Recently in public domain Category

January 7, 2010

Using One Liners from Email List

iStock_000004357115XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I edit an annual photography book, sold to raise money for charity, which accepts photos from members of an email list. We have a "click-wrap" agreement for the photo upload system. But the book also includes a few pages featuring a compilation of the wittiest quips that have appeared on the mailing list over the past year. I get the quotations either directly from the emails that go out on the list server or through third-party web sites that archive all the content that appears on the mailing list. Are there any copyright issues I should be aware of in taking one-line quotations like this? The short answer is that you're probably fine. Most short statements are hard to protect under copyright for various reasons we've mentioned before in our blog. So you're generally good to go when you take a one-liner from an online source. Issues are more likely to arise if you take several one-liners from a single source, or if your one-liners are actually three or four-liners. 
What about attribution? The Dear Rich Staff could go either way on this one so you can make the call. For many people attribution is a validating experience; others may prefer anonymity. Also, we probably don't need to say it -- but we can't help ourselves since we're in the legal business -- you probably want to avoid defamatory or privacy-invading one-liners. In the future, you can consider adding a "permission statement" to your mailing list terms and conditions, indicating that some statements may be included in the annual photo book. 

To learn more about the permissions process, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
December 3, 2009

Good Source for Hard Copy Public Domain Clip Art

MomBook.jpgDear Rich: My sister and I are planning on writing a small book about our mom. I plan on illustrating the book. What is a good source of clip art that I can use without worrying about copyright infringement ? I actually want a hard copy of images that I can physically cut out the old fashioned way. Wow, we love real clip art -- not that digital stuff -- and we love you for reminding us of back in the day when we used to write the Monroe County obituaries and the HOT LINE column at the Bloomington Herald-Telephone (now the Herald-Times) and where the "art" department consisted of a room with unbelievable clip art catalogs. (The Dear Rich Staff could live inside that clip-art world.) ... Right, you had a question! The short answer is that one of the best sources of hard-copy clip art is Dover Publications (and no, we're not a paid affiliate).

For more information on copyright-free content, check out Stephen Fishman's book The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
November 5, 2009

How Much Public Domain Can You Eat?

eatpublicdomain.jpg
Dear Rich: I am creating a computer program that requires a lot of line art. I found a series of books ('Scan This Book', 'Scan This Book Two', and, of course, 'Scan This Book Three') that display excellent public domain line art. The legalese at the beginning of the book states that all of the art is copyright free, but that the selection and layout is copyrighted. My program has nothing to do with distributing clip art, and I do not need to use the layouts used in the books. If I were to use most of the art from these books, would I be infringing on the author's/publisher's copyright? Would it matter if I slightly altered the images by coloring them? Would it matter if I combined their selection of images with other public domain images? The short answer is that you're fine copying the material in the book. Like all-you-can-eat restaurants, owners of public domain collections don't mind how much you digest, they just don't want you taking all their stuff and selling it somewhere else. Assuming your software product is not created to sell public domain art, there's no reason to bother with any of your other questions.
Copyright Rules. As you know, you can do whatever you want with public domain artwork. However, under copyright law, the owners of the book may have a compilation copyright. We say "may" because compiling public domain works doesn't automatically amount to a compilation copyright. There must be sufficient creativity in the judgment, selection and arrangement of the public domain material -- for example, "The Best American Stories from the 19th Century" or "Sketches of Victorian Kitchens" are probably protectable because they require decision-making and selections. Even if the book constitutes a copyrightable collection, that copyright is still regarded as being "thin" -- meaning that you would need to lift nearly all of the thing "as is" to infringe it. Public domain compilers such as Dover are primarily concerned with someone taking their material and competing with them. In summary, if you are using the public domain material for aesthetic or decorative purposes and not redistributing the artwork for re-use or re-sale, you're free to do whatever you want.
BTW. The Dear Rich Staff believes that the Scan This Book series is out of print (we couldn't find new copies available online and we couldn't locate the publisher Art Direction Book Company). That doesn't mean nobody will assert copyright; but it does indicate that it's not at the forefront of a publisher's radar.

