Before posting the article titled “Full of stars”, Stefano and I tried to find a photo suitable for its contents. Stefano liked very much the one you’ll find in this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_Bowman.jpg
What’s the matter? The matter is that this picture is protected by copyright. The site that hosts the photo is Wikipedia, and if you take a look at the page bottom, you’ll find some information about copyright. If you read carefully what’s written there, you’ll realize that it’s impossible to clearly know who the hell owns the photo! Who owns the copyright? The photographer? The actor? The actor’s wife? The film production company? The site uses the expression “most likely”...
Now, the use we would make of that photo was “most likely” referable to the “fair use” mentioned in the site. It was a question of posting it in an article who quoted the film character and the film itself. It was a question of inserting a picture aiming to give an idea about who the character “Dave Bowman” was (supposing that someone exists who never saw the film!). In other words, a use that doesn’t aim at the commercial exploitation of the work (i. e. the photo)...
Well, if I want to use the photo I have to quote the author and, in general, everyone who owns the copyright that protects the photo itself. And so, what can I do?
In this case - honestly - neither I nor Stefano is sure that we are able to behave properly! Who owns the copyright? IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW! And, in the end, to hell the photo!
Don’t you think, like we do, that there are a lot of absurd aspects in this state of things?
- It’s a nonsense the fact that it’s impossible to know who possesses the photo copyright;
- It’s a nonsense the fact that it’s so difficult, for people who aren’t experienced in laws, to know if they are violating some of them;
- It’s a nonsense worrying about this things!
The third statement is, in my opinion, the most important. It’s an absurd thing that, when you are simply using a photo, you have to worry about the eventual violations you are committing. It’s a nonsense that it’s so difficult to respect the law, even when you try and do everyting you can in order to respect it!! Today there could be dozens of people who own exclusive rights on a single work. Even Bowman’s make-up man, maybe, owns a piece of that photo copyright, and, if I use it in the blog, I should quote him!
(Who's the copyright owner, here?)
I’m sorry, but I am not a lawyer. I’m constructing a blog together with other people. This people are not lawyers. None of us is a lawyer... And so, since it seems that respecting copyright laws is an impossible matter, a trap with no way out, we decided that all of our photos will be “original”! We’ll use only photos shot by us. These photos will be released, together with the blog, with a “Creative Commons” license: on the page bottom, you’ll find every reference to this licence. You could freely reuse our photos, according to the terms reported on the license disclaimer. The only (welcome) exceptions that we’ll make, will regard photos shot by others, but released with Creative Commons license, or public domain photos. But, in the end... no more copyrighted photos!
That’s all for today!
Carlo Trevisan
PS: By the way, the photo used in the article “Full of stars” - a Stanley Kubrick self-portrait - is a public domain work, while the one used in this post is a Creative Commons work that i did on my own tonight! We are safe...!
Technorati tags: copyright, copyleft, music, creative commons