Comments on: Free Clip Art

Free Clip Art

misanthropicsarah — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:37:14 -0800

No really, it's good. It's from Florida's Educational Clearinghouse and students and teachers can use up to 50 pieces of it in a single project without needing any further permission.

From the FAQ:

The Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) supports the appropriate integration of technology in the classroom. We believe students should actively use technology to create their own content. To do this, students (and teachers) need the raw materials with which to build their own presentations and publications. As educators, we know how frustrating it is to search for clipart on the Internet. Dancing Teddy bears are easy to find. More significant content is much harder. Our goal is to offer a quality collection of resources for the classroom. We are building this collection as quickly as time and funding allow.

There's a ton of categories, including pre-columbian history, doodads, thermometers, and algae. There aren't any smiley gifs or bouncing balls (thankfully). There is, however, a cat fishing.

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:45:26 -0800

Considering that the FAQ claims that all of these images are out of copyright (sources prior to 1923), why would you have to ask for permission to use them no matter how many of them you use? Or am I missing something here?

By: misanthropicsarah

misanthropicsarah — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:54:08 -0800

from the license page:

Why do you have a copyright notice on really old illustrations? It is true that the original drawings that many items in this collection are based on have long passed into the public domain. However, by the time we have scanned, cropped, cut out backgrounds, fixed broken lines, simplified, sharpened, and otherwise cleaned up the original drawing, the result is a new artwork derived from the earlier drawing. The derivative work is protected by copyright even though the original is in the public domain.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:02:15 -0800

However, by the time we have scanned, cropped, cut out backgrounds, fixed broken lines, simplified, sharpened, and otherwise cleaned up the original drawing, we assert that the result is a new artwork derived from the earlier drawing. The derivative work is protected by copyright even though the original is in the public domain. ...it should read.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:08:15 -0800

Nice resource, thanks misanthropicsarah.

By: oddman

oddman — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:16:25 -0800

That's really cool.

By: SpiffyRob

SpiffyRob — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:20:18 -0800

Man this is awesome. Old Sports Uniforms! Terrifying Children's Games! Thank you so, so much. I will make amazing use of this wonderful resource.

By: seanmpuckett

seanmpuckett — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:36:18 -0800

Actually, that's not the case. Reproductions of non-copyrighted works (as opposed to distinctly new works based on them), when made in the United States, have no copyright of their own. The "sweat of the brow" argument was rejected by the US supreme court in the 1991 feist/rural telephone case. You can ignore that license as you wish. (I am not a lawyer.)

By: norabarnacl3

norabarnacl3 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:44:04 -0800

Yeah seriously, cleaning up a public domain image does not reset the copyright, thats ridiculous.

By: scruss

scruss — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:47:35 -0800

The descriptions of doodads gets pretty weird after a while: a doodad, a doodad, a doodad, a doodad, ...

By: owtytrof

owtytrof — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:03:47 -0800

FETC labels clip-art doodad, doodad descriptions that aren't too smart oh, the doodad day I apologize for this horrible Camptown Races parody. Just blame scruss for drawing my attention to the doodads.

By: jedicus

jedicus — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:19:48 -0800

I'm not a lawyer, but I would actually tend to agree with their claim to copyright on the cleaned-up digital images. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing, but I do think they're probably correct. The "sweat of the brow" argument refers primarily to the idea that one could copyright a mere compilation of facts solely on the basis that one had worked to compile them. The Feist court did reject that argument, noting that originality is the actual basis of copyright in factual compilations under the current Copyright Act. That doesn't actually have anything to do with this clip art, though.* A copyrighted derivative work can be created from public domain works, but the copyright in the new work only extends to the creative changes made to the original. The better argument in this case is that nothing done to the clip art reaches even the low bar for creativity set by the current copyright laws. That is, one would argue that the digitization and enhancement were all purely mechanical--that any reasonably skilled person seeking to clean up the images would have done it the same way. Frankly, good luck with that. Nothing is stopping one from digitizing and cleaning up the originals oneself, though. Those are still in the public domain and always will be. * Except perhaps inasmuch as one could argue the (lack of a) copyright in the compilation of the clip art as a whole via creative expression in the selection and arrangement of the parts. But that copyright would only extend to the compilation as a whole, not to the individual works.

By: mandal

mandal — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:31:12 -0800

Terrifying Children's Games! Damn, maybe while they were doing all that scanning and cleaning up they could have altered the hand placement in this one.

By: milkrate

milkrate — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:29:46 -0800

Can you copyright the Royal coat of arms?

By: zsazsa

zsazsa — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:44:16 -0800

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: "...ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality."

By: Huck500

Huck500 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:35:53 -0800

Thanks a lot... as a teacher, I'm always looking for free clipart.

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:56:12 -0800

While I never meant to derail (particularly as I like the collections and intend to pillage them shamelessly), it's that latter argument that I was thinking of, jedicus. I wouldn't think that cropping images and cleaning them up constitutes derivative artwork. That said, thanks for this, sarah. I got completely lost in the Science and Math sections for an hour earlier today.

By: scruss

scruss — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:27:06 -0800

(I'll take that blame, owtytrof, and thank you for writing a better CR parody than I could think of.)

By: kryptondog

kryptondog — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:54:34 -0800

This is absolutely fantastic. I'll be making use of these as well. Thanks!

By: musicinmybrain

musicinmybrain — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:24:00 -0800

If scanned line art isn't your thing, or you'd rather your clip art be in the public domain rather than "free for limited educational use," how about some nice shiny SVGs from the Open Clip Art Library?