|
In Norway, and most countries who has signed the Berne Convention(*) distinguish between inalienable "Moral" rights, and commercial rights that may be sold/assigned to others. Even if you sell the publishing rights to your artwork, novel or whatever, the buyer must pay due respect to the 'integrity' of the work, and must attribute the creation of the work to you.
Either, such "Moral rights" didn't exist in USA, or the source had fallen in public domain, when Disney decided to make some movie (e.g. The Jungle Book). Or, they have a very liberal interpretation of "preserving the integrity of the orignial work" (which I guess is a strong element in either case!).
(*) Today, "Berne countries" includes the USA, but they were late to it (1989), and I am not certain that every part it is yet implemented in the laws.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: and must attribute the creation of the work to you.
Ok?
But this discussion is about whether it can be used or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
The photographer is considered an artist so the work belongs to that person unless the copyright has been assigned to another.
Note that if the photographer takes the photo as part of his job, which would likely be the case here, as most photos of Einstein would be for newspapers or magazines, then it's considered a "work-for-hire", and the copyright would be owned by the employer.
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
James Curran wrote: and the copyright would be owned by the employer.
But then still not owned by the person in the photo.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind however that that is not a guarantee of the status. So one should insure the status themselves before using anything.
|
|
|
|
|
So IANAL but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Wikipedia:Public domain image resources - Wikipedia[^]
I think the vast majority of Wikipedia images are public domain.
You just may need to follow the image sources back and make sure they are from one of the public domain sources if it's serious... Like printing a magazine/book.
If you're throwing up a website, I wouldn't fret over any of it at all.
I think it's not going to matter so long as you aren't 1) making millions or 2) selling the media itself. (But probably wouldn't matter even if you were, in the first case.)
|
|
|
|
|
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
In the US, copyright law is a mess.
Prior to the US joining the Berne Convention, copyrights were for 28 years, and renewable once for another 28 years, for a total possible of 56.
Once we joined (1980), things went crazy. For new works, by a person, the copyright was for LIFE+75 years. For new works owned by a corporation (movies, newspapers, magazines etc.), it's 75 years from publication.
For older works, if the copyright had expired when we joined the Berne Convention, it remained in the Public Domain. If it were still covered by a copyright, the copyright was extended, first to 75 years, and then to 95. Which means that from 1980 until 2019, NOTHING entered the Public Domain in the US. In 2019, works first public in 1923 became public; In 2020, those published in 1924 became public, and so forth. (All copyrights end on Dec 31st, so it's actually 95 years, plus a few months)
And that's the simple version.
But then, at least this lets the US avoid the trouble the rest of the world has with the copyright of "The Diary of Anne Frank". Since most of the world uses Life+75, there is a debate about who's life they use. Anne's (who died in 1945, so it would have become PD in 2020) or her father's (who "edited" the book, and died in 1980, making it PD in 2055). In the US, it's 95 years from publication, so it becomes free here in 2042.
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
In the US, Einstein's estate or it's successor pursues copyright of his image very aggressively. You don't want to mess with Einstein pictures unless you know their provenance, and what the copyright situation is. Just taking them off Wikipedia doesn't make you safe.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 882 4/6
⬛⬛⬛🟩⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 882 3/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 882 5/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟩🟨⬛
🟩⬛🟩⬛🟩
🟩⬛🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 882 3/6*
⬛🟨⬛🟩⬛
⬛⬛⬛🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 882 4/6
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 882 4/6
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Some background (story time):
Today I found and fixed a parsing bug in Slang. Slang turns a subset of C# into an abstract syntax tree that can then be analyzed, transformed, or outputted in any language that ASP.NET can use. That's right, you can use it to turn C# code into VB.NET code for example, but that's not its primary purpose, so much as language independent code generation, code analysis and code transformation is.
Deslang takes that C# subset and creates code that builds that Abstract Syntax Tree in code. It constructs a source file, that has methods that build the object model using constructors, setting fields, etc, until the entire tree is built out.
Your first question might be, "why in heck would you do this last bit especially except out of boredom?"
The answer is several fold, but primarily has to do with performance. Slang doesn't get enough information from just parsing C# because C# is highly ambiguous without applying type information, which isn't done typically during a parse. So after the fact, I have to analyze the parse tree and determine for example, which identifiers refer to fields, and which ones refer to properties. This takes a long time, but that's what it takes to build the tree. Deslang does this once, and gives you code to rebuild the tree instantly.
I didn't have to go into so much detail above but I'm proud of that mess. It's probably the most ambitious thing I've ever done in C#.
Anyway, my lexer generator, Rolex uses this technology to do language independent source code generation that's highly templatized. I insert the necessary code in Slang (C# subset) and then perform some visits and transformations on it to get the final tree to generate, which can then be emitted in one of many .NET languages.
Are you with me so far?
Okay, question time:
Rolex uses that along with some other tools I built in order to be built from source in the first place.
This requires me to either include the executables for the build tools with the project or include the projects, like Deslang and all supporting projects (there are several) in a giant solution. Keep in mind these aren't traditional dependencies - they are build tools that are run during pre-build events to generate code.
But I've gotten flack for checking executables into git on my public projects. Like, I've even been insulted over it (not that reddit isn't full of toxicity in general)
So what would you do? (reddit hecklers aside) - should I include these build tool projects as source in the solution? The executables? The executables and their links to dependent projects in the README? (will be kind of a mess to structure everything for reasons, but I'm game if it's the best solution)
I'd love input on this. I'm so torn. 
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Could you ask the opinion of the owner of the project whether they are okay with you adding the executables?
Or just add them and put a statement in the Readme.md that they are needed for it to work properly. Edit - That's what I get for not reading every word, you already suggested that.
Or, or, you could monetize it and charge people for access to the executables. I kid, I kid.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I wasn't clear somehow? I am the owner of all these projects.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
My 0.02$: Include links to source in build instructions and add binaries to the release.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I provide executables and build instructions. Not everyone wants to bother building just to see what it actually does. But if they want to build on top of it, or if they're worried about naughty executables, they need build instructions.
EDIT: If you listen to the Reddit crowd, you could end up in a story very similar to that of the father, his young son, and their donkey travelling to market.
|
|
|
|
|
Follow your own lead, and ignore the lesser lights in the firmament.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity - why not let Roslyn do the parsing? And are you sure you can't use a source generator to avoid all the problems of code generators hacked into the build pipeline?
|
|
|
|
|
Because Roslyn is too rich for the CodeDOM. The CodeDOM supports just enough code constructs to make a program, even missing some basics like switch case and post increment operators.
I don't know what you mean by your second question? Do you mean using the new C# language features to do source generation?
There are a number of reasons not to rely on that, least of which is lack of flexibility. I can run this code in any pipeline as a CLI tool. With source generation it's stuck as part of the C# compiler work during the build itself, which creates issues, like being able to manage the staleness when the input file changes. It's more trouble than it's worth, and imo the wrong tool for this particular task.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Until very recently I've been maintaining a Windows project (UI, hooks, COM, all the fun stuff) that I started selling in 2008.
If I hadn't checked in the exes for some of the utilities needed (installer tools, license stuff, etc.) I would have been screwed! Yes, I could have modernised it and removed many of them, but it simply didn't make commercial sense to do that.
Purity is all well and good, but at the end of the day shipping software wins over intellectual mas rigour.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
