Geni wrote:
>
> On 8 July 2012 22:31, Adam Cuerden <cuerden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Geni wrote:
> >
> >>I know all this but at the present time the US courts seem to judge by
> >>intentions.
> >
> > Commons does not let us upload a pre-1923 work by a British artist who
> > died in 1960, even though the US courts would say it's out of
> > copyright. Commons attempts to follow all relevant international
> > copyright laws,
>
> Nope. Commons has decided that this is one area where it isn't going
> to pay attention to non US law.
Are you suggesting that Commons *does* let us upload a pre-1923 work
by a British artist who died in 1960? Because that is very much not
the case on the Wikimedia Commons to which I contribute.
Likewise, Cary's suggestion that Commons takes a view on "bad law" is
clearly not correct, as can be seen over the PD-1996 discussions.
Gaurav Vaidya's suggestion sounds like a good one to me.
Regards,
Harry
--
Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250).
------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:42:25 +0100
> From: Adam Cuerden <cuerden(a)gmail.com>
> To: commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Moving forwards (Was "Does Commons have a
> policy of violating UK copyright?")
> Message-ID:
> <CADQwQSNLGYYYGteQdTTyg_-w=
> PndjUr6+KcB7ws9GQ32-+TMww(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> So, Cary, the end of discussion is that Commons *does* have a policy
> of violating UK copyright?
>
> Seriously?
>
>
>
>
>
That's a rather provocative and over simplistic way of putting it. The
servers are in the US so any upload anywhere in the world has to comply
with US law. Individual editors are personally responsible for their
actions being compliant with the law where they upload images and where
they take photos; These could be very different legal jurisdictions. Any of
our users worldwide should be confident that the images which we hold
comply with US law; If they have stricter laws in their country then that
is between them and the law where they live. We could try to do things very
differently:
1. We could relocate Wikimedia Commons from the US to UK so that UK not
US copyright was the relevant law.
2. We could adopt a policy of trying to comply with multiple sometimes
conflicting copyright laws, and only hosting it in Commons if it complied
with some complex hybrid set of rules that included the laws of Afghanistan
Zimbabwe and a couple of hundred others.
3. We could give up on this globalisation fad and have a separate
Commons in each legal jurisdiction which only had to comply with that
country's laws and was only usable in that country.
Somehow I can't see any of those options getting consensus on commons, and
the latter two wouldn't work very smoothly either.
WSC
> The issue people have is that you are asserting a copyright that
> doesn't exist. A lot of people have a serious problem with that. They
> consider it an attempt at enclosure of the public domain.
>
>
> - d.
Rather, this is a complex issue, based on matters of jurisdiction.
IANAL, but Adam's argument is entirely consistent with my
understanding of international IP law, with which I have significant
experience: to wit, a British reuser who failed to attribute him upon
request would have a real case to answer in court. An American reuser
would not.
Therefore, rather than edit-war over one-size-fits-all tags, the most
sensible thing to do is surely to explain the licensing details on the
page in question. This fits perfectly with Commons' requirement for
legal reuse in country (countries) of origin to be clearly
established.
Regards,
Harry
--
Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)
I used to do a lot of restoration work for Wikipedia and Commons. When I
left, I still did restorations as a hobby, and recently gave permission to
have these coied over, under a CC-by license.
I live in the UK, so have a right to claim copyright on restorations, under
the Sweat of the brow doctrine. (indeed, I believe UK copyright law
technically doesn't actually allow me to release into the public domain as
such). I want my work to be widely used, but am concerned that a lot of it
was being used by unscrupulous poster companies to sell posters at vastly
inflated prices by using my work, and, as such, wanted to use minimal
possible protections, and CC-by is very much a minimum protection that
still allows all usages, just gets them to note that what they're using is,
indeed free to use and not done by them.
However, I am told - at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/First_co…
that Wikimedia has a policy that coyrights *must* be violated. If this
is
true, I would like to know, as it would mean I want to no longer make the
large versions of my work available for general download.
Cheers,
Adam Cuerden,
Upset Copyright Holder
