Copyright. Questions about Creative Commons licenses
QUESTION: Can I use the work of third parties in my informative and educational material?
QUESTION: Which exceptions of Law 2121/1993 allow the use of third party material?
QUESTION: Can I translate excerpts from a foreign language book and use them as informative and educational material?
QUESTION: Is the use and publication of material subject to Law 3028/2002 for the protection of cultural heritage allowed?
In Greece, the fundamental law is Law 2121/1993 (Government Gazette A'25, 4/3/93) which, inspired by the World Intellectual Property Organization, revises the previous legislation of 1920 and complies with the directives of the European Community. This law was drastically amended in many of its provisions by Article 8 of Law 2557/1997 (Government Gazette A'271/1997) in implementation of Directives 93/83/EEC and 93/98/EEC.
The competent organization is the Intellectual Property Organization , and more specifically on the website of New Technologies it is characteristically stated:
The protection of websites as autonomous projects moves in the same context. First, a website in most cases contains other works, such as software, images, texts and sounds, which, as long as they meet the requirements of the law, will be protected independently. A work is equally protected whether it is embedded in a material carrier (eg print or cd), or located on an internet site (eg a photograph enjoys the same protection whether it is printed in a newspaper or presented on a newspaper's website). The use of any digital online work is subject to the provisions of the law, just as it is when it is made available in any offline format.
The website itself can be independently protected as a work even without falling into one of the indicated indicative categories of works of no. 2 Law 2121/93. In some cases it could fall within the concept of a database while alternatively certain parts of it (which make it up) could be protected as works if they meet the requirements of the Act.”
It is worth noting that ideas, processes, methods of operation or mathematical concepts per se are not protected under intellectual property law.
Also, the Creative Commons licenses come from the non-profit organization of the same name that issues 6 different copyright usage licenses, which allow the free circulation of intellectual works over the Internet and at the same time protect their creator.
Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to expanding the range of intellectual works available for these and other works to be built upon and shared legally. The organization has issued various copyright licenses known as Creative Commons licenses. These licenses allow creators to easily state which rights they retain, and which rights they set aside for the benefit of other creators.
For more visitthe license governing the Internet Safety website, through which it is free to Redistribute (to reproduce, distribute, present the Work to the public) and to Adapt (to modify the Work) under the following conditions:
Author Attribution — You should refer to the work in the manner designated by the creator or licensor (but not in any way implying that they endorse you or your use of the work);
Non-Commercial Use — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
Similar Distribution — If you alter, modify, or build upon the work you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or a similar license.
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/
In general, the use of work without the author's permission is prohibited. If the material is not subject to a specific license – CC or otherwise – then you can request permission to post for educational purposes. Also keep in mind that all works whose creator has been dead for 70 years are in the "commons" and can be used as a basis for the creation of free and/or protected derivative works, which their creator can exploit as it wants and to limit access to them at will.
Law 2121/1993 on copyright provides for some exceptions, where the material can be used without permission which are listed below.
The use of protected material without permission is provided in the following cases:
- quoting short excerpts from the work of another legally published to support the opinion of the person quoting or criticizing the opinion of the other, provided that their origin and their creator and publisher are mentioned (a.19)
- the reproduction in educational books, used as teaching books for primary and secondary education approved by the Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs or by another competent Ministry according to the official syllabus, of works of speech by one or more legally published authors, which constitute a small part of the total creation of each of them. This arrangement only concerns printed reproduction (a.20)
- the reproduction of articles legally published in a newspaper or magazine, short excerpts of a work or parts of a short work or a work of the visual arts legally published, as long as it is done exclusively for teaching or exams in an educational institution (a.21)
- reproduction of an additional copy by non-profit libraries or archives that have a copy of the work in their permanent collection in order to preserve that copy or to transfer it to another non-profit library or archive. Reproduction is permitted only if it is impossible to procure such a copy from the market in a short time and on reasonable terms (a.22)
- the reproduction of a film for the purpose of preserving it in the National Film Archive (a.23)
- the reproduction of a work to be used in a judicial or administrative procedure (no. 24)
- the use of a project for information purposes (no. 25)
- the use in the media of images with works of architecture, visual arts, photography or applied arts that are permanently located in a public space (no. 26)
- of the public performance or execution of a work: a) in the case of official ceremonies, to the extent justified by the nature of these ceremonies, b) in the context of the activity of educational institutions by the staff and pupils or students of the institution if the audience consists exclusively of them or by the parents of the pupils or students or those who have custody of them or those directly connected with the institution's activities (a. 27).
