Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫" to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board.
I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result.
I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law. People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted as an unfair exploitation of resources.
I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
[1]:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of...
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:22 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
I assume you mean "could not". Here it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/09#Poten...
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
1. Freedom of orphaned works 2. Freedom of panorama in U.S. 3. Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records 4. Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term 5. Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow 6. Repeal database rights in EU 7. Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act 8. Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico 9. Get works by U.S. states added to public domain 10. Freedom of deep space objects .... 99. Profit
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/17/12 6:22 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note
On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "??????" <to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com mailto:to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board. I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result. I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo. With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years. So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law. People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted as an unfair exploitation of resources. I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead to legitimate copyright claims in the future. [1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law#International_treaties -- ?????? (To Aru Shiroi Neko) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Great list. Can we put it on meta?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Sep 18, 2012 7:23 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/17/12 6:22 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫" to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board.
I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result.
I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law. People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted as an unfair exploitation of resources.
I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
[1]:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of...
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Commons-l mailing listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 9/17/2012 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
I'd probably use a different order, but that would be quibbling. I think just the thought of prioritizing like this is a good exercise, and would love to hear how other people stack up these priorities. It's an interesting challenge to balance which of these ideas would have the most impact with which are the most realistically achievable in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Hello,
2012/9/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com:
On 9/17/2012 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
I'd probably use a different order, but that would be quibbling. I think just the thought of prioritizing like this is a good exercise, and would love to hear how other people stack up these priorities. It's an interesting challenge to balance which of these ideas would have the most impact with which are the most realistically achievable in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Yeah, great list. I would add near the top, FOP everywhere, specially in France. And then scrapping special copyright extension (30 years in France for "dead in combat").
Regards,
Yann
Yes, my list is probably too U.S.-centric. Would love to hear wish-list items from other parts of the world. As far as (impact x realistic) score, I would say getting states/countries to freely license all government works probably has the highest score. In the U.S., we have the federal government and 2 state governments so far doing this. I know the Israeli chapter had some mixed success in this area, and the governments of the Netherlands and New Zealand are starting to get into CC-licensing. Pushing for Freedom of Panorama or better copyright terms is probably a long-shot. Getting the Library of Congress to digitize all of their copyright records would also be a realistic goal and have a large impact on American media. Right now, for U.S. works, we are mostly restricted to things published before 1923 simply because it is extremely unpractical to research copyright records for 1923-1989. I agree with John that it would be good to put some ideas up on meta for brainstorming at least.
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/17/12 9:59 PM, Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
2012/9/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com:
On 9/17/2012 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
I'd probably use a different order, but that would be quibbling. I think just the thought of prioritizing like this is a good exercise, and would love to hear how other people stack up these priorities. It's an interesting challenge to balance which of these ideas would have the most impact with which are the most realistically achievable in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Yeah, great list. I would add near the top, FOP everywhere, specially in France. And then scrapping special copyright extension (30 years in France for "dead in combat").
Regards,
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I've dropped the list on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_laws (still adding some links).
Nemo
Just found this very cool page on the Creative Commons website that may be relevant to the discussion: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Government_use_of_Creative_Commons
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/17/12 9:59 PM, Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
2012/9/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com:
On 9/17/2012 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
I'd probably use a different order, but that would be quibbling. I think just the thought of prioritizing like this is a good exercise, and would love to hear how other people stack up these priorities. It's an interesting challenge to balance which of these ideas would have the most impact with which are the most realistically achievable in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Yeah, great list. I would add near the top, FOP everywhere, specially in France. And then scrapping special copyright extension (30 years in France for "dead in combat").
Regards,
Yann
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi,
Oh, there already was a wishlist, and it is quite funny to see how fast it is already party obsolete. I think that
# Buy the Encyclopaedia Britannica
is not necessary any more. We have a better free encyclopedia. ;o)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_wishlist
Regards,
Yann
2012/9/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com:
On 9/17/2012 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
I'd probably use a different order, but that would be quibbling. I think just the thought of prioritizing like this is a good exercise, and would love to hear how other people stack up these priorities. It's an interesting challenge to balance which of these ideas would have the most impact with which are the most realistically achievable in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Yann Forget, 18/09/2012 10:29:
Oh, there already was a wishlist, and it is quite funny to see how fast it is already party obsolete. I think that
# Buy the Encyclopaedia Britannica
is not necessary any more. We have a better free encyclopedia. ;o)
I added the link but it's quite a different topic. That page is old, but for instance "getting Encarta content" was mostly considered useful on foundation-l just a year (?) ago.
