Talk:Juliette Binoche

I doubt we have permission to use this picture? --KQ 02:13 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

DW is still wonder if your photos are PD ? Ericd 01:28 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

There is no problem with using this photograph in this article -- photos of people will almost never be copyrighted anyhow, and this is fair use if they are. If you're not comfortable with this concept, please review the applicable law, which you can find, inter alia, on FindLaw {beginning at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_101 }. Here is the part of 17 U.S.C. §101 that deals with photos and, as you see, this photo is not within the protected category. -- isis 02:05 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

• Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
  
• . . .
  
• A work of visual art is -
  • (1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or
  • (2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
    
• A work of visual art does not include -
  • (A)
    • (i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;
    • (ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;
    • (iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);
  • (B) any work made for hire; or
  • (C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.

According to your interpretation all photos agencies will bankrupt ? Ericd 02:21 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, just like the manufacturers of copy paper, which isn't copyrighted, either. But seriously, how do you interpret that statute to get to the conclusion that the photo IS copyrighted and then to conclude that it's not fair use in the pedia, please? If you don't have such an explanation, why are you sneering at me? -- isis 02:34 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I've taken this to the mailing list so that people who know these things can help us. -- Zoe

The US Copyright Office's circular is at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1#wwp

and photographs are clearly copyrightable, and usually copyrighted. (Like anything else, they can be placed in the public domain by the creator, and some are old enough that the copyright has expired.) The short list of kinds of things that are copyrighted is:

   1. literary works;
   2. musical works, including any accompanying words
   3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
   4. pantomimes and choreographic works
   5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
   6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
   7. sound recordings
   8. architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

[end quote] Fair use rarely, if ever, protects using an entire work. A photo is an entire work, as is a short poem. Vicki Rosenzweig

Re read carefully the text it says that motion picture are not work of visual art. And you conclude you're free to copy them ?. My conclusion is that a lot of things that are not "work of visual art" are copyrighted.

To be sure this photo is not copyrighted there is 4 solutions :

- DW made the photo ;

- Someone else made the photo and allowed him to use the photo ;

- He found it in some free of rights archive ;

- The photo has more than 75 years.

The last solution is obviouly impossible in the 3 other case he can give a source. As for the US law that's not enought, there are international conventions about copyrights. Ericd 02:50 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

IMHO we should include in Wikipedia policy to request extensive source information for photos. Ericd 02:53 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

That should be "there ARE 4 solutions" -- it's plural. -- isis 02:55 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry it's a "Frenchism" my English is not very good.

Ericd 02:57 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Eric, your English is just fine. -- Zoe

Thanks Zoe but it's just because I write only very simple sentences.Ericd

What about that higher section::

the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

The utilitarian aspects of a photo: show the subject. The pictorial features separate from it include everything else: angle of view, depth of field, motion blur, as well as all the choices made to achieve those effects: distance from camera to subject, lens used (consider 24mm vs 85mm), shutter speed, aperture, film stock, lens filters, ND filter, time of day, position of light source relative to the subject, position of the camera relative to the light source (flat picture, dramatic shadows, silhouette?), etc.

As long as anything remains copyrightable, I will adamantly disbelieve that photos should not be among them. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

By the way the author of the photo on the article Isadora Duncan (uploaded by DW) is Arnold Genthe (his name should be added on (List of famous photographers). I don't delete this one right now because I'm not sure if his work has fallen in the PD. Ericd 03:12 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer (and not an American either!), but I've just gone to the website about US law that Isis pointed to, and I see that Section 101 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_101), which Isis quoted from, is headed "Definitions". That is, it simply defines the terms that they will use in their discussion of copyright, before they go on to the main discussion itself. According to my interpretation of the definitons that Isis quoted, any photograph is an example of a pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work, but most photographs are not works of visual art. After that page of definitions, Section 102 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_102) gives a general list of what is covered by copyright. It states, "Copyright protection subsists [...] in original works of authorship", and that works of authorship include the categories that Vicki Rosenzweig quotes above. One of these categories is that of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works - not just works of visual art. So it would seem to cover all photographs. I haven't read the whole document, so I don't know where works of visual art come into it, but they are not mentioned in Section 102, the general page of what is covered by copyright. -- Oliver PEREIRA 03:50 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Isis' interpretation is mistaken. Photographs are covered by copyright. -- Tarquin 10:09 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

You are either mistaken in implying I ever said photographs cannot be copyrighted or deliberately misrepresenting the situation. The statute I posted above clearly provides for copyrighting some photos, and this is the second time you have posted a message implying you know more about U.S. copyright than I do. At that time you posted the message:

