J
Joe_5859
Guest
Copyright is a sticky issue. The laws are different from country to country, too, which adds to the confusion. I certainly wouldn’t claim to be an expert.
If you want to download art, take some time to look into the copyright stuff. Click on the pictures on Wikipedia and look at the permissions to start to familiarize yourself with the lingo.
I used to be oblivious to that and would download pictures from Google Image searches. Now I’m much more careful. Wikimedia Commons has loads of pictures, most of which are either Public Domain or have the Creative Commons Share Alike license (be careful what you search for, though, as not all their pictures are G-rated!).
It’s not all cut-and-dry either. What about jpg photos that are photos of a 2-D work of art that has long since passed into the public domain? Some people think that the photo can be copyrighted as a new work, while others think that a photo of a painting that is public domain is automatically in the public domain. (Statues are a different story, though, because photos of different angles make a difference as to how one perceives the work.)
For example, look at The Creation of Adam on Wikimedia Commons. This, of course, is the famous painting by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Here’s what it says under the permissions:
This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:
If you go to the links, you get even more background info to confuse you.
And, speaking of confusion, just look on Wikimedia Commons for the mosaic in the apse of the Basillica of Saint Clement. This is listed under the Creative Commons license, not as Public Domain.
I believe 1ke is right that you don’t need to be making money to violate copyright law. I think that there is a tendency to fall to the extremes on copyright issues. Some people ignore it completely and think that if they can do it, it must be okay. Others go the opposite route and start to think that anything they do online violates copyright law. We need to be careful, but we don’t need to be paralyzed either. There is plenty of stuff out there we can use, provided we go about it the right way.
Of course, I’m primarily interested in Catholic art, so I google stuff like “free Catholic clip art” and I have found several good sites with images that are all free to use, too.
If you want to download art, take some time to look into the copyright stuff. Click on the pictures on Wikipedia and look at the permissions to start to familiarize yourself with the lingo.
I used to be oblivious to that and would download pictures from Google Image searches. Now I’m much more careful. Wikimedia Commons has loads of pictures, most of which are either Public Domain or have the Creative Commons Share Alike license (be careful what you search for, though, as not all their pictures are G-rated!).
It’s not all cut-and-dry either. What about jpg photos that are photos of a 2-D work of art that has long since passed into the public domain? Some people think that the photo can be copyrighted as a new work, while others think that a photo of a painting that is public domain is automatically in the public domain. (Statues are a different story, though, because photos of different angles make a difference as to how one perceives the work.)
For example, look at The Creation of Adam on Wikimedia Commons. This, of course, is the famous painting by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Here’s what it says under the permissions:
This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:
This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.
This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d’Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term.
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that “faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain”. For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain.
Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.
This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d’Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term.
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that “faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain”. For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.
This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain.
Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.
If you go to the links, you get even more background info to confuse you.
And, speaking of confusion, just look on Wikimedia Commons for the mosaic in the apse of the Basillica of Saint Clement. This is listed under the Creative Commons license, not as Public Domain.
I believe 1ke is right that you don’t need to be making money to violate copyright law. I think that there is a tendency to fall to the extremes on copyright issues. Some people ignore it completely and think that if they can do it, it must be okay. Others go the opposite route and start to think that anything they do online violates copyright law. We need to be careful, but we don’t need to be paralyzed either. There is plenty of stuff out there we can use, provided we go about it the right way.
Of course, I’m primarily interested in Catholic art, so I google stuff like “free Catholic clip art” and I have found several good sites with images that are all free to use, too.
)