The following was posted to the Image page by Bogart99.
Huntington Library images are definitely not free of Copyright. On May 3, 2006. 10:29 a.m. ( CEST) I wrote a mail to the responsible curator to avoid a CV -- Bogart99 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :
Dear Mrs. Robertson,
I am a co-worker of the free internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org)
and I want to ask you for Huntington Library's friendly permission to use the
following picture according to "GFD licence" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL):
Call Number: HM 60
Folio: 1
Description: Frontispiece with a profile portrait of Ovid.
URL:
http://dpg.lib.berkeley.edu/webdb/dsheh/heh_brf?Description=&CallNumber=HM+60
This photograph had been uploaded to the Wikipedia image data pool by a regrettable
oversight already on October 6, 2005. Please excuse our overlooking this matter.
We shall delete this picture, of course, if you cannot grant a licence.
Many thanks for your efforts in advance!
Yours sincerely
I have moved this here in order to discuss the situation. I feel that it is unfortunate that Bogart99 has written to the Huntington and promised to delete this image if they do not grant a licence. This image is close reproduction of a two-dimensional image in the public domain. (The original was produced at the turn of the 15th century.) According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. this makes this image public domain, and the Huntington does not have a copyright, whatever they may assert. In fairness to the Huntington, they do, in my opinion, have a copyright to the image from which this was cropped, as that image included enough extraneous material to make it a photograph of a three dimensional object and its setting, which would not be subject to Bridgeman. Dsmdgold 14:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is copied from the talk pages of Bogart99 and Dsmdgold Dsmdgold 14:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Although the Huntington may assert a copyright, the do not, in fact, have a copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In short, under US law in order for a work to be copyrightable, originality must be used to create the image. A slavish mechanical reproduction, such as a photograph does not require the creativity to qualify for copyright, This true even if producung the copy requires a great deal of skill and effort. Since the frontispiece under discussion is a public domain image any photograph of it will also be public domain. Dsmdgold 13:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
End copied discussion. Dsmdgold 14:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The following was posted to the Image page by Bogart99.
Huntington Library images are definitely not free of Copyright. On May 3, 2006. 10:29 a.m. ( CEST) I wrote a mail to the responsible curator to avoid a CV -- Bogart99 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :
Dear Mrs. Robertson,
I am a co-worker of the free internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org)
and I want to ask you for Huntington Library's friendly permission to use the
following picture according to "GFD licence" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL):
Call Number: HM 60
Folio: 1
Description: Frontispiece with a profile portrait of Ovid.
URL:
http://dpg.lib.berkeley.edu/webdb/dsheh/heh_brf?Description=&CallNumber=HM+60
This photograph had been uploaded to the Wikipedia image data pool by a regrettable
oversight already on October 6, 2005. Please excuse our overlooking this matter.
We shall delete this picture, of course, if you cannot grant a licence.
Many thanks for your efforts in advance!
Yours sincerely
I have moved this here in order to discuss the situation. I feel that it is unfortunate that Bogart99 has written to the Huntington and promised to delete this image if they do not grant a licence. This image is close reproduction of a two-dimensional image in the public domain. (The original was produced at the turn of the 15th century.) According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. this makes this image public domain, and the Huntington does not have a copyright, whatever they may assert. In fairness to the Huntington, they do, in my opinion, have a copyright to the image from which this was cropped, as that image included enough extraneous material to make it a photograph of a three dimensional object and its setting, which would not be subject to Bridgeman. Dsmdgold 14:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is copied from the talk pages of Bogart99 and Dsmdgold Dsmdgold 14:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Although the Huntington may assert a copyright, the do not, in fact, have a copyright. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. In short, under US law in order for a work to be copyrightable, originality must be used to create the image. A slavish mechanical reproduction, such as a photograph does not require the creativity to qualify for copyright, This true even if producung the copy requires a great deal of skill and effort. Since the frontispiece under discussion is a public domain image any photograph of it will also be public domain. Dsmdgold 13:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
End copied discussion. Dsmdgold 14:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)