Talking about that: What happened to the case? Someone has any info about it? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 9 July 2012 09:13, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Jurisdiction needs to be decided before violation of laws are considered. Are there similar cases where UK citizens putting content on US servers have had their day in a UK court? Commons and wikis in general become a lot harder if we have to have policy that upholds all laws of all countries that our contributors come from. Creative Commons solves many issues, but not all.
Do we have a disclaimer on the upload form which covers 'public domain' ?
A case that could have tested this didnt go to court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundat...
The Darwin images was another case.
EU privacy laws have been applied to facebook; moral rights are also recognised by WMF projects even tho they dont exist in the US.
Sorry I dont have an answer. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 9 July 2012 14:08, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Talking about that: What happened to the case? Someone has any info about it?
AIUI the state of play is: the EFF wrote back saying "your copyright claim is invalid, come on if you think you're hard enough", the images are still up, and NPG and WMF are still on speaking terms. NPG have occasionally made quiet noises asserting the copyright, but are observably *extremely reluctant* to actually push their big noisy legal threat one millimetre further.
This is what I mean when I say that the claim of such copyrights existing is really extremely insubstantial, and that if Adam wishes to make such a claim stick he really would have to push it all the way through the courts, and that shouting abuse at people on a mailing list really just doesn't cut it.
- d.
On 9 July 2012 14:37, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 July 2012 14:08, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Talking about that: What happened to the case? Someone has any info about it?
AIUI the state of play is: the EFF wrote back saying "your copyright claim is invalid, come on if you think you're hard enough", the images are still up, and NPG and WMF are still on speaking terms. NPG have occasionally made quiet noises asserting the copyright, but are observably *extremely reluctant* to actually push their big noisy legal threat one millimetre further.
This is what I mean when I say that the claim of such copyrights existing is really extremely insubstantial, and that if Adam wishes to make such a claim stick he really would have to push it all the way through the courts, and that shouting abuse at people on a mailing list really just doesn't cut it.
It was always my understanding that the issue in that case was the lack of creative work required in the reproduction; i.e. a straight on photo of a 2D medium. (I think they also did some touching up?? but nothing major).
Comparatively, some of Adam's work exhibits a much greater level of skill and creativity in reconstructing damaged images.
I'd say that the NPG's inability to demonstrate requisite creativity to claim "sweat of the brow" doesn't outright undermine Adam's situation.
Regardless; why are we being such dicks? As diametrically opposed to copyright as some of us are, it genuinely doesn't hurt anyone for those works to be tagged CC-BY-SA. They can still be reused widely, Adam gets credit for his hard work, and everyone is happy.
This smacks of cutting off our noses to spite our faces, all on principle...
It also undermines many of our strong points about copyright laws/reform.
Tom
On 9 July 2012 14:42, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Regardless; why are we being such dicks? As diametrically opposed to copyright as some of us are, it genuinely doesn't hurt anyone for those works to be tagged CC-BY-SA. They can still be reused widely, Adam gets credit for his hard work, and everyone is happy.
Someone proposed such a tag on Commons for the NPG images (PD in US, CC-by or whatever elsewhere), and supporters happened to include me and DCoetzee, but quite a lot of people strenuously objected. (I don't have a link to hand.) But I'm sure Adam's diplomatic skills will convince people the proposal should be resurrected.
- d.
I do believe that Adam's work is enough for him to have some credit for it. If any of us edit an image, we do receive the credit (there is even a template for it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Retouched_picture ). So, why so much trouble to credit him? Can't we do like we do with multiple licensed pictures (for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwikiheart-10,8M-heartonly.png )? _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 9 July 2012 10:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 July 2012 14:42, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Regardless; why are we being such dicks? As diametrically opposed to copyright as some of us are, it genuinely doesn't hurt anyone for those works to be tagged CC-BY-SA. They can still be reused widely, Adam gets credit for his hard work, and everyone is happy.
Someone proposed such a tag on Commons for the NPG images (PD in US, CC-by or whatever elsewhere), and supporters happened to include me and DCoetzee, but quite a lot of people strenuously objected. (I don't have a link to hand.) But I'm sure Adam's diplomatic skills will convince people the proposal should be resurrected.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 7/9/2012 7:52 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
I do believe that Adam's work is enough for him to have some credit for it. If any of us edit an image, we do receive the credit (there is even a template for it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Retouched_picture). So, why so much trouble to credit him? Can't we do like we do with multiple licensed pictures (for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwikiheart-10,8M-heartonly.png )?
I don't at all dispute that. I think that Commons should put some sort of credit on it, and likewise I see a strong argument for creating a reuse license on such images. I think Adam should be credited for his work and effort should be made as to seeing how that can be enforced.
However, using a copyright license for reuse is not the way to do that. "Sweat of the brow" on its own cannot be legitimately defined as engendering a new creation. A restoration of an old creation is not a new creation. The better you restore it, the more like the original creation it is. Therefore a copyright claim on such a work is unenforceable, and makes Commons look like idiots.
- Cary
On 9 July 2012 20:56, Cary Bass bastique.ml@bastique.com wrote:
I don't at all dispute that. I think that Commons should put some sort of credit on it, and likewise I see a strong argument for creating a reuse license on such images. I think Adam should be credited for his work and effort should be made as to seeing how that can be enforced.
Absolutely, and it would be better if reusers credited restorers, because that gives the correct provenance of an image. Adam absolutely should be credited.
However, using a copyright license for reuse is not the way to do that. "Sweat of the brow" on its own cannot be legitimately defined as engendering a new creation. A restoration of an old creation is not a new creation. The better you restore it, the more like the original creation it is. Therefore a copyright claim on such a work is unenforceable, and makes Commons look like idiots.
And liars. For sweat of the brow to stick in such cases in the UK, someone has to win a case.
- d.