Isis, in matter of copyright & legal stuff in general you know far more than I do. I think the matter of which countries copyright law applies has cropped up on the mailing list, but I can't remember what was said. Is there international copyright law? -- Tarquin 20:27 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Whatever your problem is that you keep trying to create an issue about copyrights on the Wikipedia, quit running down my reputation in the process. It's no skin off my nose what you do to harm this project, but when you do me legal injury, that's another story. Please consider this my formal demand that you retract your 26 January 2003 statement about me on this same page where you published it. -- isis 02:20 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

That quotation above says to me, clearly I might add, that Tarquin believes you know more about copyright than he does. And which statment of Tarquin's on January 26 are you referring to? The only one I can see--I mean, the only one he made--says nothing about you, though it does say something about 1) tarquin's belief about your interpretation of copyright law, and 2) tarquin's own belief about copyright law. Assiduously not commenting on you personally, but on your reading of Tarquin's comment, Koyaanis Qatsi 02:26 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Isis - come off your high horse. We are not all infallible and if Tarquin believes you are mistaken he should be able to say it without you making some kind of threat against him. Mintguy

What could happen to Wikipedia if someone placed a copyrighted image here? I don't see Jimmy Wales losing money hiring an attorney to defend an online collaboration experiment which generates no real income for Bomis, only notoriety. And, even if a lawsuit was filed against Bomis Corporation and/or individuals responsible for this website's maintenance by a Plaintiff, who owns Wikipedia, and who would disclose the name, address, and phone number of the person who uploaded this copyrighted image? Rather than worry about Wikipedia being taken offline by Jimmy Wales to halt possible future lawsuits consider those options first. If the Plaintiff requests images be removed, or else face legal monetary losses in court, they would be removed. Either way, whoever exacerbated the lawsuit would remain a mystery, because there could be no proof of the file uploader's identity. For example if DW or isis posted copyrighted images, Bomis is the scapegoat and DW or isis walks away behind the veil of internet anonymity. A court would not know who any author on the pedia really is, nor have any certainty how to mail them a summons because we have no valid home addresses required here for contributors(only email). Again, this means Bomis could lose money over our mistakes.

However I sincerely doubt any loss would occur because copyright violations posted here can be removed. If msnbc.com articles were cut and pasted here with regularity, there would be sufficient grounds for msnbc to seek an injunction against Wikipedia because "nobody knows who did it." BF

Isis, I'm sorry but I just don't understand your complaint. What did Tarquin say that so upset you? It can't be anything on this page, because I can see nothing so serious as to require an apology. (And just in case you think I am 'attacking you', I'm not. If I could see what it is that has upset you, and I thought your upset justified, I would say. I just cannot see what the problem is. Perhaps you can tell me.

BTW, the impression that photographs aren't copyrighted is incorrect. Photographs are regularly copyrighted by photographers, photographic studios, newsrooms, etc. There is a set of photos I have been trying to get to use on Wikipedia but their owner is still trying to find which ones he can allow be shown. (Some previously belonged to the photographic library of a defunct but still legally existing newspaper, and may have been 'kept' when the paper closed by a photographer as souvenirs. His widow has now sold them on to my friend, who is getting legal advice as to whether copyright remains with the 'Irish Press' or transferred to the photographer, to his widow, my friend. If he has copyright, we can use them.) And anyone who has ever written a book will know of the nightmare involved in trying to get copyright waivers to get access to particular photos. JTD 05:34 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea what Isis means. I don't see what there is to retract, all I said was that it was my belief that her statement was incorrect. I don't see how that might require a retraction; I made no comment or implication about her in general. -- Tarquin 14:09 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

You said I said photographs are not "covered by copyright". I never said that (and, in fact, quoted the copyright statute that covers photos), and your saying I did is libel per se because it impugns my reputation in my trade or business of being a legal expert in this area. That is the statement I demand that you retract. (The messages posted above are proof of its effect on their writers' opinions of me.) And does anyone really believe Jimbo and Bomis would be any happier about a libel suit than one for copyright violation? -- isis 02:36 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. No-one else on this page thinks you were libelled. And if they don't think so, I wouldn't fancy your chances in any libel suit. Why are you making a big deal about a comment that nobody but you thinks libelled you. Even in European countries that have extremely strict libel laws, you'd have difficulty winning a case. In the US? Next to impossible. Please move on from this pointless discussion. You have already told us that what you say Tarquin said is wrong. You have pointed out the correct interpretation. We now know what you actually said. So as far as I can see, this issue is closed. JTD 03:12 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Isis, you wrote about (and I copy-paste): "photos of people will almost never be copyrighted anyhow", ie some photos are not copyright. In reply, I stated my belief that you were incorrect in your statement: that in fact, all photos are copyright. (I am a mathematician. "all are" is the logical negation of "some are not".) I hardly think that one single statement from me is a patch on Delaware Supreme Courts's opinion of you as having a "pattern of unethical conduct". You have bigger fish to fry. Please stop wasting my time. -- Tarquin 11:12 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

