Le 5/21/08 5:01 PM, contact@robinschwab.ch a écrit :
You misunderstood. It's not a website. It's the oldest (228y) newspaper in Switzerland and the one with the best reputation. They have their own legal service with copyright specialists.
The French National Library has a legal service with copyright specialists. Yet the terms of use on their website are crap, as they're claiming copyright over mechanical reproduction. That's because their terms of use were not written by their legal service. Their senior legal officer admitted it clearly in a meeting.
Concerning NZZ, I don't understand the purpose of your example (it's not an attack, I honestly don't understand). They publish a picture described as PD. Is it the case or not? I admit I don't know where the picture comes from. Could you elaborate on "they redistribute it in their archive"? As far as I can see, they're only using it to illustrate a paper.
Mistakes happen. I found my pictures published under a wide variety of inaccurate licenses on the Web, even by very serious newspapers. The Wiener Zeitung states for instance that the picture of Ségolène Royal used here is GPL: http://www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4800&Alias=wahlen&... It's actually CC-BY: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Meeting_Royal_2007_02_06_n12.jpg
I'm so happy we have plenty of legal experts who know it better here... I really feel like talking against a wall.
I really feel that we don't have the same idea about what Commons should be. You apparently wish Commons to be a media repository handily gathering pictures that can reasonably be used and reused without major legal threat. IMO, Commons should be a place where each picture can reasonably be considered as Free -- which is not the same thing. I grant you it's a heavy constraint, much harshly felt for pictures than for text.
Jastrow