Nemo
A lovely exercise. I would put freedom and accessibility of legal documents, from government standards to case law, high on that list. Starting in larger countries where there is already motion to make this happen. SJ
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.comwrote:
On 9/17/2012 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
I'd probably use a different order, but that would be quibbling. I think just the thought of prioritizing like this is a good exercise, and would love to hear how other people stack up these priorities. It's an interesting challenge to balance which of these ideas would have the most impact with which are the most realistically achievable in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On English wikisource we use the absence of case law regarding foriegned government and judicial documents as sufficient justification for all these being PD in the US.
See http://enws.org/Template:PD-GovEdicthttp://enws.org/Template:PDGovEdict
Most countries explicitly refuse copyright on these works. It would be good to have a universal declararion that these works are PD worldwide.
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Sep 18, 2012 9:01 PM, "Samuel Klein" meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
A lovely exercise. I would put freedom and accessibility of legal documents, from government standards to case law, high on that list. Starting in larger countries where there is already motion to make this happen. SJ
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.comwrote:
On 9/17/2012 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
I'd probably use a different order, but that would be quibbling. I think just the thought of prioritizing like this is a good exercise, and would love to hear how other people stack up these priorities. It's an interesting challenge to balance which of these ideas would have the most impact with which are the most realistically achievable in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Ryan,
The issue is all of those 9 issues you mentioned is far more difficult to deal with legislature-wise. You would have multiple factors such as jurisdiction, lobbyist opposition, and etc to worry about. Deep space objects is a more simpler problem. This could be the start towards those other 9 items you have mentioned.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/17/12 6:22 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫" to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board.
I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result.
I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law. People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted as an unfair exploitation of resources.
I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
[1]:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of...
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Commons-l mailing listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
IMHO working on deep space photos being PD is a good idea in that we are at the beginning of such an issue so making it retrospective is still possible, why cant everyone share in whats belongs to noone who's access has been funded in some way governments. I'd suspect that with publicity of the issue there would be a greater public support in the idea as most people would see space as something that isnt/shouldnt be owned by corporations
On 22 September 2012 18:17, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan,
The issue is all of those 9 issues you mentioned is far more difficult to deal with legislature-wise. You would have multiple factors such as jurisdiction, lobbyist opposition, and etc to worry about. Deep space objects is a more simpler problem. This could be the start towards those other 9 items you have mentioned.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Personally, I would prefer that people pursue freedom of panorama before we pursue "freedom of deep space objects". The later I would put pretty far down the priority list, actually. How about the following agenda:
- Freedom of orphaned works
- Freedom of panorama in U.S.
- Get Library of Congress to digitize all U.S. copyright records
- Get U.S. to apply rule of the shorter term
- Get U.K. to officially kill sweat of the brow
- Repeal database rights in EU
- Repeal Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
- Fix absurd copyright terms in Mexico
- Get works by U.S. states added to public domain
- Freedom of deep space objects
.... 99. Profit
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/17/12 6:22 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫" to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft proposal to the board.
I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space objects as a result.
I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law. People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted as an unfair exploitation of resources.
I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
[1]:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of...
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Commons-l mailing listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO working on deep space photos being PD is a good idea in that we are at the beginning of such an issue so making it retrospective is still possible, why cant everyone share in whats belongs to noone who's access has been funded in some way governments. I'd suspect that with publicity of the issue there would be a greater public support in the idea as most people would see space as something that isnt/shouldnt be owned by corporations
True. It would be good to have a community platform describing what should be PD and what clarifications are needed in which current laws to clarify the matter. Starting with relatively easy ones such as this, digitized versions of the law, &c.
That would make it easy to both unify public support behind a specific idea, and to offer next steps to politicians or lawyers who decide to get involved in making them happen. And it would help the WMF, chapters, and other large movement groups to run a campaign for a specific change if that is called for.
Right now there is no permanent collection of these sorts of positions; the thread on Commons VP is simply archived. And there are dozens of other conversations that lead to useful human-readable syntheses of the current state of international copyright law, which aren't quite gathered together in one place. Compiling these discussions and approaches into a single forum for copyright issues would also be a general service to everyone who cares about the copyfight.
On Meta perhaps? Currently there are separate discussions on commons, wikisources, and wikipedias. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright is quite sparse.
SJ
We could draft the idea for DSOs on meta. I am all in for that.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO working on deep space photos being PD is a good idea in that we are at the beginning of such an issue so making it retrospective is still possible, why cant everyone share in whats belongs to noone who's access has been funded in some way governments. I'd suspect that with publicity of the issue there would be a greater public support in the idea as most people would see space as something that isnt/shouldnt be owned by corporations
True. It would be good to have a community platform describing what should be PD and what clarifications are needed in which current laws to clarify the matter. Starting with relatively easy ones such as this, digitized versions of the law, &c.
