[comp.text.desktop] Copyright Free or not?

philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) (05/27/89)

I'm been curious about the following issue for some time now and
haven't gotten a good answer.  There are a number of so called
`Copyright Free' collections of clipart.  Dover publishes quite a
few of them.  They are clearly marked Copyright Free, usually on the
cover.  However, inside there is usually a restriction on the use of
the pictures that goes something like:
	... You may use the designs and illustrations for graphics and
	crafts applications, free and without special permission, provided
	that you include no more than ten in the same publication or 
	project. ...

	Republication or reproduction of any illustration by any other
	graphics service or in any other design resource is strictly
	prohibited.

Now, the illustrations were originally published in late nineteen hundreds
and thus the orriginal copyright has expired.  So my question is: How can they
enforce this?  What is to stop someone from using, say, 11 illustrations in
a single document?  What's to stop some one from republishing the whole book
minus anything that is orriginal with the compiler of the book (ignoring 
the issue of quality reproduction)?  Or for that matter, scanning the images 
in and putting them on a BBS or file server in a company?

The best answer I've heard is that the publisher is copyrighting the 
collection and not the individual items.  This seems a bit farfetched
since it doesn't explain how they can limit the number of images you may
use.  My guess is that they are simply blowing smoke.

This must have been talked through before, anybody got any ideas or info?

howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) (05/29/89)

>philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes:
>I'm been curious about the following issue for some time now and
>haven't gotten a good answer.  There are a number of so called
>`Copyright Free' collections of clipart.  Dover publishes quite a
>[stuff about the restrictions the publisher has placed on copying these}
>Now, the illustrations were originally published in late nineteen hundreds
>and thus the orriginal copyright has expired.  So my question is: How can they
>enforce this?

If the individual clip art is in the public domain, than your use of
it is unrestricted. Even if the publisher had put together a book
of copyrighted clips, which he sold to you with the intention that
you would use them in your publications, then your use is unrestricted.
It comes under the "industrial use" section of the copyright law, which
was designed to protect publishers from such foolishness as the
restrictions which Dover put on its Copyright Free book. 

The collection itself is copyrighted, which means they could sue you if
you were to take the book and put your name on it, and re-publish it.
However, if all the art is truly in the public domain, you could use
it (ALL of it) in your own clip art catalog if you added significant
value to it. For example, if you re-arranged the chapters, added a
comprehensive index, added a hundred of your own clips, etc. Of course
since this is a subjective decision on the part of a judge (what constitutes
"significant value") you are probably best advised to steer clear of
doing this sort of thing without showing it to a copyright lawyer.

An example which may help you. I wrote an article on the ITC Zapf Dingbats (R)
font, which is a series of Postscript codes to generate a variety of
graphic characters instead of letters of the alphabet. The characters
were copyrightable, if not copyrighted, since they were designed by
ITC. However, when I contacted HP's corporate legal department to ask
how to get permission to reporduce the entire font set in my article,
I was told that since the font was sold to me with the intention that I
use it, it was covered by the "industrial use" clause, and no permissions
were needed. I did, however, have to note in my article that the name of 
the font was a registered trademark of ITC. Only the name, not the font.

hope this helps. 


 --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Howard Stateman, Hewlett-Packard Response Center, Mountain View, CA |
|howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM      or     hplabs!hpwrce!howeird             |
|Disclaimer: I couldn't possibly speak for HP. I know too much.      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Sysop of the Anatomically Correct BBS (415) 364-3739                |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

hwt@bnr-public.uucp (Henry Troup) (05/31/89)

Dover could have imposed compilation copyright on the whole book.  In
fact, they did.  But they _generously_ (no smiley, I mean it) allow
you to use a few illustrations.  They retain the right to republish,
including electronically.
 
A gross generalization, but Dover owns copyright in those books.  Scanning
copyright material is illegal.
 

utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not 	| All that evil requires
hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH) 	     | responsible for 	| is that good men do
(613) 765-2337 (Voice)		     | my opinions	| nothing.

howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) (06/01/89)

>Dover could have imposed compilation copyright on the whole book.  In
>fact, they did.  But they _generously_ (no smiley, I mean it) allow
>you to use a few illustrations.  They retain the right to republish,
>including electronically.
> 
>A gross generalization, but Dover owns copyright in those books.  Scanning
>copyright material is illegal.
>utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public 

It is not legal to copyright public domain materials. What Dover did
was to compile a set of free clips, and then sell them. While they
are counting on the proceeds from the book to pay for the editing
costs, and make a profit, they do not own the copyright for the
artwork inside the book. 