To learn more about public domain, see Stephen Fishman's book The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
October 8, 2009

She Wants to Use Bloch Paintings on TV

bloch2.jpg
Dear Rich: I am a television producer who would love to use the work of the Danish painter Carl Bloch within a project of mine. Bloch was born on May 23, 1834 in Copenhagen, Denmark. I'm sure his work is in public domain and out of copyright but would I have to pay any kind of royalties or fees to anyone to broadcast his paintings on television.You are correct. Bloch's work is in the public domain. Danish copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years and Bloch died in 1890. You should not have to pay a fee for the right to broadcast the paintings on a television program, however you may have to pay a fee to acquire access to the paintings -- for example, some museums require photographic access fees or fees for the right to use photographic reproductions prepared especially for  the museum. Note, as we have indicated in previous posts, there is no copyright in a slavish photo reproduction of a public domain painting.
If the work is in the public domain, why is there a copyright notice on Bloch's painting (above)? Establishments such as the Hope Gallery earn revenue by selling reproductions of public domain works and probably include the copyright notice with the intention of discouraging competitors and tracking copying on the Internet (such as performed here by the Dear Rich Staff). We suppose we could remove the notice (since copyright law prohibits the placement of false copyright notices (See 506(c)) but we're too busy packing up personal belongings to mess with Photoshop right now. (By the way copyright law prohibits the fraudulent removal of notices as well (see 506(d).) 

To learn more about the public domain of works, check out Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
September 21, 2009

Music Ensemble Wants to Use Turner Paintings

turner-storm.jpgDear Rich: I run a small nonprofit chamber music ensemble and am researching images to use on the brochure we are putting together for our season. I'd love to use a Turner painting of Venetian canals, since it echoes imagery in a song in one of our programs. My graphics person insists that all paintings are protected, and that I need to find images from an online source like shutterstock, which, needless to say, doesn't have any Turner paintings. Can you clarify? According to the Dear Rich Staff's research, the British "painter of light" died in 1851. In Europe, copyrights expire 70 years after the death of the author. Unless we're missing something (or we've got the wrong British painter named William Turner), all of the paintings are in the public domain. Perhaps your graphics person believes that the photographs of fine art paintings have their own copyright. That's not the case as the courts will not enforce copyrights in slavish reproductions of public domain works. 

Want to know how to determine what's in the public domain? Take a look at Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More. 

September 2, 2009

Going Postal: Image Rejection for Customized Stamps

Freud Stamp.jpgDear Rich: I have a cartoon of a character I created -- Dr. Julia Chicken -- facing off with Sigmund Freud. I wanted to make  U.S. postage stamps using that image but my artwork was rejected by Zazzle.com on the grounds of some celebrity malarkey. I had a feeling that Freud would give me trouble, but I'm not sure why. First of all, it's a parody, but even greater reason for confusion is the fact that the Freud photo is public domain. The short answer is that Zazzle is not legally obligated to manufacture your stamp. In order to use Zazzle, you must agree to their User Agreement and as you know, that means you can't use pictures of celebrities. Strange as it seems, the man who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychology and popularized the couch ("And how do you feel about that?") is still considered a celebrity 70 years after his death. He even has Beverly Hills representation. In addition to the 'celebrity malarkey,' the Zazzle User Agreement also won't let you "create a 'new' image using elements from images other people have created." So you've got two strikes against you. (Other companies sell custom postage stamps and their policies appear similar.) As for your parody and public domain defense, they're not relevant since the User Agreement trumps copyright (and nobody is accusing you of copyright infringment, anyway.) The Dear Rich staff believes you're best off dumping Sigmund from the imagery and just proceeding with Dr. Julia on stamps, instead.
August 19, 2009

Holy Ghosts: Claiming Copyright on 200 Year-old Painting

iStock_000009274075XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I found an abandoned painting in an old house I used to live in. It was painted in the 1800's.  I would like to make posters of it.  Is there a way I can become the copyright owner? The short answer is "no" (and we're a little bit saddened by your question.) You are free to make posters and you are also free to modify the work with your own additional artwork and make derivative versions and -- provided you've added some original authorship -- you can control the copyright on the derivatives. But you cannot claim copyright ownership over the original. 
Why We Get Depressed
Nothing personal, but the idea of someone hijacking public domain material and limiting its use depresses the Dear Rich staff -- whether it is a book publisher claiming copyright over Moby Dick or a museum trying to claim copyright over its photos of the Mona Lisa (a practice known as 'copyfraud'). And of course, whoever created that painting would really be depressed to learn -- should they return from the dead -- that someone  is claiming all rights to the work. You don't want to be haunted by that possibility.

To find out more about the public domain, see Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
August 18, 2009

Are the Nuremberg Trial Transcripts in the Public Domain?

