a newbie question about copy right
-
Albert Einstein assigned all rights to his papers, photos, etc. to the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. I don't know if the copyright(s) on these items have lapsed. I doubt that the Hebrew University pursues copyright violators with the same vigour as Disney does, but why take the chance? The prospective publisher of the articles should have ways of verifying whether the copyright has lapsed. Otherwise, you may want to contact a copyright lawyer in the country of publication. EDIT: The Hebrew University does pursue copyright violators vigourously!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
In case of Einstein it's a can of worms, ditto "Happy Birthday To You"! https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/may/17/who-owns-einstein-the-battle-for-the-worlds-most-famous-face or ask directly https://einstein.biz/
-
In addition to what dandy72 said:
Quote:
For any non-text media, you agree to comply with the applicable license under which the work has been made available (which can be discovered by clicking on the work and looking at the licensing section on its description page or reviewing an applicable source page for that work). When reusing any content that we host, you agree to comply with the relevant attribution requirements as they pertain to the underlying license or licenses
Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use - Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki[^] So for this photo it says "Public Domain": Albert Einstein - Wikipedia[^] But other pictures may have other licenses.
-
Tricky one... what counts? The photograph or the person in it?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Nelek wrote:
The photograph or the person in it?
In the US it is the photographer. Not the subject. The photographer is considered an artist so the work belongs to that person unless the copyright has been assigned to another.
-
Nelek wrote:
what counts? The photograph or the person in it?
For the copyright question: Clearly the photograph(er). For the person in the photograph, there may be privacy issues. (I don't know if you can claim copyright on yourself if someone wants to clone you, but that is a completely different matter.) Both for copyright and patents: Lots of people believe that there is anything like a "world patent" or "world copyright". There isn't. In any country (jurisdiction), the protection in that country is as given by the laws of that country. Laws in other countries can be completely ignored, as long as you stay within that country. E.g. in Norway (as well as in most countries), the creator has the copyright to the work whether registered or not, whether marked with a (c) or not. Also, when copyright expires, 70 years after the death of the creator, it expires. The heirs cannot 'renew' the copyright after this date. Patents are similar: While you have to pay a fee (that may increase tenfold from year 1 to year 20) to uphold a patent - call it 'renew' it if you like - after 20 years it can no more be renewed. Also, a US patent has no impact in Norway. If an invention is patented in the US but not in Norway, I can make use of it, even make money on it, here in Norway, as long as I do not try to sell it in the US or in any other country where it is copyrighted. Lots of the bitching you can hear about Asian countries not respecting patents is simply because the inventors have not patented the invention in that country. Those making money on the invention in that country or other countries where it is not patented is not breaking any US or other patents. (Patenting an invention in all countries of the world is an expensive matter, both in money, paper and work!) Also, even if a work is protected, countries may have different levels of protection. E.g. here in Norway, I may borrow a CD from a friend and rip it to my PC, to have some music entertainment for myself. That is perfectly legal as long as I use it only for private, non-commercial purposes, within a closed group of people. This is far more liberal than in some other countries. Whatever "copyright renewal" is provided by Israeli law, it means nothing in Norway and most other European countries. 70 years after the death of the creator, copyright is expired, no matter what they say in Israel. (But note that e.g. a translation of a work is another work, so if you are not going to make a n
trønderen wrote:
here in Norway, I may borrow a CD from a friend and rip it to my PC, to have some music entertainment for myself. That is perfectly legal as long as I use it only for private, non-commercial purposes, within a closed group of people. This is far more liberal than in some other countries.
In Spain that would bring you problems bigger than if you beat someone and send it to the hospital... :doh: :sigh: X| Damn lobbies and moronic politicians
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Nelek wrote:
The photograph or the person in it?
In the US it is the photographer. Not the subject. The photographer is considered an artist so the work belongs to that person unless the copyright has been assigned to another.
In Norway, and most countries who has signed the Berne Convention(*) distinguish between inalienable "Moral" rights, and commercial rights that may be sold/assigned to others. Even if you sell the publishing rights to your artwork, novel or whatever, the buyer must pay due respect to the 'integrity' of the work, and must attribute the creation of the work to you. Either, such "Moral rights" didn't exist in USA, or the source had fallen in public domain, when Disney decided to make some movie (e.g. The Jungle Book). Or, they have a very liberal interpretation of "preserving the integrity of the orignial work" (which I guess is a strong element in either case!). (*) Today, "Berne countries" includes the USA, but they were late to it (1989), and I am not certain that every part it is yet implemented in the laws.
-
There is a difference between the copyright of Einsteins own works and e.g. photos of him. For the author's works, the general rule in Europe - and I believe this is generally accepted in other parts of the world - seventy years after the death of the creator, the works fall into the public domain. As Einstein died in April, 1955, you still have to wait for another year and a half before you can use his works freely. However, most countries allow you to quote a copyright protected work. The interpretation of this 'right to quote' may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but I think if you both stay within limitation common in European countries and in the USA, you are fairly safe (especially since we are so close to the expiry of the general copyright protection). The OP didn't ask about the copyright of AE text, but of the photos of him. That is a different thing; the copyright belongs to the author. If the photographer hasn't been dead for 70 years, by default, you cannot use the photos he made. He may, however, have released his works to the public, that be through the publication on Wikipedia or in other ways. Pictures published on Wikipedia under different copyright regulations. Some are public domain, free to use. Some are not so free, but usually quite liberal. You will have to check up each photo individually to see what applies to this photo. For Albert Einstein, it varies among the photos of the Wikipedia article: Some are free, some slightly more restricted. When you see something else than 'public domain', you have to look up whatever that means. Maybe all it means it that you have to quote Wikipedia as the reference, but as long as you do that, you may use it freely.
