Image talk:Dimma.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia:Image sleuthing --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dimma.jpg
Tagged PD-old
- Used in Book of Dimma
- I had tagged this {{PD-old}} (although I think I meant {{PD-art}}), and User:Dsmdgold left a message on my talk page asking for clarification. We were unable to come to an agreement on the proper copyright tag for the image, so I'm handing it off to you sleuths. Following is the conversation we had:
Hi, I noticed that you put the {{PD-old}} tag on Image:Dimma.jpg. Did you find a source for the photo? I realize that the Cover to the Book of Dimmais is way past copyright. However since it is a 3-D object, the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision does not apply to it. Therefore the photograph itself must clear copyright. I do hope you have found that this photo is copyright free, as I would have use for it in an article I plan to write. Dsmdgold 23:58, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is a complex case. First, the original book of Dimma, including it's cover, is in the public domain. Second, it appears that a rudimentary photograph or etching or engraving or tracing of the cover was made as some undetermined point in time, labelled "FIG 38.--CASE OF DIMMA'S BOOK." Lastly, this copy was then apparently scanned into a computer, being a mechanical reproduction with no original value.
The only uncertain point is the second step above. If the photograph or etching or engraving or tracing was made after 1932, would it be in the public domain? That's an interesting question. Some court cases are instructive.
Copyright can only be claimed where there is originality, and originality is absent, according to the Berne Convention (Paris text) art. 5(1), 1998, "where a photograph of a photograph or other printed matter is made that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying." In Mazer v. Stein (1954), the court ruled that a copyrightable work "must be original, that is, the author's tangible expression of his ideas" and "production of a work of art in a different medium cannot by itself constitute the originality required for copyright protection." Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp (1999) ruled that "only 'a distinguishable variation' -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original."
However, there are possible problems. According to Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co v. Sarony (1884), "a very modest expression of personality will constitute sufficient originality." This was interpreted in Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp (1998) to specify that "elements of originality . . . may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." But, as the Bridgeman decision noted, "'slavish copying,' although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify." The court noted that in the photographing of 2-dimentional works of art, "the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances." In my opinion, this also applies in the circumstance of the reproduction of the cover of the book of Dimma.
Applying the law to a specific circumstance always takes some amount of interpretation. But in this instance, I believe the {{PD-old}} (or {{PD-art}}) tag is warranted. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. . . are you convinced? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not convinced, for the simply reason that the cover to the Book of Dimma is not a two dimensional object, it is a piece of three dimensional metalwork. Three dimensional objects cast shadows. The manipulation of the lighting and positioning of the camera when photographing a 3-D object so as to obtain the desired effect from the shadows does constitute the low level of creativity needed to create a copyright. This image clearly shows shadows which would indicate that this is a photograph, rather than an etching, engraving, drawing, rubbing, or tracing. As a photograph of a three dimensional object, unless we can demonstrate it was made prior to 1932, the safest course would be to assume that a copyright exists. My suspicion is that this image is pre-1932 but I don't know that it is. Please understand that I would delighted if the image could be proven to be in public domain, either because my reasoning is faulty or because this is a pre-1932 photograph. I wrote the Book of Dimma article. I supplied the other image in the article. I have a use for the image of the cover. I would be especially delighted if I an wrong and "low-profile" works of three dimensional art can be considered as two dimensional, because that would allow me to use a much broader group of images. But unless the 3-dimensional nature of the cover is addressed, I won't be convinced by appeals to court cases based on copies of two dimensional works of art. Dsmdgold 02:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I understand. Still, you must admit there is some room for interpretation. If you've ever seen a Vincent Van Gogh or Jackson Pollock painting close up, you know they're not actually two-dimentional, and the 3-D aspect is an important part of the painting. But it's a difficult case. Luckily, there's a project called Wikipedia:Image sleuthing that's made for just these sorts of cases. I'll post this image tomorrow, and the sleuths can try to find the origin of the photo and reach consensus on the most appropriate tag. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- So, sleuths, what do you think? Can you find the source of the photograph? And how do you think it should be tagged? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:06, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
-
- [[1]] From Stokes, Margaret. Early Christian Art in Ireland. First published in 1887, revised by G.N. Count Plunkett 1911. Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press. 1972. ISBN 0766186768. — Zeimusu | Talk 14:36, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
- Margaret Stokes died 1900 (look through [2]) That makes this PD-old. (PD-art refers to a 2D work of art). Tagged. — Zeimusu | Talk 14:56, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