This is silly. Do you practice law under the name "Isis" Isis, or do you use your real name? If there is no obvious connection between your Internet persona and your real one then how can you be libeled if your Internet persona is impugned? --mav

--

It appears that some on this page are confusing the copyright definitions of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works and work of visual art. Put simply, all photographs fall into the former, but only photographs produced in limited editions fall into the latter. The distinction between the two classes only exists because the author of a work of visual art has additional rights that do not apply to the author of a mere pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, and those additional rights are found in 17 U.S.C. §106A.

Whomever is claiming that photographs which do not qualify for protection as work of visual art somehow do not qualify as pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works should more attentively read the definitions in 17 U.S.C. §101.

---

Without calling Isis an idiot, I'm just going to highlight some pertinent sections of the U.S. Code she so kindly included above:

• Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
  

...

Sec. 102. - Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

...

pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

Spelled out in black, white, and red all over. --The Cunctator

---

isis wrote: "Here is the part of 17 U.S.C. §101 that deals with photos and, as you see, this photo is not within the protected category."

How on earth could isis come to the conclusion that a photograph was not a protected work when it is clearly classified as one in the definition of "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works"? Not only does it require mistakenly assuming that "works of visual arts" were the only category that photographs could fall within, it also implies a complete disconnect from understanding the basics of copyright law. While isis may be a former attorney, taking that as a claim of copyright expertese is akin to assuming a police officer must be an expert on battery design because he carries a flashlight.

What is baffling is the question of why isis will not back down in the face of the facts? Perhaps she is simply being misinterpreted by the rest of us? Despite her bluster over libel, I have not seen her reassert her opinion that the photograph in question is not covered by copyright due to being printed in a run of greater than 200.

tarquin wrote: "Isis' interpretation is mistaken. Photographs are covered by copyright."

Is this the statement that so inflamed isis? If so, what part of it? Being told that she was mistaken, or being told that photographs are covered by copyright? The photograph in question (for what it is worth) is a still photo from the motion picture "Three Colours, Blue" and was used by the studio in posters and for promotional work. Its copyright status is a simple matter of fact, and unless it was consciously released into the public domain it retains copyright protection.

The statement "Photographs are covered by copyright" could be harder to resolve because it isn't clear exactly what tarquin meant. Later he does provide the clarifying remark "...in fact, all photos are copyright." The statement, like the earlier remark by isis, is also demonstrably false. As a token example, consider a photograph taken by an employee of the U.S. government as part of their official duties. That photograph, for one, would not have copyright protection as the code specifically states "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government".

So what is it? Is this whole issue boiling over because isis was caught in a single mistake regarding the copyright status of a single photo, and she is too stubborn to admit she was wrong? Has this become some sort of debate over exactly which photographic works are eligible for copyright?

If anyone is owed an apology here, I would say it is tarquin. Since this all started with isis claiming that the Binoche photo was not covered by copyright, maybe she could either explain to the rest of us why she believes this, or apologize to tarquin (and to the body of wikipedia) and move on.

I would broadly agree with that, but User:Jimbo Wales is aware of the situation, and, I believe, is talking to the parties involved, so I think we might do well to let him get on with it while the rest of us concentrate on building an encyclopaedia. --Camembert

---

I admit to not having read all of the above, but the issue is not whether or not the owner of the photo has copyrright, it is whether they placed, or allowed it to be placed, in the public domain. Next, if someone mistakenly uses a copyrighted photo, no infringement action can be institued without first a notification and then, even iff a suit is successful, it has to be proven that the infringement was deliberate and intended for gain.

In order for the person to place the photo, they signed the Wikipedia requirement. No one here has the right to come along and delete the photo on speculation as Ericd has done here and on other articles. If Ericd wishes to continue, then he should provide proof of vcopyright ingringement and submit this information to the owner's site.

the issue is not whether or not the owner of the photo has copyright, it is whether they placed, or allowed it to be placed, in the public domain - BUZZZZ - Sorry, wrong, thanks for playing. The goal isn't to create an encycloped full of copyright protected material where the owners haven't yet complained, the goal is to create an encyclopedia where ALL content is covered by the GFDL.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

My answer is on User talk:Jimbo Wales

Ericd 21:56 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)