Selling Public Domain Art and Maps--Why Do Some People Consider this "Theft"?

I'm starting this thread because it has been correctly pointed out to me that discussions of this topic are not germane to the "How much do first impressions count?" discussion.

A bit of background:

I own a gallery that sells public domain classical art, as well as art and maps. I sell the paintings and maps for 40L$. All of the artwork I sell is public domain--either pre-1923 (and I check on each piece), or in the case of my maps and space art, created by a US government agency (NASA, CIA, NOAA, USGS).

It has been implied that a gallery like mine is somehow "stealing." I'm both annoyed and puzzled by such a characterization. I've gone to a great deal of effort to avoid anything of the sort--both from a legal and ethical standpoint:

1) I explicitly label all artwork with the name of the artist, the title of the piece, and the date of creation (though this is not always available for every US Government image),
2) I use the best sources I could find,
3) I only upload images that were clearly no longer protected by copyright,
4) I exactly match the proportions of the prim the image is placed on with the proportions of the artwork,
5) I use as high a resolution as is practical given the limitations of the SL client and asset server, and
6) Price the artwork reasonably (40L$ per piece--a whopping fifteen cents US).

Furthermore, the photographs of the public domain artwork are not covered by copyright. Copyright law requires some degree of originality for something to be copyrightable. A photograph of a public domain image--that exactly reproduces that image--is not copyrightable. Otherwise owners of artwork that has entered the public domain could enforce a de facto eternal copyright by claiming copyright of the photographs of the artwork. (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.)

I created this gallery this because I love art and wanted to provide an alternative to all the places selling ripped-off artwork from living artists (and still covered under copyright). I don't make a huge amount of money on my galleries. Were it not for the strong sales of my builders grids, I doubt I could make them worth the money. (We will see; I've put one in a new mall without the grid.)

How can this be considered "theft" by any reasonable person?

If its public domain its not theft. If it is -not- public domain thats where the cowpies start flying.

It wasn't intentionally implied by me, so while this may be an interesting topic of conversation, it is one I shall refrain from.

As long as the license the work was released under does not expressly prohibit it, sales in that sense (for a few pennies, mind) isn't stealing. While it might be frowned upon, the cost of L$40 isn't exactly prohibitive.

Contrast this to the resale of free items that are released under a "do not resell" license, such as scripts protected by Gnu (sic - see below). That would be stealing. Enforcement of said stealing, however... let's not go there.

It sounds like what you're doing is ok, although some people might consider it a rip off (selling stuff people can get for free)...but you're not doing anything fumdimentaly different than book publishers that print and sell editions of public domain books (that I can get for free off places like Project Gutenburg).

The thornier issue usualy concearns freebies people make in SL that they want distributed but don't want people to sell for profit. There's currently no mechanism in the SL permissions system to do anything like the Creative Commons provision for "non commercial use only. Also, there's the issue of "people are taking advantage of newbies by trying to sell them stuff they don't know they can get for free".

I have re-read the thread and calmed down some. I now believe my initial reaction to your post was not fully rational, and I'm sorry I jumped on you. I've had a bad morning, dealing with real life IP legal issues where I work, and I think that I was letting that color my reactions.

The GNU GPL does actually allow resale of code/software as long as the source remains "open" (free as in speach, not beer). Francis Chung's animation override script is GPL, for example, and can be and is legitimately used in other products.

Otherwise, you're on the mark.

I'd say this is passable. I think most of the complaints you'll get are from people who take the time and effort to create their own art and sell it.

Then again, they sell it for L$300 a pop, whereas selling public domain pictures for L$50 a piece is a more reasonable price to most.

I know that if I have a choice between excellent art that is a new creation, or excellent art that would suit my purpose that is public domain, I'll go with whichever is cheaper 99% of the time. Thus the whine from those with higher prices.

All of the artwork I sell is in the public domain--either a work of the US Government, or created before 1923.

THE GNU PUBLIC LICENSE IS NOT A "DO NOT RESELL" LICENSE.

Though some of the products using the Franimation Overrider don't actually obey the GPL: for example, Tinies typically don't distribute the overrider in a modifiable form, nor do they include a modifiable copy or a link to their modified version.

Well, if people want to get these things for free as well, then they can search the net. It doesn't sound like the OP is taking prim guns to people's heads and forcing them to buy things they could find themselves if they just looked around. It sounds like he is making sure what he is selling isn't breaking any rules as he has made sure to check. Alot of the textures I have paid $L for I have run across on the net and could have gotten for the upload fee. It's really no big deal to me.

Sometimes convenience is worth it...

