This is something we struggle with in academia every day and was brought home in an interesting way last week when a student accused a professor of plagiarism for copying material from websites into his Powerpoint lectures (which are posted on the internet and accessible only by those in the class)and not explicitly referencing them. It made us all think about the matter and, in my case, the images taken from internet sources which I use to illustrate points in my lectures - they are never intended to be published or used for profit, but I suppose in theory should be properly sourced. But, this is the problem with the internet which raises new challenges for everyone concerning copyright and public domain.
To put this in context of bike collecting, for some time now I have been collecting images of 1930s -1960s bicycle parts - mostly British - in order to put together a comprehensive visual catalogue for my own use in present and future projects. Most of these have been culled from ebay auctions. They are not intended for publication or for profit. I now have several hundred if not a thousand images from all sorts of sellers - without full links. And here is the rub, were I to share the final catalogue with others (again with no thought of financial recompense) what would be the ramifications ? What is the situation re. ebay images once posted onto the web? Is ebay considered to be "public domain"?
Paul Williams,
Curious in Ottawa, ON, Canada
<sadiqgill@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [CR]Using someone else's images
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Technically, yes the images are protected under copyright of the original
> cr
> eator, publisher, or their assignees.
>
>
>
>
> However, it's a grey area when a catalog, illustration, or photograph is
> ver
> y old and the original owners are no longer around.
>
>
>
>
> With that being said, one should ALWAYS seek permission, and this should
> inv
> olve the source of the material, as they may be the current owner of the
> cop
> yright or have knowledge of the owner, which could be an estate or
> business.
> Not always practical, but it is a must, and is in fact the due diligence
> wh
> ich was spoken of.
>
>
>
>
> For current and recent images, such as photographs and illustrations,
> where
> the owner is easily located, it's a piece of cake, especially considering
> th
> e ease of contact through the internet. It's usually a "yes or no"
> propositi
> on.
>
>
>
>
> If one is in the position of owning a piece of material such as a catalog,
> b
> ook, illustration, or photograph, and chooses to scan it and reproduce it
> fo
> r the purpose of sharing, with no fees involved, there is normally not a
> pro
> blem. This would certainly apply to wooljersey.com, where the sole purpose
> i
> s sharing information, much like a library or school.
>
>
>
>
> However, if a fee is involved anywhere along the line, the situation
> changes
> to one of commerce. And the use then becomes copyright infringement, which
> is a punishable offense.
>
>
>
>
> We should always respect copyrighted material. After all, it was through
> som
> eone's effort and expense that the material was initially created. We
> should
> also exercise our due diligence in regard to the sharing and publishing of
> this information. The internet is now legally considered to be publishing.
>
>
>
>
> Let's keep the sharing side the primary focus of our activities and
> publishi
> ng. And if one is in the BUSINESS of publishing these materials, please,
> by
> all means, obtain permission PRIOR TO USE.
>
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Chris Wimpey,
>
> San Diego, CA
>
> Home of the Finest Bicycling Weather on the Planet
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Barron <jb@velostuf.com>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org; sadiqgill@gmail.com
> Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 3:18 pm
> Subject: [CR]Using someone else's images
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sadiq-
>
> I thought that Robert was complaining about Jon using his scanned images.
> Of course Robert doesn't have any copyright on a catalog that was
> published
> long ago, but if he went to the trouble of scanning it, expending time,
> expertise and energy, aren't those images protected?
>
> John Barron
> Minneapolis
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:07:57 -0500
>
> From: "Sadiq Gill" <sadiqgill@gmail.com>
>
> To: "R.S. Broderick" <rsb000@hotmail.com>
>
> Cc: Dale Brown <oroboyz@aol.com>
>
> Cc: "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org" <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [CR]An Open Letter To Jon Fischer / VeloBase And The CR List
>
> Message-ID: <c76dc510802181407q72356e90w19c3690c55b46413@mail.gmail.com>
>
> In-Reply-To: <c76dc510802181353ic40350ai5d3d61f1b4d19110@mail.gmail.com>
>
> References: <BLU135-W439A750EF37CEAC0B35C2E85210@phx.gbl>
>
> <BAY109-W41B2C5C726BBB39BF354EC9C210@phx.gbl>
>
> <c76dc510802181353ic40350ai5d3d61f1b4d19110@mail.gmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Precedence: list
>
> Message: 9
>
> Mr. Broderick.....
>
> Although I can appreciate that you are pissed at someone for hijacking
>
> your effort and not to burst your proverbial bubble.....but---as someone
> who
>
> kinda sorta does some of this for a living---I think your copyright
> analysis
>
> is flawed for several reasons. First and foremost, old catalogs may or may
>
> not be copyrighted depending upon their country of origin and how all of
>
> that was handled here in the states (if at all). I am guessing that much
> is
>
> public domain either by time or non-enforcement. Secondly, even if the
> work
>
> is properly copyrighted and you have a obtained permissive use, it is not
>
> your copyright to enforce. As a permissive user you have no rights other
>
> than those of your limited license. Lastly, and probably most fatal to the
>
> whole analysis is the fair use exception--which I would hazard a guess
> that
>
> parts and public sales info falls well within for the purpose of what the
>
> the VeloBase web site is undertaking. The fact of the matter is that the
>
> catalogs when issued or distributed had little or no commercial value. The
>
> value of the material was collateral to the parts and bikes that were
> being
>
> sold and distributed. Take a look at :
>
>
>
> *Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation* (280 F.3d 934 (CA9 2002) *withdrawn*,
>
> re-filed at 336 F.3d 811(CA9 2003). Has to do with a search engine
>
> publishing thumbnails of a photographer's work; but, directly analogous to
>
> this set of facts.
>
> Take care,
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
> http://webmail.
> aol.com