On 9/14/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not sure a large and free-form table is the best way to accomplish
this. I think it will confuse people. I think perhaps though that if
we agree on certain issues (say, the architecture one), we could make
specific templates relating just to those instances. They should be
relatively limited in scope.
There do seem to be a small number of recurring issues in this regard:
- public art
- architecture (= derivative works? freedom of panorama?)
(in some, maybe all, countries these are considered together?)
-limits of PD-ineligible (notably, German logos)
-privacy rights
-possibly 'sweat of brow' vs 'mechanical copy'? (we are still
inconsistent about this, with flags)
-and if we're going to go down this route, many countries probably
have laws about offensive/seditious material?
That's a pretty good list to start with. I think we should put off the
offensive/seditious material question for another day -- it's a very
big kettle of fish. The only exception to that is that there are US
laws regulating the need for publishers to maintain detailed records
about anyone appearing in sexual situations. I'm pretty sure Jimbo has
said in the past that he wasn't interested in trying to keep such
records; anyway it's an issue to think about since we do "publish" out
of the US.
It would be great if, for the sake of discussing it, we had a little
table that explained the international differences on the above
issues. I only know bits and pieces about a few of them. It might help
us clarify what the legal issue is, and from there we can also
probably think about the ethical issues (I'm inclined, for example, to
support privacy rights in any compromising photographs which are not
of "public figures," whether or not the law strictly requires it or
not).
FF