brainwagon

Today the Supreme Court issued a ruling which reversed the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling that the phrase “under God” was unconstitutional. Instead of trying to present an actual legal argument about the separation of church and state, they chose instead to merely rule that Michael Newdow could not bring suit on behalf of his daughter because he did not have standing to sue. The decision resolves none of the issues surrounding the issue, and I suspect additional suits will be brought reasonably quickly to attempt to get the Justices to consider this issue and give a ruling.

Still, the court is telegraphing its intentions in its opinion in a way which I find fairly disturbing. I have to have more time to digest the full text, but Chief Justice Rehnquist seems very willing to allow the religious language in the pledge continue with what appears to me only the flimsiest of justifications. I find such reasoning inexplicable given the court’s consistent rulings in the area of school prayer.

I suspect we haven’t heard the last of this case.

There are some good articles on oyez.com concerning the case and the issues surrounding it.

Apparently after two years of noodling around, the POV-Ray team has finally seen fit to release a new version of their rendering software. I can’t help but be mystified at how this project continues to generate enthusiasm among the amateur computer graphics community. (more…)

Just another example of an image that I scanned from the Dover book and colorized. I kind of like it!

Now, the correction: in reviewing Fishman’s book on the Public Domain, I am reminded that the term “copyright free” is not synonymous with “public domain”. From Fishman, page 3/27,

The words “copyright free” are often used to describe works (particularly photos and clip-art) that are under copyright, copies of which are sold to the public for a set fee rather than under a royalty arrangement.

So it remains to be seen whether these images are in fact in the public domain. These old style woodcuts appear to be of a style which suggests they predate possible copyright protections, but I suppose it’s vaguely possible that they are not public domain.

Till then, enjoy the images under the appropriate use of their “license”. I’ll investigate more, and probably end up writing them to find out what they think their position is.

Addendum: I found this site on Copyright for Collage Artists, which contains good information which seems sound.

I was looking for some clip art that I could use on my website, so last time I was at the bookstore I acquired a copy of Dover’s Old Fashioned Animal Cuts, a book of copyright-free images ready to be scanned. It’s a fairly nice collection of hundreds of black and white images which are copyright free.

They could have just said “public domain”. After all, if a work is not protected by copyright or trademark, it is in the public domain. Curiously, Dover includes the following “license” in the front of this book.

This book belongs to the Dover Clip Art Series. You may use the designs and illustrations for graphics and crafts applications, free and without special permission, provided that you include no more than ten in the same publication or project. (For permission for additional use, please write to Dover Publications, Inc., 31 East 2nd Streen, Mineola, N.Y. 11501.)

However, republication or reproductin of any illustration by any other graphic service whether it be in a book or in any other design resource is strictly prohibited.

What’s wrong with this? The fact that it is a complete fabrication. If the images themselves do not carry copyrights, they cannot place any restrictions on their use. That’s what public domain means. They can copyright the collection as a whole, keeping you from basically Xeroxing their collection (which is a creative work, requiring the acquisition of images and their arrangement in a catalog format), but they can’t keep you from, say, scanning them all and producing your own derivative work in the form of a catalog of your own.

I’m not trying to bust their chops. They produce a nice $6.95 book which is convenient and good to have, and frankly worth the pittance they charge. But for them to place restrictions on the use of their public domain collections is well beyond any rights they hold to the collection.

Caveat emptor: I’m not a lawyer, and cannot advise you on these, but you can go ahead and read up on the subject. I suggest Steven Fishman’s The Public Domain: How to Find Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art and More.