As a professional designer, i have a healthy interest in copyright law, but i am no lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt; it is just stuff i have picked up over the years, together with a very quick glance at the
american Copyright Office website to confirm some suspicions...
First off, among people that usually don??t come into contact with this material, there are a lot of misconceptions about what the laws are, and what they protect. For example, people often mix up what can be protected by copyright vs patenting or trademarking.
To be brief, copyright
only protects artwork that exists in a tangible form (like a CD-ROM, a data file or a painting) from being misused. It does not protect it from all use. It does not protect technical information at all, and it does not protect software in particular, unless it can be described as a form of art. (The GNU licence for Celestia should, to my eyes, be read as licence for an artwork to have validity, but i??m no lawyer, as i said...)
ar81 wrote:Software is owned by Chris, that we all know.
As far as I understand most of software licenses include derivated materialSo I wonder if I have permission to use pics from the software. [...] I'd add the proper names to the credits if I succeed, but I just wonder if GNU or copyright covers usage of such pics. So I'm asking for permission to use them.
There is no spesific mention of this in the GNU licence, exept for this:
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991
t00fri wrote:All official authors of Celestia should of course be cited
While this would be the corteous thing to do, i don??t know of any legal reason for it; in this instance, the software is a vessel for creating something else, in about the same way that a video camera is used to make a recording of, say, a piece of art. There are many creators/artists involved on the path to the derivative work here. Laws differ from country to country, but i haven??t yet found any expectations in copyright laws that requires listing the entire path, and it is not customary in daily life.
I think it boils down to the very blurry concept of
fair use. The waters are muddled even more by the fact that laws - and the legal standing of a licence - vary widely across national borders. See examples further down.
selden wrote:Copyrights are very complicated. It isn't as simple as you'd like. Most advertising, for example, is "work for hire". The results belong to the client, not to the artist.
This is a good example; while this might be true in US law, it certainly isn??t in Norway; here, the opposite is true. It is emphasized in our law that the creator cannot sell, or in ANY way forfeit the copyright (which is a term we do not use; the term is something like "right of creator"). We can sell the
use of the work for particular purposes, but not the right to change it, or decide who else is to use it. In reality, of course, no designer in his right mind ever demands this rule to hold... Most work would be useless to the client then. Norwegian law also explicitly states that
derivative works are legal, and within the public??s rights of fair use. This is completely opposite of american copyright law, where it is clear that only the current copyright holder has the right to create derivative works.
So, laws differ. As i see it, the only safe route to go is to follow US laws, which gives the copyright owner better protection, and the only prudent way is to be corteous and always ask permission from the creators no matter what licence or custom says.
Don. Edwards wrote:but if the image is of a copywrighted texture or textures than the textures copywrights would then kick in
Under US law, using (for example your textures) would be fair use if it happened in an educational setting, but not a commercial one.
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Under norwegian law, it would be legal also commercially, if the textures were used as part of a larger work, but illegal if used as the primary or only part of the work. And it gets more complicated: you can only hold copyright to your own earth map if it is regarded as art. If it is regarded as a technical representation, it falls outside copyrght law entirely. Your only protection would be to try to patent it...
Some exerpts:
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html:
?§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
?§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include? ?€”?
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
Full texts and further reading:
http://www.copyright.gov/
My interpretation of all this, then, in consideration of the GNU licence Celestia is licenced under, is that it would be ok to create separate works with the program, but that one should be wary of what the works contain. Example: regard Don. Edward??s maps as artwork, and obtain permission before featuring them... As for crediting people involved with the software itself, it would undoubtely be the polite thing to do...
This subject is interesting in general, not only in connection to this particular case, or to Celestia. If anyone can elaborate on the above, or find misinterpretations in it, please post.
-rthorvald
