[freeciv-data] Re: General graphics for Freeciv-feedback request

["T.J.T van Kooten" <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the feedback,  

At this point I'm not sure about the legal aspects either. The 
question I'm trying to find an answer to right now is if I 
created a new work by scanning and cleaning up the 
originals. If that's the case I created some copyrighted work. 
The same way a new translation of Cervantes "Don Quichote 
de la Mancha" can also be copyrighted.

Public domain would probably the easiest for all interested, 
but GPL does give you a foot behind the door. The Hires 
graphic set was released under GPL for example.
 
One thing is absolutely certain though: "the original printed 
work these digital scans are based on are 100% PUBLIC 
DOMAIN"

One point is that there maybe be some long gone publisher 
out there who once owned similar copies, slapped his 
copyright notice on 20-30 years ago, touched them up and 
reprinted them under the name "19th cent classic 
illustrations" with a fresh copyright notice. And no one 
bothered to check during all those years if that copyright was 
actually valid. Shouldn't pose a problem if I released these 
digital scans into PD as I have the original work as evidence. 
In fact, that publisher would be breaking the law (see below).


There's a good link about copyright here:

http://www.eff.org//CAF/law/copyright-FAQ

2.2) What is "public domain?" In contrast to copyright is "public 
domain." A work in the public domain is one that can be freely used 
by anyone for any purpose. It used to be that if a work was 
published without notice, it lost all copyright, and entered the public 
domain. That's no longer true, and now public domain is more the 
exception than the rule. There are still a number of ways that a work 
may be public domain. - The copyright may have expired (see 
section 2.4). - The work might be a work of the U.S. Government; 
such works can't be copyrighted (see section 3.6). - The work might 
be one that can't be copyrighted. For example, titles, names, short 
phrases and slogans can't be copyrighted (37 C.F.R. 202.1(a)). Note, 
however, they can be trademarks. As far as copyright law is 
concerned, they're public domain, but as far as trademark law is 
concerned, they might be protected. - The copyright might have 
been forfeited. For example, the work may have been published 
without notice prior to the change in the law that eliminated the 
notice requirement (March 1, 1988, the effective date of the Berne 
Convention Implementation Act, PL 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853). - 
The copyright might have been abandoned. This is pretty rare. 
Abandonment requires that the copyright holder intend to abandon 
the copyright, and generally requires an unambiguous statement or 
overt act on the part of the copyright holder that indicates his or her 
intent to dedicate the work to the public domain. National Comics 
Pub. v. Fawcett Pub., 191 F.2d 594, 598 (2d Cir., 1951). A 
statement that anyone who wishes to may reproduce, perform, or 
display the work without restrictions might be sufficient. Simply 
posting it on a computer network is not abandonment. There is a 
common belief that if someone infringes a copyright, and the 
copyright owner does not sue or otherwise put a stop to the 
infringement, the copyright is lost and the work goes into the public 
domain. There is some pre-1988 law on this (e.g., Stuff v. E.C. 
Publications, 432 F.2d 143 (2d Cir., 1965) and Transgo v. Ajac 
Transmission Parts, 768 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1985)), but it seems to 
derive mostly from the fact that the copyright holder had acquiesced 
in the publication of the work without notice back when notice was 
a requirement. It was the publication without notice, and not the 
lack of enforcement, that actually worked to put the work in the 
public domain. This is forfeiture of copyright, not abandonment. 
Because the notice requirement is now gone from copyright law, 
these cases don't have much weight today. I can't find anything that 
supports the idea that failure to assert a copyright against an 
infringer can alone lead to placing the work in the public domain (if 
you have any authoritative information on this, please drop me a 
note at one of the addresses listed in the introduction). Of course, 
circumstances may be such that the ability to sue a particular 
infringer might be waived (e.g., a statute of limitations may expire 
(see section 3.4), or if the infringer has reasonably relied to his or 
her detriment on the copyright holder's failure to sue, the doctrine of 
laches may bar a suit), but that's only with respect to that particular 
infringer, and does not affect the status of the copyright with respect 
to others. Sometimes you'll see a program on the network 
accompanied by a statement like "This program is public domain. It 
may be freely distributed, but you may not charge more for it than 
the cost of the media." Statements like these are contradictory. If the 
program is public domain, you can do whatever you want with it, 
including charging whatever you want (although you might not get 
it). In this example, what the programmer really wants to do is to 
retain the copyright, but provide a non- exclusive license to copy 
and distribute the work, with a condition on the license that only the 
cost of the media may be charged for it. In this case, where the 
programmer has, in two consecutive sentences, both declared the 
work to be public domain and asserted a copyright in the work, it's 
unpredictable whether a court would interpret this as abandonment. 
If there is any restriction upon the use of the work, even the 
restriction that it cannot be sold, the work is not public domain. 
Rather, it's copyrighted, and the restrictions are essentially 
limitations on a licensee using one or more of the exclusive rights 
described above. For example, the restriction that a work may only 
be given away for free is a limitation using the distribution right. 
Once a work is in the public domain, whether by expiration of 
copyright or by expressly being dedicated to the public domain by 
its copyright holder, it can never again regain copyrighted status. 

The final line seems quite clear, except for one caveat: "What 
if i create a (remastered) work based on the original that's in 
the public domain?"

Anyone have a lawyer friend who specializes in copyright 
law? ;-)


CapTVK