Hans_Frank_at_Nuremberg_trials.jpg
Dear Rich: My organization is interested in reprinting excerpts from speeches of the court justices and witnesses from the Nuremberg Trials held in Germany, 1945-46. Are these trial transcripts in the public domain? The good news is that you can use the transcripts. The bad news is that we're not 100% sure why. 
Is there a copyright?
The transcriptions and translations of the testimony were likely accomplished by U.S. government personnel and are preserved by the National Archives (NARA). Even though U.S. government works are in the public domain, we cannot assume that rule applies in this case. Copyright does not protect spoken testimony, only fixed versions of that testimony. The 'author,' for copyright purposes is typically 'the fixer,' -- in this case the U.S. government employees who transcribed the testimony. However, at least one case has held that court reporters are not authors of courtroom testimony; there's insufficient originality. Another argument might be made that translators of the testimony also acquired copyright (in which case the U.S. government translations would be public domain). Our conclusion: most likely the transcriptions of spoken testimony at the trials are not subject to copyright protection. 
Can anyone object to reproduction of the testimony?
The people who prosecuted or testified at the trials are unlikely to have any proprietary claims as to their statements. Although laws currently exist providing common law rights to spoken statements, it's unlikely that anything said in such a public forum over 50 years ago is proprietary. It's possible that subsequent versions of the original transcriptions may be protected under copyright. The Nuremberg trials lasted from 1945 through 1949 and the transcripts and some of the proceedings have been separately re-transcribed -- for example, the transcription for the 1946-47 trials of doctors and administrators (the "doctor's trial" transcript) has been posted at the Harvard Law School Nuremberg Trials Project. To the extent that such re-transcriptions contain additional material such as commentary, notes, etc., you would not be able to copy that material.
What about the evidence at trial?
It's not clear whether evidence from the trials is in the public domain. Simply introducing the material into the trial does not make it so, at least under U.S. case law. Photos and films of the war-crimes proceedings taken by U.S. personnel are definitely in the public domain material. In summary, we believe that your organization is free to use the transcripts based on its public domain status and -- if we're wrong about the public domain --  a powerful fair use argument that can be made for these historic documents.   

August 17, 2009

AP to Public: Don't rewrite!

ap.jpgDear Rich: I am working on a book presentation and was researching an article on MSNBC. At the bottom of the article, it read: "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." What do they mean when they say it can't be rewritten? Actually, that's not the position of MSNBC that you're quoting, the tagline is specifically for Associated Press articles posted at MSNBC (MSNBC's policy is here.) 
What's the AP's POV?
The AP's claim is based on: (1) copyright law -- you cannot rewrite the article in a manner that creates an infringing derivative work, (2) state misappropriation law -- there's 90-year old case involving the AP that says you can't compete unfairly by stealing "hot news," and (3) wishful thinking -- copyright permits free use of facts
Beyond Copyright
There is a legal theory that goes beyond copyright which prohibits the theft of "hot news." It's based on the 1918 case of International News Service v. Associated Press in which a rival news agency 'stole' and 'rewrote' AP news articles. Some states still uphold this approach; others consider it invalid. (The AP settled its most recent hot news case) It's unlikely that the "hot news" principle will apply in your case because the publication of your book would not trigger the "time-sensitive" aspect of the hot news doctrine.
Just the Facts
Aside from the "hot news" doctrine, the AP cannot stop you from taking the facts of an article and writing a new article using those facts. Consider this recent AP article about the death of Les Paul. You can certainly "rewrite" the first few paragraphs in your book as follows without infringing."Les Paul, 94, credited by many as the inventor of the solid-body electric guitar, died Thursday at White Plains Hospital from complications from pneumonia. Paul is also credited as one of the pioneers of multitrack recording, a process that permits musicians to record different parts at different times and then mix the tracks together." (Copyright aside, we urge every musician with a home studio to observe a few a moments of silence for the man who created modern recording!) Finally, the Dear Rich Staff wants to report that if there are a limited number of ways to say something, you are permitted to express yourself in the same way as others without infringing (known as the "merger doctrine").
The Trouble With Freedom
The trouble with all these "freedoms" --  the merger doctrine, the right to use facts, and even fair use -- is that there are no clear lines. Since the AP is not afraid to file lawsuits you may want to proceed with caution especially if your work may be perceived as competing. If you're particularly paranoid about lawsuits, just take the facts. By the way, speaking of copyright justice, William Patry (the hardest working man in copyright) has a new book and new blog