There is the Tinies Dev Kit, although I think it's mainly distributed just by Kage Seraph now (the guy who did the animations for the Tinies, Wynx and co took it from there). It's full mod. Does that count?

I should actually check the perms on the scripts in my tiny AV...the script may be full perm even if the prims aren't.

If you can get the script free of charge, and use it to repair your broken Tiny, yes. If you have to buy it as a separate product, or there's something else keeping it from being used to fix a broken Tiny, no.
I had to replace the script in my yellow bird because it never worked (the other birds packaged with it were just fine, and I unpacked them all at the same time and place, so it wasn't something I did) and IMs to the creator went unanswered. I used Franimation Overrider 1.6 (I believe) to replace it...

Then I had to reverse-engineer which animations went with which state (and I don't think I got them all right), and then I had to add an extra attachment to the av to house the script, and pull the anims out of the body and put them in the new attachment, because the body was no-mod and I couldn't put stuff back in.

All of these are things that you're not supposed to have to do with GPLed software, there are terms explicitly in the GPL to cover this for the case of the kinds of software around when it was written, and the preamble explains that this is why these clauses are there.

It's OK if you don't want to follow the GPL, but then you shouldn't use GPLed software. And it's OK if you don't really mean people who use your software to be bound by all the terms of the GPL, but then you should use something other than the GPL when you distribute it. The GPL is a useful tool, but it's not a-la-carte. If you use it, you get the whole ball of wax and you really need to understand what that means.

Sic notice added to original post. I do make mistakes, y'know. Chill.

What seems fairly common practice is folk that take existing scripts, chop 'em up (or remove the license terms and author credit entirely), then go about selling them as their own. Depending on the amount of copying taking place, this runs the range from harmless reverse engineering to blatant theft.

Granted, I've only skimmed the Gnu Public License. What gave me the wrong impression is the recent case of the XCP rootkit stealing code from DRMS (under GPL), packaging it up, and I suppose selling it closed-source. While I suppose it's not "do not resell" explicitly, it comes pretty darn close with the "black box" model of most current businesses.

And at that, back to subject. Unless you have something else to rake me over the coals about?

If you heavily modify it, are you allowed to make it close source and sell it as your own, but give credit to the original creator?

I think that L$40 to $L50 for a piece of Public Domain art is fair. If I created the object myself it'd cost me L$10 - plus the time to track down the image, format it, and build the object. More like I am paying for the busy-work of getting the image into SL.

Reminds me of the days when you could walk into a computer store and buy a 5 1/4" floppy disk filled with public domain software.

That violates the GPL because it's closed source. Microsoft and Apple both sell products with GPL components without violating the GPL, and if THEY can manage it, surely it can't be as simple as that?

I'm not raking you over the coals, really, I'm trying to clear up some common misconceptions about the GPL that lead to people NOT using GPLed software when they could, and using GPLed software when they shouldn't... and also making the same kinds of mistakes when they decide to apply (or not) the GPL to their own creations.

You might simply place a sign up in your shop educating people on these issues, or create a handy dandy notecard to plop down on people who accuse you of stealing.
It could very simply be a case of people truely not knowing there is such a thing.

Although you are being falsely accused (I'm assuming), I have to admit that I find the idea of people trying to uphold IP and copyright laws a refreshing change from the usual free for all stealing that goes on.


Sun

Because some people are uninformed, or at the extremes just outright stupid.

lol, well THAT certaintly settles the argument, doesn't it?

Lots of good points here. I just wanted to add (if it wasn't mentioned) that the price of public domain is determined ultimately by the buyers.

One person mentioned reprints of public domain texts as an example, and it is a good one. If a work is "technically" free to the public, what they are really paying for with these texts is (1) a physical copy of the work and (2) any editing, additional content, formatting, translation, notation, and the like that is being added by the publisher.

In the virtual realm, it would basically come down to "features" as to whether people would be willing to buy it. (Well, that -- and whether they realize it's a free work and can locate a free source...)

not under gpl, no.
under gpl u can never close the source no matter how much u modify it. and all ur modifications must b released under the gpl if they r released.

I didn't read many posts in here cause im tired but, isn't charging for free public images the part that is illegal? Doesn't mean its theft.
Then again I dunno. Just somethin that I seem to remember from somewhere else.

If that was true, then all those little shops in malls that sell posters of public domain art are in trouble.

Yeah but couldnt people selling the art claim they are actually selling their time finding the art, formating the art for upload, cost of uploading the art, cost to cover rent for displaying the art for sale, etc.

Then make the same claim here.