The idea here is to seek copyright holders to voluntarily release content
with a free license, just like how we regularly try this through OTRS etc.
No one here suggests ignoring copyright, at least not me. I however believe
our regular method of seeking this may be inadequate this time as we will
be dealing with possibly for profit commercial entities that may need a bit
more effort to convince.
- In the interest of public interest given the very nature of the
report, there is in my view a strong argument that copyright restrictions
restrict/limit access to the supplementary files to the report.
- We seek free licenses to these files to safeguard their existence on
the internet since it is not clear for how long the "Iraq Inquiry" website
will stay where it is, will it be there in five years? Five decades? The
public interest could only be secured if we are able to make copies of the
supplementary documents without copyright restrictions.
- Our work with the files (wikification) will make the documents more
searchable and digestible, easing public access to the report and its
supplementary media.
These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to persuade
BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number of files. We
can debate the rationale further. I feel success of this is more likely if
the problem is highlighted (possibly by using our devised criteria) by an
MP or several MPs prior to our attempts which could create some informal
high level discussion that would ease this process. I do not expect a bill
to be introduced or something like that.
We ought to also identify who owns the copyright of all the media on the
site in question, perhaps a list of files page where we can identify the
filename and copyright in order to manage this. The archive is massive and
that is why this is needed.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 13 July 2016 at 01:27, Joseph Fox <josephfoxwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection
laws in the UK usually
trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court
case to prove otherwise.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 23:51 とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I do not understand what you are asking me. Do
you want me to find you an
academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would
I do this?
The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the
interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫
<to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am not really interested in discussing general
policy of the BBC etc.
regarding copyright at this point.
Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their
rights] on the basis of public interest
If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk