Reply With Quote
"overwrite" is to replace the data with something else, new data or changed data. ie you overwrite a file with a different file. I think it simply means you do not have permissions to alter the file on that site. As for the rest I don't know.
Copyright question. Can I use this map?
I have found a cool map in the public domain:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...rtier-1693.jpg
I'm a bit confused if I'm allowed to draw a few lines on it and publish it in my book.
It says:
"This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details."
Then for my country it says: "Netherlands
Symbol OK.svg/Nuvola apps error.png Inconclusive. In the Netherlands, the Van Dale/Romme-arrest, a decision of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands about a database, states that a work must possess two characteristics in order to be copyrightable: een eigen oorspronkelijk karakter (its own original character) met een persoonlijk stempel van de maker (and a maker's mark)
This ruling is considered to be applicable to other 'works' (as defined in the Auteurswet 1912) as well. However, it is unclear where to draw any line with regards to these two points, so it remains to be decided on a per-case basis if a photograph of an old painting can be copyrighted or not. Generally, exact and technically perfect photographs of two-dimensional objects in the public domain are not considered copyrightable, since the aim of making an exact reproduction rules out any originality on the part of the maker (see also the explanation on [7])"
On the page it also says: "You cannot overwrite this file." What is referred to as 'overwrite' ?
Thanks for you help!
"overwrite" is to replace the data with something else, new data or changed data. ie you overwrite a file with a different file. I think it simply means you do not have permissions to alter the file on that site. As for the rest I don't know.
That's certainly a very confusing message!
In your shoes, and unless anyone can actually say with 100% certainty that it is absolutely ok, I would have a long hard think about whether including the map would actually benefit the book, or just overshadow it with a sufficient amount of doubt as to spoil your sense of enjoyment and personal achievement on publishing it.
Free parchments | Free seamless textures | Battle tiles / floor patterns | Room 1024 - textures for CC3 | GUILD CITY INDEX
No one is ever a failure until they give up trying
Thanks for your replies!
I'll reach out to the party that submitted the map. Perhaps they can tell me more. I hope I can use it. Hard to find these gems.
You might want to consider visiting a nearby library, one which provides access to old maps, and take your own picture of one of them or contract a professional photographer to do that for you. The original maps would have to be long out of copyright, of course, but that way you'd have your own version to do with as you want.
Selden
In general if a work is in the public domain you can take it, draw on it and publish it in a book - even make loads of money off of it.
In general....
The issue has been tho that if you take a real old map that is definitely in the public domain and then take a photo of it, some people have claimed that the photo is copyright of an image which is in the public domain. Now in most juristictions you can only copyright something which is artistic. Some people claim that the composition and framing of a photo is artistic. So you could claim that if you crop it then you remove that. In essence what is supposed to be the case is that the underlying image is public domain so if you even slightly mod its colour balance etc then a) you remove whatever "artistic" balance that was there before and b) you can claim your new colour balance as copyright. It is absurd of course.
If you go to a museum and get the original work that is before the copyrightable date and take your own photo then there is absolutely no way you can be prevented from publishing it. If you use someone elses photo that has no additional artistic merit to it then your supposed to be able to do the same but in reality there is a hint of hazard to it.
I believe in this case you should be able to use that image and draw on it and publish it assuming that there have been no changes to it from the 1600's version.
I am not a lawyer tho.
Also - If you contract a professional photographer then the person who sets up the camera and pushes the shutter release is then the copyright holder. If you contract a photographer then make sure in the contract it assigns the photo copyrights to you.
Note ! This is also true for a wedding photographer. Normally, you do not own your photographers photos of your own wedding.
Edit2: I believe that the not being able to overwrite the file is to do with the wiki-ness of it. You cant modify and reupload that image in this case as you might do for say the text in a wiki where you can submit changes and edits to it.
Last edited by Redrobes; 07-11-2017 at 05:18 PM.
Thanks so much for your input!!! very helpful!
I'll probably go ahead and use it. And i'm going to check for a museum nearby
Would you recommend I still refer to the image details in my book? or that would not be necessary?
I did take some photos myself of maritime charts. Would this give me copyright? These chart are from the last 10-15 years though so I guess not. But would it be ok to use the photo and modify it?
That maps is over 300 years old. Since the image is in the US public domain, I doubt anyone would try to enforce a copyright (if they could) in a different domain.
Of course, the only one who could be sure about the legality is a lawyer versed in the statutes/laws of where you intend to publish it.
Personally, I would risk it, but I don't have much to loose *G*
Probably not. It depends on how much you alter the image. A few lines would not make it original artwork and therefore not copyright-able to you. In the US, derivative works are still often in debate as to what you can and can not do. Over the last decade this can be seen in the music industry and remixes etc of other artist's songs.Originally Posted by Oceanpreneur
No. If the charts are from 15 years ago then they are in copyright to someone unless that person has expressly discharged their rights to the copyright. Your copyright in that matter would reach only as far as the composition and framing of the photo. But the chart itself is someone elses. Even taking the photo of them is a technical breech. Again thats another dumb rule. People have been harassed for taking photos within cities because for some of the buildings the architect has claimed copyright over the style of the building. If you ask me thats copyright pollution ! You could claim that the street lamp style, the paint on the road and everything that a person made within the city is copyright. There are so many dumb claims and dumb rulings over copyright that basically its all gone to the dogs and many poeple have just thrown the towel in on it all and started ripping everything off. Theres no respect on either side of this fence any more. But never forget that you can get sued for anything. You may be right, and you may win, but the legal process in itself *is* the penalty.