Generally if the image is hosted on Wikipedia, even as part of the sidebar info, clicking on it will take you to the Wikipedia image hosting page where the actual copyright status will be displayed. 90% of the time if Wikipedia are actually hosting and displaying the image, it'll nearly always be CC2.0 I have seen the very rare few that are not, but CC2.0 is by far the most common. If it is copyright, clicking on the image and going to the Wikipedia host page usually tells you who it belongs too and where to get further info.
-
You could draw; you may have to attribute and say you copied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
I am thinking of this way too. but my problem is that my painter draws so vividly that the final picture is even better than original one :laugh:
diligent hands rule....
-
What you say is probably true within Israel. It is not true in Norway. Norwegian copyright laws have no option for 'renewing' copyright when 70 years has passed since the death of the creator. Then the copyright has expired. Period. In Norway, Norwegian laws apply. Most European countries have copyright laws similar to those of Norway. There are some differences in the small details, and there are some modifications according to the Berne convention: E.g. if the copyright expires in the creator's homeland, it is considered expired in other countries as well. In USA, copyright expired 50 years after the death of the creator (I believe that has been changed to 70 today, though), so even if creator would have 20 years longer protection in European countries, those US creators whose work fell in the public domain in the US, did so in Europe as well. As far as I know, Albert Einstein was never a citizen of Israel. So he gave (rather than sold) the rights to exploit his texts commercially to Hebrew University - that is like any other selling of commercial rights. Ordinary copyright laws (as well as patent laws) still apply.
:rose:
diligent hands rule....
-
So IANAL but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Wikipedia:Public domain image resources - Wikipedia[^] I think the vast majority of Wikipedia images are public domain. You just may need to follow the image sources back and make sure they are from one of the public domain sources if it's serious... Like printing a magazine/book. If you're throwing up a website, I wouldn't fret over any of it at all. I think it's not going to matter so long as you aren't 1) making millions or 2) selling the media itself. (But probably wouldn't matter even if you were, in the first case.)
:thumbsup:
diligent hands rule....
-
In Norway, and most countries who has signed the Berne Convention(*) distinguish between inalienable "Moral" rights, and commercial rights that may be sold/assigned to others. Even if you sell the publishing rights to your artwork, novel or whatever, the buyer must pay due respect to the 'integrity' of the work, and must attribute the creation of the work to you. Either, such "Moral rights" didn't exist in USA, or the source had fallen in public domain, when Disney decided to make some movie (e.g. The Jungle Book). Or, they have a very liberal interpretation of "preserving the integrity of the orignial work" (which I guess is a strong element in either case!). (*) Today, "Berne countries" includes the USA, but they were late to it (1989), and I am not certain that every part it is yet implemented in the laws.
-
1. That applies in the US, not necessarily in other countries. If you intend to have you publication available outside the US, you must check the local laws. There are books that are available in the US but not in the UK (and vice versa) precisely for that reason. 2. How do you know that the Hebrew University did not renew the copyright, without checking?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
That was never the rule in the US. A few countries use Life+50, but most (including, for *new* works, the US) use Life+70.
Truth, James
-
Nelek wrote:
The photograph or the person in it?
In the US it is the photographer. Not the subject. The photographer is considered an artist so the work belongs to that person unless the copyright has been assigned to another.
Quote:
The photographer is considered an artist so the work belongs to that person unless the copyright has been assigned to another.
Note that if the photographer takes the photo as part of his job, which would likely be the case here, as most photos of Einstein would be for newspapers or magazines, then it's considered a "work-for-hire", and the copyright would be owned by the employer.
Truth, James
-
if I want to write articles about Albert Einstein and use some pictures taken from Wikipedia from here. is there any copy right issues for these pictures?
diligent hands rule....
In the US, copyright law is a mess. Prior to the US joining the Berne Convention, copyrights were for 28 years, and renewable once for another 28 years, for a total possible of 56. Once we joined (1980), things went crazy. For new works, by a person, the copyright was for LIFE+75 years. For new works owned by a corporation (movies, newspapers, magazines etc.), it's 75 years from publication. For older works, if the copyright had expired when we joined the Berne Convention, it remained in the Public Domain. If it were still covered by a copyright, the copyright was extended, first to 75 years, and then to 95. Which means that from 1980 until 2019, NOTHING entered the Public Domain in the US. In 2019, works first public in 1923 became public; In 2020, those published in 1924 became public, and so forth. (All copyrights end on Dec 31st, so it's actually 95 years, plus a few months) And that's the simple version. But then, at least this lets the US avoid the trouble the rest of the world has with the copyright of "The Diary of Anne Frank". Since most of the world uses Life+75, there is a debate about who's life they use. Anne's (who died in 1945, so it would have become PD in 2020) or her father's (who "edited" the book, and died in 1980, making it PD in 2055). In the US, it's 95 years from publication, so it becomes free here in 2042.
Truth, James
-
if I want to write articles about Albert Einstein and use some pictures taken from Wikipedia from here. is there any copy right issues for these pictures?
diligent hands rule....
In the US, Einstein's estate or it's successor pursues copyright of his image very aggressively. You don't want to mess with Einstein pictures unless you know their provenance, and what the copyright situation is. Just taking them off Wikipedia doesn't make you safe.
-
Quote:
The photographer is considered an artist so the work belongs to that person unless the copyright has been assigned to another.
Note that if the photographer takes the photo as part of his job, which would likely be the case here, as most photos of Einstein would be for newspapers or magazines, then it's considered a "work-for-hire", and the copyright would be owned by the employer.
Truth, James
