Latest in ION's line of cheap'n'cheerful digitisation devices. Derrick
Coetzee posted the YouTube video to G+:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annCmIa-a08
Looks like a hideous pain in the backside (or the forearms) to me, but
I can see people bothering in some cases. It looks like the simplest
possible textbook-bootlegging machine, for example. Not sure I'd feel
so safe putting anything pre-1923 through it, or even fragile
paperbacks from the 1960s ...
- d.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en.
Please note that the results are not final: although the vote count is, and
has been finalized, the analysis of comments is ongoing.
Posted on behalf of the committee,
Philippe
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
It is possible to include non-free content in creative commons free
content, as these licences explicitly do not restrict the rights
granted by other laws.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Do_Creative_Comm…
However, I have seen many images deleted on Commons when they contain
fair-use/fair-dealing components within them.
Commons currently has a policy which rejects fair-use, however that is
for images where the fair-use context is external to the media file on
Commons (the wikipedia page).
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use
There are many situations where the fair-use context is embedded in
the media file, such as an image within an image, an image within a
video, or a parody.
Are there examples of fair-use within media on Commons?
The specific case I am interested in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHqFoK2EHls
specifically all of the logos on the backdrop for the interviews at
0:25-0:35,0:58-1:06,1:11,1:29,2:04
The creator of the video can't possibly secure free content releases
for those logos, and should not need to.
The copyright holders of those logos clearly put them in the public
knowing they would be used in this context, without giving permission
to everyone who had a camera at the scene.
In Australia, this may also fall under the Copyright Act section 67
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s67.html
However that depends on whether "television" can be stretched to
include youtube videos if the same content was also distributed on
broadcast television.
This section is omitted from our Freedom of Panorama template.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:FoP-Australia
Should section 67 be added to the FoP template, or would it be better
to create another class of templates for broadcast television
containing incidental elements of non-free content?
--
John Vandenberg