- the presentation to the public of works of visual arts in museums, which have the ownership of the material carrier where the work is incorporated, or in the context of exhibitions organized in museums (s. 28 par. 1).
- the presentation to the public and the reproduction in visual arts work catalogs to the extent that this is necessary to facilitate the sale of the work (s. 28 par. 2).
- the reproduction of the work for the benefit of blind and deaf persons for uses directly related to the disability and not of a commercial nature to the extent required by the specific disability (no. 28A).
The translation is considered a quotation of material therefore it is also prohibited without the author's permission. It is permitted as shown above in the case of quoting short excerpts from another legally published work to support the opinion of the person quoting or to criticize the opinion of the other, provided that their origin and their creator and publisher are mentioned.
Law 3028/2002 on the protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in general states that the production, reproduction and dissemination to the public of mobile monuments located in museums or collections, or properties located in archaeological sites and historical sites is prohibited without prior permission from the T.A.P.A. (Archaeological Resources and Expropriations Fund). Nevertheless, all the Digital Convergence programs funded by the NSRF and the Community directives promote the dissemination and publication of cultural goods. E.g. the Google Art Project ( http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/acropolis-museum/ ) has several photos of Acropolis museum exhibits that can be used as links in our presentations or we can use photos from Europeanna.
The competent organization is the Intellectual Property Organization , and more specifically on the website of New Technologies it is characteristically stated:
The protection of websites as autonomous projects moves in the same context. First, a website in most cases contains other works, such as software, images, texts and sounds, which, as long as they meet the requirements of the law, will be protected independently. A work is equally protected whether it is embedded in a material carrier (eg print or cd), or located on an internet site (eg a photograph enjoys the same protection whether it is printed in a newspaper or presented on a newspaper's website). The use of any digital online work is subject to the provisions of the law, just as it is when it is made available in any offline format.
The website itself can be independently protected as a work even without falling into one of the indicated indicative categories of works of no. 2 Law 2121/93. In some cases it could fall within the concept of a database while alternatively certain parts of it (which make it up) could be protected as works if they meet the requirements of the Act.”
It is worth noting that ideas, processes, methods of operation or mathematical concepts per se are not protected under intellectual property law.
Also, the Creative Commons licenses come from the non-profit organization of the same name that issues 6 different copyright usage licenses, which allow the free circulation of intellectual works over the Internet and at the same time protect their creator.
Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to expanding the range of intellectual works available for these and other works to be built upon and shared legally. The organization has issued various copyright licenses known as Creative Commons licenses. These licenses allow creators to easily state which rights they retain, and which rights they set aside for the benefit of other creators.
For more visitthe license governing the Internet Safety website, through which it is free to Redistribute (to reproduce, distribute, present the Work to the public) and to Adapt (to modify the Work) under the following conditions:
Author Attribution — You should refer to the work in the manner designated by the creator or licensor (but not in any way implying that they endorse you or your use of the work);
Non-Commercial Use — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
Similar Distribution — If you alter, modify, or build upon the work you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or a similar license.
Website Republishing of Photos and Photographers' Copyright
It is common practice for the media, online and offline, to search for news illustrations with material they pull from internet search engines. It cannot be known whether a photo is copyrighted or not. What is certain is that if the photograph does not show the element of originality, then the photographer cannot claim legal protection, as copyright law only protects original works. Thus, everyday works that do not present a creative height are outside the scope of protection and anyone can use them without having the obligations of obtaining a license or paying a price or even citing the source from which the work has been derived.
