I was hoping somebody here could enlightened me a little on the topic of public domain images. What does it take for a picture to gain that status, and how freely can one use these images? Can they be used only for non-profit purposes, or can paintings by the old masters be used as illustrations in a PDF book?
I was hoping somebody here could enlightened me a little on the topic of public domain images.
A work becomes part of the public domain if the creator designates it as such upon creation (or first use). If it was created before the introduction of controlling laws (1923 for copyrights), it is automatically in the public domain. A copyright's usual lifespan is creator's life plus 70 years, and the topic of extensions is a hot debate.
You can use public domain for anything. The issue is one of product identity. If you create a book with nothing but public domain images, the danger is one of recognition. How serious will a reader take you if you use public domain images, and will that use hurt your brand name?
Thanks for clearing things up, LB! Seems things are pretty much the way I thought they were.
I wanted to use some of Theodore Kittelsen's works for my Vikings project. I'm a big fan of his work. No-one have better portrayed the creatures of Scandinavian folklore and mythology (IMHO). Since he died well before 1923, it should be safe for me to do so.
Thanks for clearing things up, LB! Seems things are pretty much the way I thought they were.
I wanted to use some of Theodore Kittelsen's works for my Vikings project. I'm a big fan of his work. No-one have better portrayed the creatures of Scandinavian folklore and mythology (IMHO). Since he died well before 1923, it should be safe for me to do so.
That's a big maybe. Just because it meets the criteria for public domain doesn't mean it is. "Happy Birthday To You" was written in the 1800s and it is still a protected work. You would need to find out if Kittelsen's heirs have applied for copyright protection of his works. (I know nothing of mr. kittelsen or even when he made is images.) How you find this out is also hard to say. There is no single place to go to find out if yes or no something is PD.
__________________ Joe Mucchiello, Head Honcho at Throwing Dice Games
Priority One: Fatherhood.
Priority Two: Sanity.
Down on the list: seemingly real close to releasing a notebook essential. It's in layout! Has been for months now. (Just nod politely so I won't cry about this.)
"I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer..." -- Scribble
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html has an excellent article on the right to display public domain images (as determined by Bridgeman vs Corel). It also has a link to the full judgement for your lawyer's reference.
For the record, the "before 1923" test only applies in the United States. English and New Zealand law both have the concept of a "crown copyright" which is perpetual. In many countries, copyright of images, movies, and audio recordings expires after 50 years - this includes New Zealand, Australia and Russia, among others. So, for instance, Gone With the Wind and Disney movies made before 1955 are in fact public domain in said countries. Several books published in New Zealand (including the excellent Tarzan Presley) and elsewhere are in fact banned in the USA since the material builds on work still under copyright there.
Also note that in the USA, there is no penalty for falsely claiming copyright over public domain material; that is why, for example, royalties were still being collected in 2005 on "The Land is Your Land" even though the copyright expired more than 30 years ago. That's also why AOL Time Warner can continue to collect royalties on "Happy Birthday", even though the melody was published under another name (Good Morning to You, which I have in a 1920's songbook) in the 1830's.
Heck, I've even seen copies of the US Declaration of Independence with copyright notices on them!
I mention this because even if material is public domain, you may still be sued or harrassed by someone for using it. Museums are still doing this even after the unambiguous language in Bridgeman vs Corel; many webmasters and clip art collections get hit up for illegal 'licensing fees' that any competent lawyer can get dropped like a hot potato (mainly by citing the above case). The JibJab parody case and the suppression of a Peter Pan book in the USA (the work is still under copyright in England due to special legislation) are other recent examples.
Thanks for your replies, evryone. Just to make sure Norwegian laws comply with international laws, I sent an email to a professor of Law at the University of Oslo today. Within half an hour he wrote back, telling me that copyright on paintings by Norwegian artists automatically expire 70 years after the artist's death. His heirs have no say in the matter.
Which means I can safely show you a couple of the paintings I'm considering using.
The first is P.N. Arbo's Valkyrie, the others are some of Th. Kittelsen's troll pictures.
