[WikiEN-l] Application of the {{pd-art}} tag

[Drini drini]

On 4/11/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/11/06, Mak <makwik at gmail.com> wrote:
> > According to a number of librarians I've spoken with, a number of US
> Museums
> > and libraries would differ with you on that. They believe that if they
> own
> > the original work, unless they license copies, all images of that work
> > belong to them. They could very well be wrong, but that's what they
> think,
> > and would probably eventually be willing to test in court. For a lot of
> > items they'll severely restrict access, just so that this sort of thing
> > won't happen, and if the precedent is upheld, this is likely only to get
> > worse. It's unclear to me whether we should use this case as a
> precedent,
> > although it's clear that both Wikipedia and the Commons
> does.  </armchair
> > lawyering>
> > Makemi
>
> Well of course they would differ on that. They see revenue going out
> the window as they tried in vain to claim active authorship rights on
> something that was made two hundred years ago. The only claims I have
> seen against the reasoning in Bridgeman and Feist are along the lines
> of "but we'd like the money" and "it takes effort/resources to make
> this product." Those are realistic economic considerations for a
> business but it is a sort of argumentation which should have nothing
> to do with copyright law -- it is the sort of argumentation which
> leads you down the horrible legislative paths like the Sonny Bono
> Copyright Extension Act ("We'd like it extended because it's worth
> money, so fuck the principles"). Fortunately librarians and archivists
> are not as potent a constituency as the music industry, or else
> Congress would probably get involved. I have very little tolerance for
> archivists who think that ownership is the same thing as authorship,
> and do not care that copyrights are supposed to be LIMITED monopolies
> on culture.
>
> The long-term effects of Bridgeman v. Corel -- which I don't think
> anybody is predicting a swift overturning of -- are worth
> contemplating but are really beyond our personal control. Whether it
> will result in restriction of access (for the purpose of preserving IP
> without resorting to IP law) is a possibility, but just one of many.
> There are other ways to make revenue besides trying to misuse
> copyright law, thank goodness.
>
> Since Bridgeman v. Corel currently IS the law (whether the archivists
> like it or not) and has BEEN the law for the past six years, I think
> we shouldn't be too worried about using it. In any event, if something
> horrible happened which changed the legal situation we can always go
> back over the images tagged as such and delete them.
>
> FF


Another example in case:
[[Image:Milaria Scotia Regium 1595.jpg]]
the website license from where ti was taken specifically states you have to
ask for a license, it got released "for educational non commercia purposes"
(so it should be deleted per Jimbo's rule from last year), it's not being
used on an article, yet IFD and WP:CP  said the image should stay (due to
PD-art)