At 9:41 AM -0700 10/26/08, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
>Well, I see Jan's point, but I seriously doubt there is any action
>that can be taken if someone copies your copy, since you did not own
>the original image.
My original post was intended to start a discussion toward a voluntary code of conduct, rather than look at legal action. That said, the question who owns the image depends on a variety of things. If you take an image that is in the public domain and add something to it, you own the new image.
In the model railroad world, some authors introduce small "errors" in their drawings of locomotives, buildings, etc., so they can prove that a copy is taken from their plan, rather than based on new work. (It drives modelers crazy, as they strive to build accurate models.)
Similarly, if Chuck Schmidt's handwritten notes appear on a copy, then you could argue that Chuck's modifications to the original are copyrighted. If I assemble Rebour drawings a certain way, that assembly is copyrighted. If Brett Horton cleans up an old image that is scratched, the cleaned-up image is copyrighted by him. Jay Van de Velde even could argue that he added the smudge to the image on his web site to give it more patina, and thus the image is copyrighted.
If somebody replicates these efforts, and independently finds the their own copies of Rebour's images, Campy catalogues or old racing photos (or in the case of the modeling drawings, measures the original themselves), then they have every right to use the image. But if they cannot use Chuck's annotated copies, and pass them off as their own.
But all this is besides the point. I certainly do not plan legal action against VeloPress or the Italian publisher at this stage. Most of all, I wish they had used better-quality images.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.bikequarterly.com