An example of this for you:

The US Constitution is in the public domain, and many many copyrighted
books include the U.S. Constitution. This doesn't mean that the
book publisher can keep you from scanning in the U.S. Constitution and
using it as you want, where you want, when you want to, in whole or
in part. Ir means the book publisher is hoping to make a profit by 
selling a book which has the U.S. Constitution included in it. 

I'll go you one further. There are publishers who sell the U.S. Constitution,
and nothing else. Just the original, untouched document reproduced on
parchment paper. They cannot stop you from doing the same thing. They
have no copyright on this document. But you have no power to stop them
from selling it, since no one owns the rights, or rather, the public
owns the rights.

So Dover is not being generous. They are being greedy, trying to
make money from a reproduction of something in the public domain,
and trying to tell you that you don't have full reproduction rights,
when you definitely do.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Howard Stateman, Hewlett-Packard Response Center, Mountain View, CA |
|howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM      or     hplabs!hpwrce!howeird             |
|Disclaimer: I couldn't possibly speak for HP. I know too much.      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Sysop of the Anatomically Correct BBS (415) 364-3739                |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) (06/01/89)

This may come under the heading of "added value".  If not, I'd like to
hear why.
                                                           tm
GoldMind Publishing of Riverside, CA, publishes MacGraphics  (3.0), 
which includes bit-mapped versions of some images found in the Dover 
copyright-free collections.  

One might argue that GoldMind went back to the original, out-of-copyright
sources, rather than scanning from the Dover collections.  I have no idea
what GoldMind did, but they do have some images which Dover advertises as
"original" and copyright-free.

Comments?
-- 
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,

Chris Jarocha-Ernst
UUCP: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje
ARPA: JAROCHAERNST@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU

karl@grebyn.com (Karl Nyberg) (06/02/89)

In article <7650006@hpwrce.HP.COM> howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
>
>It is not legal to copyright public domain materials. What Dover did
>was to compile a set of free clips, and then sell them. While they
>are counting on the proceeds from the book to pay for the editing
>costs, and make a profit, they do not own the copyright for the
>artwork inside the book. 
>
>An example of this for you:
>
>The US Constitution is in the public domain, and many many copyrighted
>books include the U.S. Constitution. This doesn't mean that the
>book publisher can keep you from scanning in the U.S. Constitution and
>using it as you want, where you want, when you want to, in whole or
>in part. Ir means the book publisher is hoping to make a profit by 
>selling a book which has the U.S. Constitution included in it. 
>
>I'll go you one further. There are publishers who sell the U.S. Constitution,
>and nothing else. Just the original, untouched document reproduced on
>parchment paper. They cannot stop you from doing the same thing. They
>have no copyright on this document. But you have no power to stop them
>from selling it, since no one owns the rights, or rather, the public
>owns the rights.

There's a little leap of faith here that I think is being missed.  As far as
I know, it IS legal to copyright public domain material.  And there is
nothing to prevent somebody else from taking the same public domain material
and publishing it themselves (with their copyright).  HOWEVER, it is illegal
to take the copyrighted material (in the form published) and copy it.  That
is, it would be illegal for you to take the nice parchment copy of the
Constitution that somebody has prepared and duplicate from their work.  You
may certainly go back to the original source and duplicate from that.

Further, if somebody were to ADD something to the document being published
(in this case the Constitution), such as index, cross-references, etc., etc.
this additional material would clearly NOT be in the public domain and
reproduction of their additoin, including supporting material, would also
be subject to copyright protection.

Bottom line - you have to start from scratch just like everybody else does.