July 28, 2009

'Breaker Copies' and the First Sale Doctrine

FirstsaleBooks.jpgDear Rich: On many of the largest online book sites one can select a category called "breaker copy," a book that has been damaged such that it has little value to a collector, but it contains plates and or vintage prints which may then be removed and sold hence the name "breaker copy." There is a huge market for these prints on eBay and other auction sites. My question is, does this fall under the first sale rule or is it a copyright violation? The short answer is that the practice of breaking apart books and selling the components requires a long answer. The Dear Rich staff is sorry to have to drag you through the following sleep-inducing explanation but this area of the law is not fully settled.
What's the First Sale Doctrine?
The first sale doctrine guarantees you the right "to sell or otherwise dispose" of your books, movies and music, etc. But in two California cases, (Mirage and Greenwich Workshop) federal courts ruled that ripping out images from a book and reselling them in frames is not permitted under the first sale doctrine because the seller has created derivative works. A New York court seemed to agree with the California rulings, although that case involved a company that bought posters and then resold them after making them appear like oil paintings on canvas.
The Trouble with the California Cases
The trouble with the California cases is their theory about derivative works. Copyright scholar Melville Nimmer disagreed with it and some courts do not seem to follow it. One court  said that sticking something in a frame is a "mundane" act (don't tell that to these people) and doesn't demonstrate the minimum level of creativity required to create a derivative work.  An Illinois case (Deck the Wallsheld that the practice of cracking open a box of notecards and mounting them on tiles was permissible under the first sale doctrine (a ruling supported by a Texas case, C.M. Paula Co. v. Logancited by the Supreme Court).
What Should You Do?
In summary, you are likely to be headed for a problem if sued in California (or the 9th Circuit).  In other parts of the country, it's murkier. Copyright owners may threaten a lawsuit but not file, concerned they could set a bad precedent. One thing seems certain, you will always be more of a target if you are selling a lot of works by a particular artist -- for example, the collected works of Patrick Nagel vs. a collection of cubist art. And of course many works are in the public domain and you are free to reproduce those without any concerns about the pesky first sale doctrine.
July 3, 2009

All Federal Works in the Public Domain (NOT!)

obama-taking-oath-of-presidency.jpgDear Rich: Are all works created by the federal government or agents of the federal government automatically in the public domain? Specifically, when the Inauguration Committee commissioned John Williams to arrange "Air and Simple Gifts" is this new work automatically in the public domain and is the recorded inaugural performance also in the public domain?  The short answer to your question is that no, not all federal government works are in the public domain. Those created by federal employees and federal officers in the course of their duties are in the public domain; but contractors who create federal government works sometimes reserve copyright in their work. According to public domain expert Stephen Fishman, it all depends on what the government decides at the time the independent contractor is hired. If the government wants the work to be in the public domain, it can require it; otherwise, the contractor would own the work that's created. That seems to be the case with John Williams' Air and Simple Gifts which is owned by Williams' publisher  Warner-Tamerlane/Marjer Music Corp and can be licensed for reproduction from the Harry Fox Agency. You may also be interested to know that the underlying theme of the piece is borrowed from a shaker hymm, "Simple Gifts" (The Dear Rich Staff assumes that Williams contributed the "Air") "Simple Gifts" was also used by Aaron Copland in his Appalachian Spring. Okay everybody, have a safe Fourth of July. You don't want to have to call on the PI lawyers! (And has it really been a year since we posted this?)

June 5, 2009

Rights to Deceased Movie Actor Figurine

ben-living-dead-emcee-thumb.jpgDear Rich: I have a business that sells small collectible figurines. I am interested in finding out whether it is acceptable for me to create figurines of characters in movies which have entered the public domain, without obtaining permission. For example, a classic 1940s movie entered the public domain because of a failure to file a copyright or extension. The actors in this movie are well-known and have been in many other movies. I would like to produce and market a figurine of one of these characters, as portrayed by this well-known actor (who is now deceased). Is this acceptable? The short answer to your question is "yes, for the movie rights; maybe not for the rights connected with the actor's estate." The only way you could be hassled regarding the movie rights is (1) if the movie is based on a book which has not fallen into the public domain and (2) a court feels that the literary character is separately protectible. The Dear Rich staff thinks that's a long shot, since most books published before 1963 are probably in the PD. As for the actor's publicity rights, many states, including California, have a "descendible" right of publicity, meaning that the actor's estate inherits the right to exploit his persona. In California, that right lasts for 70 years after death. That's why Steve McQueen and John Wayne are still making endorsement deals. Since it is sometimes difficult to separate an actor from a character -- think Jimmy Stewart and George Bailey -- the right of publicity may be triggered by your figurine (provided the public can recognize it as being based on the actor). In that case, check your mailbox for a C&D letter.
May 21, 2009

