K. does), or they misunderstand what can count as creativity
and originality.

The problem for restorations is a philosophical one but also a
straightforward one.  If you are *restoring* something, you are doing
something precisely the opposite of being "creative" or "original."  Indeed,
the more creative and original you are, the less your work counts as a
restoration.  (It may count as a derivative work, which qualifies for
copyright protection, but museums and archives normally take their mission
to be essentially preservationist, not essentially creative.)

There are few arguments as confused as the ones I've seen that argue that
restoration in itself ought to qualify as original or creative under Feist
doctrine.  At least the "sweat of the brow" theory doesn't suffer from that
sort of philosophical confusion.  Instead, it's simply bad copyright policy.


--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Durova
2009/9/22 Durova <[hidden email]>:

> When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in
> search of copyleft license violations.  We have been losing FP volunteers
> over license violation problems.


That's a large statement, and it needs substantiation to convince.
Please list the examples you are thinking of.


>  It doesn't come as too much of a surprise
> to see confusion emerge instead.  But David, to construct a cherry picked
> insult is beneath you.  With your long commitment to free culture, I really
> expected better.



WTF. Remember that I'm one of the few here loudly agreeing with you
about crediting restorers. Steve's questions were entirely reasonable
and I was wondering what your answers to them were myself. Acting as
though I'm some sort of traitor for asking you to substantiate and
reinforce your arguments says nothing good about the quality of your
arguments or the robustness and clarity of your thinking on them.

Are you literally unable to answer the questions? If so, then you will
have no luck getting many people to agree that your concerns are
concerns.

Steve's original question:

"I still wish you would answer the original question: why are you
angry, what do you think they have done wrong, and how do you think
they were supposed to know that wanted to be credited, based on the
information on the relevant image pages? Or did you really just want
to start an open discussion about the
creativity involved in image restoration?"

You started this thread in two mailing lists, presumably with the
intent of convincing people who didn't realise there was a problem
that there was a problem. Now you're descending to namecalling at the
slightest questioning of your arguments. C'mon, meet us half way here.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay

David Gerard-2
2009/9/22 Durova <[hidden email]>:

> No David, I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is
> step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread
> nonproductive.  My previous attempts to clarify matters with specific
> examples led to accusations that I had taken the thread off topic.  I will
> not go down that path again in this discussion.  Particularly not when the
> audience is as hostile as you have been.  That way lieth the flame war.


Unfortunately, you will not convince people who don't already agree
with you that there's any problem if you resort to namecalling, as you
did, and claiming "hostility" when people don't agree with you or
claim "personal attacks" when they ask you to clarify the bits that
don't make sense. So I hope you won't do that again, since I do think
you had a point in there somewhere.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l