-- Karl --

Karl A. Nyberg		karl@grebyn.com, nyberg@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
Grebyn Corporation		   karl%grebyn.com@haven.umd.edu
P. O. Box 497			      {decuac,haven}!grebyn!karl
Vienna, VA 22183-0497				    703-281-2194

howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) (06/06/89)

karl@grebyn.com (Karl Nyberg) writes:

>There's a little leap of faith here that I think is being missed.  As far as
>I know, it IS legal to copyright public domain material.  And there is
>nothing to prevent somebody else from taking the same public domain material
>and publishing it themselves (with their copyright).

I think we have a semantics problem here, It is definitely legal to 
include public domain material in a copyrighted publication. It's free,
it requires no permissions or even notes as to its source. However,
this does not mean you have copyrighted the public domain material. You
haven't. You've copyrighted your material, and the form in which you have
presented it. The PD material stays in the public domain.

> HOWEVER, it is illegal
>to take the copyrighted material (in the form published) and copy it.  That
>is, it would be illegal for you to take the nice parchment copy of the
>Constitution that somebody has prepared and duplicate from their work.  You
>may certainly go back to the original source and duplicate from that.

Yes and no. The original Constitution IS on parchment, and for me to
take their reproduction as my source might be unethical, it is not 
illegal. If they added no value to the PD material, there would be
no way for them to prove it was theirs that I used as the source. And
it wouldn't much matter anyway, since you cannot steal something that
is in the public domain. Public domain MEANS the public owns it.

>Further, if somebody were to ADD something to the document being published
>(in this case the Constitution), such as index, cross-references, etc., etc.
>this additional material would clearly NOT be in the public domain and
>reproduction of their additoin, including supporting material, would also
>be subject to copyright protection.

Yes, exactly.


 --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Howard Stateman, Hewlett-Packard Response Center, Mountain View, CA |
|howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM      or     hplabs!hpwrce!howeird             |
|Disclaimer: I couldn't possibly speak for HP. I know too much.      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Sysop of the Anatomically Correct BBS (415) 364-3739                |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/09/89)

In article <7650008@hpwrce.HP.COM> howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
}karl@grebyn.com (Karl Nyberg) writes:
}
}>There's a little leap of faith here that I think is being missed.  As far as
}>I know, it IS legal to copyright public domain material.  And there is
}>nothing to prevent somebody else from taking the same public domain material
}>and publishing it themselves (with their copyright).
}
}I think we have a semantics problem here, It is definitely legal to 
}include public domain material in a copyrighted publication. It's free,
}it requires no permissions or even notes as to its source. However,
}this does not mean you have copyrighted the public domain material. You
}haven't. You've copyrighted your material, and the form in which you have
}presented it. The PD material stays in the public domain.

We definitely have a semantic problem.  The problem is distinguishing a
*work* from an *embodiment* of a work.   If I take PD info and incorporate
it into a book, that *presentation* of the PD info is now copyrighted by me.
*copyrighted*.  That means you cannot *copy* _my_ presentation.  If you come
out with a work that looks like mine, you better be prepared to demonstrate
that you didn't get YOUR presentation by copying MINE.  This is moot in many
cases (e.g., the Constitution), but it is not at all moot in many others: map
makers have no claim to the topology of the roads they present to you.  So
they intentionally include errors so that they have VERY GOOD evidence that
when you start the Stateman map company they can show that you are copying
*their* copyrighted work.  If you can find the *information* on your own,
more power to you, but you can't base YOUR presentation on THEIR copyrighted
one.  Another non-moot occurrence happens when the PD form of a work is VERY
rare.  Someone invests the time and effort to track it down, *republishes* it
and now claims copyright (correctly!) to the *new*preseentation* of it.  YOu
can copy it, theoretically, for sure, but you can be assured that when you
land in court you'll have to *prove* that your work derived from the
non-copyrighted source (remember taht this will be a civil suit, so the 
plaintiff will only hae to show a preponderance of the evidence, and the
absence of any info that you flew to Africa to and sought out the only known
still-PD copy of the particular item will weigh against you.)

}> HOWEVER, it is illegal
}>to take the copyrighted material (in the form published) and copy it.  ...
}
}Yes and no. The original Constitution IS on parchment, and for me to
}take their reproduction as my source might be unethical, it is not 
}illegal.

