Difference between revisions of "File talk:Guernica.jpg"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(moral?)
m (Reverted edits by DaleHill (Talk); changed back to last version by Karajou)
 
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
::::What this user and his sock intended to do was to harp on just us about this particular image, and not any other website that displayed it, such a Wikipedia.  Such use is permitted not just under "fair use" laws but under the terms of ''Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.'', case citation 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, which that copies of images in the public domain could not be protected by copyright because the copies are not original or lack originality.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 
::::What this user and his sock intended to do was to harp on just us about this particular image, and not any other website that displayed it, such a Wikipedia.  Such use is permitted not just under "fair use" laws but under the terms of ''Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.'', case citation 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, which that copies of images in the public domain could not be protected by copyright because the copies are not original or lack originality.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 
::That seems to be what the law says an may well have cleared things. All the same, is it morally correct to ignore the originators of the reproductions' wishes and simply take (steal?) their reproductions rather than put the time and effort in to creating one's own?
 
::[[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 07:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 

Latest revision as of 17:09, December 2, 2007

According to the source:

All site contents are copyright 2001 Picasso.com Inc. No original material from this site may be reproduced without written consent. In the event that you need to contact us regarding any material on this site, please do so here.

Has written permission been obtained? PeterBird 11:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)

According to the second source:
Disclaimer: This web site contains copyrighted images and is for the sole use of students registered for the course. Access is not allowed for users not enrolled in the course. Also, any reproduction of materials found on this page for uses other than those entailed by the course is a violation of copyright laws and strictly forbidden.
PeterBird 11:23, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Under the terms of fair use, we can use the image to illustrate the specific articles mentioned provided we credit the source, in this case the owner of the painting is the Museo del Prado, Madrid, and not Picasso.com. Did Picasso.com get permission from the Museo del Prado to do the same thing? Karajou 11:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Funny, I don't think PeterBird has complained to Wikipedia, which also posts an image of this painting. [1] That is called complaint bias, a liberal tactic to harass people for ideological reasons.--Aschlafly 11:29, 27 November 2007 (EST)
As to what copyright concerns others may have, or whether or not the sources of images themselves have copyright ownership I can not comment. The copyright notices above seem fairly clear. Are you sure that the one-to-one copying (stealing?) of other people's work (the creation of the image) is fair use. A thumbnail image may well pass as fair use. Would an unaltered original where the copyright explicitly prohibits such activity? Should the wishes of the copyright holder not be respected?
RobinFeller 14:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Robin take a good look here first: The reproduction is not protected under copyright law.
What this user and his sock intended to do was to harp on just us about this particular image, and not any other website that displayed it, such a Wikipedia. Such use is permitted not just under "fair use" laws but under the terms of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., case citation 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, which that copies of images in the public domain could not be protected by copyright because the copies are not original or lack originality. Karajou 14:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)