On 9/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
We have taken it upon ourselves to produce content that is /as free as/ /possible/ - which means that for the moment, we are bound to abide by the most restrictive law that could apply.
Yes, it is silly. But only by respecting copyright law does copyleft work, so we are as much in favour of copyright protection as the free licensing of works.
Yes and no. I don't think we have to pick the most restrictive. I think that we could probably agree on a relative level of international freedom that would be acceptable to most -- i.e., free under any country which is a party to the Berne convention, for example, would not be an unreasonable determination, just to throw one out there. That would include most of the major content producers and consumers of the world, and is less arbitrary than saying "USA, Germany, France, UK."
On the other hand, even within that determination there are some questionable things, such as the really ridiculous notion in some countries that any photograph which contains a picture of a copyrighted building in it is copyrighted by the architect. This strikes me as being copyright-out-of-control, where the rights of one party are drastically respected while the rights over another are trod upon. Since copyright terms have been expanded to ridiculous lengths all around, it becomes a really depictable monopoly on culture. I think if there are ways to resist some of these sorts of things without being legally risky, we should consider them. In the US, for example, photography of publicly accessible buildings is explicitly allowed in US copyright law without being infringement. Wikimedia servers could host such photos without fear of real legal reprisals, even if a re-user in a country with a more ridiculous law would have difficulties. We could make this very clear in the tagging so that nobody would be accidentally put into a negative legal situation. Just a thought and an example.
Copyleft uses the copyright system but it is always quite conscious of the limits of the copyright system (the CC licenses make it very plain that they don't intend at all to infringe upon fair use rights). The copyright system is currently a travesty -- limited monopolies have become virtually perpetual and the right of the producer has been held as almost entirely dominant over the rights of the consumer (or culture writ broadly). Copyleft is a way to strengthen these other rights; it respects copyright law but does not enshrine it, and especially not its excesses.
FF