FamilySearch abuse question:
FamilySearch abuse question:
Scenario:
Person A uploads an image they found of an 1800's genealogical document to FS Memories.
Person B later reports this as abuse stating that they were the one who made the scan of the document that Person A uploaded
Person A claims that the original document was from the 1800's - and is in the public domain (copyright expired or nonexistant). and thus any replicaton is also in the public domain.
Person B claims that they made the scan (or photograph) and thus they have copyright.
how does FamilySearch admins respond to the report of abuse?
See this court case:
Bridgemen vs Corel Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The law seems to be pretty straight forward.
The real question is how would FamilySearch admins generally respond.
I totally realize FS is probably not in a position to make a blanket statement that covers everything - of course the answer is always "it depends" - I understand that.
BUT Can FamilySearch admins at least say that in many cases Person A is in the right because . . or Person B because . . . but not saying this applies to any one specific case.
or can they say that within the confines of what applies to Brigeman vs Corel - that indeed that could be under the right scenario be a legitimate stance.)
note I am only focusing on copyright law.
(assuming for sake of the scenario - that contract law (terms of use) does not apply in this question - though of course it could very well apply both in where the original image came from or where it was posted)
Im just looking for a general guideline - not legal advice and not saying that it applies to any one specific case.
Answers
-
You may want to read this thread, with a similar subject, from a few days ago.
1 -
I hope this isn't too off topic to this discussion, but having read the statements above, the following scenario occurred to me: what about photographed or scanned images that are germane content-wise, but have been filtered through AI sufficiently so as to potentially conceal provenance & thereby elude copyright concerns? P.S. I've also started to notice users uploading obviously AI generated photorealistic imagery to serve in place of photos or drawings of persons' likenesses, usually owing to the antiquity and thus the lack of genuine documented likeness of the individual in question. Is there any rule against this considering such imagery is potentially contentious, on copyright grounds, despite having been generated by AI? And/or, in addition, because said imagery is both photorealistic but not in any way likely accurate, assuming it was resorted to precisely to counter the almost total absence of information other than perhaps a general idea of what the person in question might have worn? In short, should it be incumbent on contributors who seek to illustrate ex nihilo someone who lived in the late 18th century, for whom no pictorial depiction is known, to justify such uses, according to certain concrete criteria, lest Family Search start to become inundated with such a degree and category of arbitrary AI generated imagery?
0 -
lest Family Search start to become inundated with such a degree and category of arbitrary AI generated imagery
I'm afraid it's too late for that. The quantity of AI-generated "photos" is already quite large.
1 -
The other court case which is somewhat related is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.this case made the landmark decision that "sweat of brow" copyright is not a part of American law
you can see a discussion of that here:
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/%7Eriss/genealogy/otherstuff/copyright.html
in short - just because a person spends a huge effort on compiling a set of facts - does NOT mean that have copyright on that compilation or those facts.
but agin mainly not focused on the law per se -
mainly focued on how FamilySearch admins will respond to these sort of abuse claims that dont really get held up by the actual law.0