A decision recently issued by the Athens Magistrate's Court, in a case in which I defended the administrator of an information site, following a lawsuit filed by photographers, is moving in this direction. The decision rejected the action as indeterminate, because the Court considered that the documents that constitute the originality of each photograph were not presented in the document. And it contains some interesting legal considerations, about the nature of that "originality" that the law requires a photograph to have in order to be protected as an intellectual creation:
It is common practice for the media, online and offline, to search for news illustrations with material they pull from internet search engines. It cannot be known whether a photo is copyrighted or not. What is certain is that if the photograph does not show the element of originality, then the photographer cannot claim legal protection, as copyright law only protects original works. Thus, everyday works that do not present a creative height are outside the scope of protection and anyone can use them without having the obligations of obtaining a license or paying a price or even citing the source from which the work has been derived.
A decision recently issued by the Athens Magistrate's Court, in a case in which I defended the administrator of an information site, following a lawsuit filed by photographers, is moving in this direction. The decision rejected the action as indeterminate, because the Court considered that the documents that constitute the originality of each photograph were not presented in the document. And it contains some interesting legal considerations, about the nature of that "originality" that the law requires a photograph to have in order to be protected as an intellectual creation:
"According to article 1 of Law 2121/1993 "Intellectual property, related rights and cultural issues", the intellectual creators, by creating the work, acquire over it intellectual property which includes, as exclusive and absolute rights, the right exploitation of the work (property right) and the right to protect their personal connection to it (moral right). These rights include the powers provided for in articles 3 and 4 of the same law, while, according to article 2 par. 1 as work means any original intellectual creation of speech, art or science expressed in any form, in particular written or spoken texts, musical compositions with or without text, plays, with or without music, choreographies and pantomimes, audiovisual works , works of the visual arts, including drawings, paintings and sculptures, engravings, photographs, works of applied arts, illustrations, maps, three-dimensional works referring to geography, topography, architecture or science. An intellectual creation, in the sense of the above provision, is the product of the human spirit, which has a form accessible to the senses and, due to its specificity, differs from what pre-exists and the synthetic configuration of its individual elements and as to the specific expressive application of the author's relevant initial idea. Originality is not the particular individuality of the work due to the personal contribution of the creator. A critical element and, therefore, a basic criterion of originality, the meaning of which is not generally defined by law, except for the last paragraph of paragraph 3 of article 2 of Law 2121/1993, which concerns computer programs, but has shaped by the theory and jurisprudence under the regime of Law 2121/1993 but also of the predecessor of Law 2378/1920 "on intellectual property" as amended by Law 4301/1929 is the judgment that, under similar conditions and with the same goals, no other creator, by reasonable probability, would be able to create a work that is similar or that presents an individual singularity or a minimal limit of creative height, so that it stands out and differentiates itself from other works of everyday life or from other similar known works. This uniqueness can be sought in any of the characteristics of the work (in the subject, in the conception, in the classification, in the formulation, in some details) depending on its type and nature. However, the simple fact that it is not a copy, even with some variations, of another is not enough to give originality to a work, nor is originality identical with its labor, diligence, extent, utility, expense or the length of time required for its preparation, but it should present, as a whole or part of it,the required originality, i.e. to be statistically unique. As long as the above conditions are met, the law protects the work as an intangible asset, not as a material object in itself that embodies the intellectual creation and only in relation to the specific form given to it by its creator (G. Koumantou, Spiritual Property, pp. 20,21 and 98 ff. D. Kallinikou, The fundamental issues of Law 2121/1993, pp. 22 ff., L. Kotsiri, Intellectual Property Law, pp. 59-67, M. Marinou, The insult of the right of intellectual property and related rights, Law No. 35/441 ff 2768/2003, NoB 2004, 51, EA 3252/2002 DE 2003, 293). As mentioned above, the provisions of the law also protect photographs, for which originality is also required, consisting in them being "the personal intellectual creation of their creator and reflecting his personality" (see also article 6 of Directive 93/1998 of the EEC, AP 152/2005 ibid.) When the claimant