Securing Rights to Old Technical Manuals

Manual.jpgDear Rich: There are a set of old specialty technical manuals from the '40s, '50s, to mid-late '60s published by Theo Audel for the construction trades. I tracked down who bought out Theo Audel publishers and contacted them and they'd sold the rights to some small, never heard of before, computer tech manual publisher. I called them, and they have no interest, on any level, for any purpose, of re-publishing/printing these old books. They told me that it was outside their purview. When I asked them to release, or sell the rights, they said no. As a small-time author, I can indeed appreciate the desire to protect one's ownership rights. However, these books are highly specialized, and the information once provided by them is now lost to history. I have in fact contacted other industry-specific publishers, a trade union publisher, and none are interested in seeking to reprint these books. Their response is typical -- just too costly to be of fiscal benefit to the bottom line. What would it take to get them reprinted for use in today's marketplace? And please don't tell me "too bad, just deal with it." I'm so glad you asked (although the Dear Rich staff is upset that you think we would answer your question in a such a flippant manner.) In answer to your question, there are a  few things to consider. First, it's very possible that the manuals are in the public domain. If the manuals were published before 1964 and the publisher failed to renew the copyrights, then you don't need to ask permission. (Only about 11 percent of copyrights issued before 1964 were renewed.) The renewal must have been made during the 28th year after first publication, so a book published in 1940 would have been renewed in 1968. If the renewal occurred after 1977, you can check online Copyright Office records. For books renewed before 1978, you should check the Stanford database of book renewal records, a handy resource. There are a few other choices for your copyright search. You can search the pre-1978 records yourself, or pay the copyright office to search (check out Circular 22), or pay a professional copyright searcher to obtain the records.
 Snapz Pro XScreenSnapz003.jpg
Why so proprietary if it's in the Public Domain?
If the manuals are in the public domain, you may wonder why the owners are being so proprietary. That's often because they either don't know the status, or they do and they're attempting to leverage their "ownership." The Dear Rich staff ran into a similar problem a few years ago with the "owner" of some 1930s cartoons resulting in a nominal fee being paid (not the exorbitant fee being requested) in order to acquire a good digital version of the original work for reproduction. All this effort may not be necessary once the Google Settlement is finalized, since Google plans to digitize and display every word ever placed into print. (Some newer Audel manuals are already available.) Anyway, we're not sure why the companies think that publishing these manuals is cost-prohibitive. Guess they've never heard of POD.
May 15, 2009

Are Speeches by Foreign Leaders in the Public Domain?

6a00d83451586c69e200e54f6bf63c8833-800wi.jpgDear Rich: Are speeches given by leaders in other countries in the public domain or are they owned by the government of that particular country? I'm so glad you asked. The short answers to your questions are "It depends on the country," and "It depends on the country." You're probably already aware that speeches by U.S officials are in the public domain as are works created by federal employees in the course of their employment (with one exception). On that basis, feel free to create your own Bush/Clinton mash-up (watch your volume). However, you can't do the same with Tony Blair's speeches as prime minister. Those are protected under Crown Copyright, as are government works in most British commonwealth nations. Crown copyright is subject to a number of exceptions, and those exceptions vary country-to-country. Some other nations (and the U.N.) also reserve the rights to their leaders' pronouncements. We're not sure why you're asking the question, but if you're considering republishing these speeches for purposes of scholarly analysis, criticism or other commentary, the Dear Rich staff feels that it's likely that a fair use defense will protect your U.S. publication. (Note: We're only discussing the use of the speech itself, not television coverage, which triggers additional copyrights.) Anyway, all that legal stuff aside, you'll probably be able to get away with a Tony Blair mashup, too.
April 21, 2009

Song Recording in South Africa

SouthAfrica.gifDear Rich: I am in South Africa (where the copyright act is 21 pages of legal jargon) and my husband and I are looking at recording a Christmas CD of tracks like Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, The Christmas Song, Let It Snow, Winter Wonderland, along with public domain carols such as Silent Night, etc. We will probably not even do more that 300 units and we would like to go about it the right way. What would the copyright issues be on non-public domain songs and where does one even begin looking? I'm so glad you asked. Although our blog focuses on U.S. law, the Dear Rich staff is happy to look into international rules (even if it does take three months to answer your query!). In South Africa, as in the U.S., any reproductions of songs on physical media (like CDs) requires that you obtain a compulsory mechanical license. The amount you pay per CD is set by the South African government. The easiest way to get the license appears to be using this form (PDF) which is processed by SAMRO (South African Music Rights Organization). You can find more South African musical resources here