January 7, 2010
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
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
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
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
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
August 19, 2009
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
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.
Find out more about licensing with my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
August 17, 2009
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.
To learn more about copyright law, see my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
July 28, 2009
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 Walls) held 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. Logan, cited 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
June 5, 2009
May 21, 2009
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
April 21, 2009
