Copyright Question

[Matt Fox]

Any copyright experts in here?

I understand the images used by WW are public domain, created by the US Government so there are little or no restrictions on their use. However, what happens if someone takes the images obtained from the original government source, modifies them slightly (such as changing them to a different projection) and then sells them in digital form at a website. Would the modified images then be subject to copyright?

I searched all over the internet and couldn't find an answer to this one. I guess it depends on whether or not making a minor change such as reprojecting an image would make the new image a "derivative work". But a derivative work creator must get permission from the original creator, so do they still need such permission if the original work is public domain??

Matt

[Jessi]

Hi Matt,

If the original work is in the public domain, the creator doesn't have any exclusive rights to the work. So you can do anything with it that you like, including modifying it and selling the modification. The derived work is copyrightable if it's an "original work of authorship," which, as you might imagine, is subject to interpretation.

For more on derivative works, see Circular 14 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html) and 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101), 103 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103). For more on public domain status, there's 17 U.S.C. § 105 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105); Sec. 12 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appii.html) of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988; and "Where is the Public Domain?" (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html).

I should also add that courts in the U.S. and courts in other countries likely apply different standards for what constitutes a derivative work, and that it's better to turn to the Berne Convention for guidance outside the U.S.

Jessi

[Matt Fox]

Originally posted by Jessi@Apr 23 2005, 07:45 PM
Hi Matt,

If the original work is in the public domain, the creator doesn't have any exclusive rights to the work. So you can do anything with it that you like, including modifying it and selling the modification. The derived work is copyrightable if it's an "original work of authorship," which, as you might imagine, is subject to interpretation.


Jessi
Quoted post


Thanks, that's kind of what I figured. I guess it's the "subject to interpretation" part that worries me. Not worth taking the chance of getting sued in my particular situation.

Matt

[withak]

Originally posted by Matt Fox@Apr 23 2005, 09:57 PM
Thanks, that's kind of what I figured. I guess it's the "subject to interpretation" part that worries me. Not worth taking the chance of getting sued in my particular situation.

Matt
Quoted post


That never seems to stop anyone else. :)

[TomServo]

I put this up on the wiki for future reference :)

[Guest]

another copyright question: may I make a screenshot of ... lets say my home town, my university, etc ... and put it on my private homepage so that my friends all over the world can see where I live?

[bull]

Yes the NLT, USGS and Community landsat can be used although a credit notice would be nice.

[Guest_Dennis_*]

Hi,

I have another copyright question: I'm a member of a researchteam for southern oscillation / EL Nino at the Alfred Wegener Institute for polar and marine research. We would like to make some animation videos from the WMS animations and put them on our website. Is this legal? For sure we will give an advice of world wind...

thanks a lot
dennis

[bull]

It should be ok, here is the response from the NLT folks -
<NLTPERSON> Bull[UK]: should be fine
<NLTPERSON> we don't have any special legal agreements with SVS or GLOBE, so all that data should be considered "public domain"

[Elkin Fricke]

Hi, should it be possible to use screenshots of WW for articles in the Wikipedia? These would be released under the FDL or Commons license.

Cheers, Elkin

[TomServo]

Are people not reading? *sighs*

IT IS FINE IF YOU GIVE CREDIT

Thank you for reading that :)

[Beansprout]

Originally posted by TomServo@Sep 28 2005, 12:28 PM
Are people not reading? *sighs*

IT IS FINE IF YOU GIVE CREDIT

Thank you for reading that :)
Quoted post

Depends....we need jessi back! :D

The imagery is public domain, so it should be assigned as a public domain image in Wikipedia.

And crediting is good.

Hi Matt,

If the original work is in the public domain, the creator doesn't have any exclusive rights to the work. So you can do anything with it that you like, including modifying it and selling the modification. The derived work is copyrightable if it's an "original work of authorship," which, as you might imagine, is subject to interpretation.

For more on derivative works, see Circular 14 and 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103. For more on public domain status, there's 17 U.S.C. § 105; Sec. 12 of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988; and "Where is the Public Domain?".

I should also add that courts in the U.S. and courts in other countries likely apply different standards for what constitutes a derivative work, and that it's better to turn to the Berne Convention for guidance outside the U.S.

Jessi