claims to be the intellectual creator of photographs and requests recognition of the personal intellectual link to the photographs and exercises his property rights recognized by law, he must state in the application of the action, apart from the exact object of the photograph and the manner of selection and presentation of the object that make the photograph an original intellectual creation. to contain a clear statement of the facts required for its legal foundation. The lack or insufficient mention of any of these facts renders the action vague and constitutes a lack of precedent which is considered by the Court ex officio, because it is reduced to public policy. This vagueness, which implies the rejection of the action as inadmissible, cannot be completed either by the proposals, nor by reference to other documents of the trial, nor by the evaluation of the evidence. In this case, in the present action, it is stated that [...] the defendant, who is the owner of the online medium “***” has used and posted on the said online medium the photos listed in the lawsuit, without binding him to a contract with the plaintiff company, without permission and without having paid any remuneration for this. That the defendant, although he was aware of the existence of copyright on the photographs, fraudulently and in order to avoid paying any amount to the owner of the copyright on the photographs he used, otherwise due to conscious negligence, he did not take care to find the owner and conclude with him the for remuneration contract required in the specific case.For these reasons, it is requested that the defendant be obliged to pay to the first of the plaintiffs, as the beneficiary of the property right of the contested photos, the sum of 5,000 euros as compensation for the damage suffered, calculated in accordance with article 65 par. 2 of Law 2121 /1993 and from 1,000 euros to the third, fourth and fifth plaintiffs for the infringement of the moral right and the failure to mention the name when using the photographic material, with the legal interest from the service of the action, to recognize the right of the latter as authors and in particular [...], to order the omission of the offense in the future and to threaten for each future offense a fine of 1,000 euros and to order the defendant to pay their court costs. The lawsuit, which is brought for discussion before this Court (article 14 par. 1 a and 22 CpolD), during the regular procedure, is with such content and request as to the second of the plaintiffs illegal, for lack of active legalization, since there is no link between this and the right under consideration (V. Vathrakokoili, ErmKPolD, no. 68 K.Pol.D.), and as for the other plaintiffs as inadmissible, due to vagueness, according to what is mentioned in the main consideration of the present, since no it is submitted that the disputed photographs have original elements, due to the personal contribution of [...] the plaintiffs that reflect the specificity of their creative process and which are composed, elemented and demonstrated by the selection of the material, its arrangement to shape the creative idea, the arrangement of their working parts, the study of each part, the adaptation and harmonization of one with the other, so that they make up a harmonious whole, possessing "statistical uniqueness", in the sense that under exactly the same conditions , by reasonable probability, would not be able to create a work that is similar or that presents an individual singularity or a minimal limit of creative height, so that it stands out or differentiates itself from the works of everyday life. In other words, elements are not exposed, which would give them a separate aesthetic content and make them individualized, statistically unique and original, in the aforementioned sense and personal intellectual creations of the creators of the plaintiffs that reflect their personality. Also, that, due to the originality of their individual singularity and the uniqueness that characterizes them, they are clearly differentiated from other similar photographs, which were known at the time of their circulation on the Greek market, so that they constitute intellectual creations, subject to the protection of intellectual property provisions of Law 2121/1993. Furthermore, the lawsuit does not mention the elements on the basis of which the amount of each of the photos in question is costed and consequently the amount of the compensation of the first of the plaintiffs, a general partnership,and also the evidence on which the alleged insult is based through the publication on the defendant's website of the litigious photos of the personal relationship of the last three plaintiffs with the said photos - works. Following the aforementioned, the present action must be rejected in its entirety. The legal costs of the parties must be offset due to the difficult interpretation of the relevant rules of law according to article 179 of the Civil Code."
Source
http://elawyer.blogspot.gr/2014/10/blog-post_22.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
http://www.corfuland.gr/el/diafora/kerkyra/ti-einai-to-copyright-deite-ena-paradeigma-klopis-pneymatikis-idioktisias-apo-megalo-site.html
http://internet-safety.sch.gr/index.php/articles/teach/item/10-opi
http://www.vdimitris.gr/mysql.php?seo=100
http://nikos.smyrnaios.free.fr/com_2010_Panteion_University_Smyrnaios.pdf
Posts