Wrong!  You should check out copyright laws more carefully: the copyright is
not on the information, but on the *presentation*.  You cannot copy *MY*
stuff, NO MATTER WHAT you may think about the merits of my having that
information.  Period.  If it is PD, you are welcome to obtain it royalty-free
all by yourself, but if you copy something *I* publish, you need my
permission.

}If they added no value to the PD material, there would be
}no way for them to prove it was theirs that I used as the source. And
}it wouldn't much matter anyway, since you cannot steal something that
}is in the public domain. Public domain MEANS the public owns it.

It matters a lot, and you should consult a lawyer before you start publishing
your very own "Best of Dover Books" series.  Your statement about the
practicalities are correct, of course, especially for PD things that are
either hard to identify or commonly available.  But not all PD things are
that way, and republishing a once-PD item takes *that* instance of that item
*out* of the public domain.  Copying such works without authority is
_ethically_ stealing, even though, as you argue, the practicalities are that
you will almost never get caught.

This isn't misc.legal, but I can go see if I can find some legal precedents
concerning all this stuff if anyone cares about such...  Take my word for it,
the copyright goes with the *item* =-- if it is appropriately copyrighted,
then you can't copy it.  period!  Regardless of your arguments about the
parentage of the data or anything else.  If you think you have an alternate
source of the info (PD or not: it is fair to make your OWN arrangements with
the author, for example), go for it and publish your own, but you can't COYP
seomthing which someone else has copyrighted.

  /Bernie\

chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/09/89)

>We definitely have a semantic problem.  The problem is distinguishing a
>*work* from an *embodiment* of a work.   If I take PD info and incorporate
>it into a book, that *presentation* of the PD info is now copyrighted by me.
>*copyrighted*.  That means you cannot *copy* _my_ presentation.  If you come
>out with a work that looks like mine, you better be prepared to demonstrate
>that you didn't get YOUR presentation by copying MINE.

If you want to publish a public domain source, you go back to the original
source and create a new edition of it. If you, for instance, decided to
publish a new edition of Dante's Inferno, you could. If you did it, however,
by publishing a new edition of the Ciardi translation, you'd be in trouble.
Dante is public domain (he's dead). The Ciardi translation isn't.

Relating that back to the Dover stuff, it's public domain (actually, a lot
of it isn't public domain -- much of the Dover material is commissioned by
them and published with an 'unlimited re-use' license). However, their
material is controlle by a copyright so that you can use it in your own
publications but not go into competition with their own books by putting
together clip-art books. They way they'll get you on this is something
called a "bunny" -- a bunny is a piece that looks like all the other public
domain pieces, but which they had specifically commissioned for inclusion in
the book. If that piece shows up in your book, they've got hard evidence
that you violated their copyright on their clipart book.]

So if you want to play with their material, do it by their rules. Or make
sure you don't publish their bunnies (which requires at least as much
research as finding the original public domain sources in the first place,
which is the whole point).



Chuq Von Rospach      =|=     Editor,OtherRealms     =|=     Member SFWA/ASFA
         chuq@apple.com   =|=  CI$: 73317,635  =|=  AppleLink: CHUQ
      [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]

You are false data. Therefore I shall ignore you.

howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) (06/12/89)

cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
>a lot of good stuff about copying from someone's original, and


>... and you should consult a lawyer before you start publishing
>your very own "Best of Dover Books" series.  Your statement about the
>practicalities are correct, of course, especially for PD things that are
>either hard to identify or commonly available.  But not all PD things are
>that way, and republishing a once-PD item takes *that* instance of that item
>*out* of the public domain.  Copying such works without authority is
>_ethically_ stealing, even though, as you argue, the practicalities are that
>you will almost never get caught.

Let's get back to the original question, which is, can I copy one of
the public domain reprints out of the Best of Dover book and use it in
my own book. I say yes, for two reasons:

1. The art work is in the public domain, so Dover doesn't own it
2. The Dover book was put together for the purpose of releasing
   this art to the public, and so the "industrial use" clause of
   the copyright law would protect publishers who want to further
   release this art to the public.


 --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Howard Stateman, Hewlett-Packard Response Center, Mountain View, CA |
|howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM      or     hplabs!hpwrce!howeird             |
|Disclaimer: I don't speak for HP, and neither do you.               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Sysop of the Anatomically Correct BBS (415) 364-3739                |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------