Also note that in the USA, there is no penalty for falsely claiming copyright over public domain material; that is why, for example, royalties were still being collected in 2005 on "The Land is Your Land" even though the copyright expired more than 30 years ago. That's also why AOL Time Warner can continue to collect royalties on "Happy Birthday", even though the melody was published under another name (Good Morning to You, which I have in a 1920's songbook) in the 1830's.
which songbook did you find this in? was it harvest hymns or children's praise and worship or another one? i'm doing some research on this topic and the information would be GREATLY appreciated.
just to clarify, Good Morning to All (later changed to You) was first published in 1893 in a songbook entitled Song Stories for the Kindergarten by the Clayton F. Summy Co.
unfortunately it is indeed the case that copyrights over public domain material can be asserted in the US unless the copyright is indeed proven invalid. it is often the case that those who are trying to license it, even with evidence indicating that it is PD, choose to settle to pay a low licensing fee instead of bringing it to court in a potentially hugely expensive lawsuit. thus, the copyright owners can continue to assert their copyright through what is essentially a type of extortion.
Happy Birthday was not Copyrighted until 1935 IIRC, when it was published as part of a copyrighted compilation book. It doesn't matter when it was written. It is the date of copyright and first publication in its current form that determine expiration date. You can take a public domain item, modify it (unsure how much is required) and recopyright it as a derivitive work.
It is copyrighted, and validly. The song that someone noted it was a copy of (Good Morning To You) was written by the same sisters, or is at least copyrighted by the same sisters (see the text).
The Happy Birthday copyright is valid until 2030, at least. Such is US law, modified in large part to protect Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse. Ah, the wonderful world of Disney.
Oh, and importantly, photos of classic works of art are usually copyright the photographer. Even straight-on "artistic judgement free" photos of paintings. As such, just because the subject is in the public domain, it doesn't necessarily mean you can use the image.
Happy Birthday was not Copyrighted until 1935 IIRC, when it was published as part of a copyrighted compilation book. It doesn't matter when it was written. It is the date of copyright and first publication in its current form that determine expiration date. You can take a public domain item, modify it (unsure how much is required) and recopyright it as a derivitive work.
IANAL, but I have done a bit of research.
IAALS, and believe me i have done more research into this than anyone at snopes. there is *a lot* of misinformation online.
the 1935 copyright (they were actually registered in 34/5) is for an arrangement of the lyrics and the words. it was published as sheet music.
there are previous publications of the songs, and it does matter when it was written if it was by someone else.
you can take a public domain item, and if it is substantially modified to add new creative work to it, then you hold copyright on only the part that you added.
so if JBowtie might be willing to tell me what songbook from the 1920s he is referring to, that would be greatly appreciated.
IAALS, and believe me i have done more research into this than anyone at snopes.
You've done more research on the history of the song Happy Birthday To You than the people at Snopes? Why? In what context? Are you familiar with Snopes?
Edited to add: Did you read the Snopes article? You know, the part where it points out that the copyright holders first came up with the melody in 1893? And the part where it talks about the 1924 songbook? Including the name of its editor?
You bet there's a lot of misinformation out there. I'm surprised your research didn't turn any of those things up.
Are you familiar with Snopes?
Last edited by Fast Learner; 12th July 2005 at 08:06 AM..
You've done more research on the history of the song Happy Birthday To You than the people at Snopes? Why? In what context? Are you familiar with Snopes?
Edited to add: Did you read the Snopes article? You know, the part where it points out that the copyright holders first came up with the melody in 1893? And the part where it talks about the 1924 songbook? Including the name of its editor?
You bet there's a lot of misinformation out there. I'm surprised your research didn't turn any of those things up.
Are you familiar with Snopes?
ha. i am a law student. to reiterate, yes, i have done far more research than anyone at snopes. they also happen to have some misinformation about this on their site.
i'm not sure where i indicated that my research didn't turn these things up. in fact, i have copies of the 1893 original publication of the tune and the 1924 publication of the lyrics.
i'm still, however, looking for additional publications including the song, and that is why i am asking!
Oh, and importantly, photos of classic works of art are usually copyright the photographer. Even straight-on "artistic judgement free" photos of paintings. As such, just because the subject is in the public domain, it doesn't necessarily mean you can use the image.
This doesn't seem to jibe with Bridgeman v. Corel, cited above. Care to elaborate?
Seems things are pretty much the way I thought they were. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
