I don't understand this - why would this have any effect on PD works? It only affects those that are in copyright but the author is not known, surely?
Mike
On 19 Mar 2010, at 01:32, Gnangarra wrote:
What we could have is images that were once PD becoming copyright violations, minor issue but we'd have to delete them
The other is under due dilligence we could have request for checkuser information to identify the IP of the uploader so that a person(corporate) wanting to take ownership of a photograph, atm we cant supply such information if we give a standard rejection of we are unable to assist in identfying the uploader we would be closing that line of investigation and contributing to the loss of a PD image.
On 19 March 2010 01:10, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Caroline Ford caroline.ford.work@googlemail.com wrote:
If anything we may gain from the orphan works clause. The BJP is
running a
campaign against this as it thinks that photos without metatags
will be
stolen.
I don't think there will be much gain for Commons - the amount of research that is required is probably too much for volunteers to do on a one-by-one base, and where the research has been done by others, the copyright will fall to them rather than reverting to the public domain.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/ #avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text- align: left; line-height: 13px;} _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l