That would make it easy to both unify public support behind a specific idea, and to offer next steps to politicians or lawyers who decide to get involved in making them happen. And it would help the WMF, chapters, and other large movement groups to run a campaign for a specific change if that is called for.
Right now there is no permanent collection of these sorts of positions; the thread on Commons VP is simply archived. And there are dozens of other conversations that lead to useful human-readable syntheses of the current state of international copyright law, which aren't quite gathered together in one place. Compiling these discussions and approaches into a single forum for copyright issues would also be a general service to everyone who cares about the copyfight.
On Meta perhaps? Currently there are separate discussions on commons, wikisources, and wikipedias. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright is quite sparse.
SJ
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Samuel Klein, 22/09/2012 19:25:
True. It would be good to have a community platform describing what should be PD and what clarifications are needed in which current laws to clarify the matter.
As for PD, Communia's websites could perhaps be expanded in that way, it could be a partnership to propose them? See http://publicdomainday.org/node/5 for a resource list.
Starting with relatively easy ones such as this, digitized versions of the law, &c. That would make it easy to both unify public support behind a specific idea, and to offer next steps to politicians or lawyers who decide to get involved in making them happen. And it would help the WMF, chapters, and other large movement groups to run a campaign for a specific change if that is called for.
This is surely something Meta can be used for, but it's probably not that good a platform. But I'm not good at planning political campaigns like this.
Right now there is no permanent collection of these sorts of positions; the thread on Commons VP is simply archived. And there are dozens of other conversations that lead to useful human-readable syntheses of the current state of international copyright law, which aren't quite gathered together in one place. Compiling these discussions and approaches into a single forum for copyright issues would also be a general service to everyone who cares about the copyfight.
Factual documentation should not necessarily be all centralised. Commons and Wikisource complement each other quite well, I found; on the other hand (English) Wikipedia's project pages are mostly confusing duplicate content and should mostly be moved elsewhere.
On Meta perhaps? Currently there are separate discussions on commons, wikisources, and wikipedias. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright is quite sparse.
The category and its parent need some categorization effort (I did some but not everything), there's much more stuff around although not as much as one could want.
Nemo
So perhaps a new sub category for pages that will handle legal issues that need clarification? Ten issues were mentioned so far and each could have their own page explaining steps taken or planned to be taken as well as other relevant information and links.
While my interest is on the copyright of DSOs by no means it is confided to it. :)
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Samuel Klein, 22/09/2012 19:25:
True. It would be good to have a community platform describing what
should be PD and what clarifications are needed in which current laws to clarify the matter.
As for PD, Communia's websites could perhaps be expanded in that way, it could be a partnership to propose them? See http://publicdomainday.org/**node/5http://publicdomainday.org/node/5for a resource list.
Starting with relatively easy ones such as this,
digitized versions of the law, &c. That would make it easy to both unify public support behind a specific idea, and to offer next steps to politicians or lawyers who decide to get involved in making them happen. And it would help the WMF, chapters, and other large movement groups to run a campaign for a specific change if that is called for.
This is surely something Meta can be used for, but it's probably not that good a platform. But I'm not good at planning political campaigns like this.
Right now there is no permanent collection of these sorts of positions;
the thread on Commons VP is simply archived. And there are dozens of other conversations that lead to useful human-readable syntheses of the current state of international copyright law, which aren't quite gathered together in one place. Compiling these discussions and approaches into a single forum for copyright issues would also be a general service to everyone who cares about the copyfight.
Factual documentation should not necessarily be all centralised. Commons and Wikisource complement each other quite well, I found; on the other hand (English) Wikipedia's project pages are mostly confusing duplicate content and should mostly be moved elsewhere.
On Meta perhaps? Currently there are separate discussions on commons,
wikisources, and wikipedias. http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Category:Copyrighthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright is quite sparse.
The category and its parent need some categorization effort (I did some but not everything), there's much more stuff around although not as much as one could want.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
So, any suggestions?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.comwrote:
So perhaps a new sub category for pages that will handle legal issues that need clarification? Ten issues were mentioned so far and each could have their own page explaining steps taken or planned to be taken as well as other relevant information and links.
While my interest is on the copyright of DSOs by no means it is confided to it. :)
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Samuel Klein, 22/09/2012 19:25:
True. It would be good to have a community platform describing what
should be PD and what clarifications are needed in which current laws to clarify the matter.
As for PD, Communia's websites could perhaps be expanded in that way, it could be a partnership to propose them? See http://publicdomainday.org/**node/5http://publicdomainday.org/node/5for a resource list.
Starting with relatively easy ones such as this,
digitized versions of the law, &c. That would make it easy to both unify public support behind a specific idea, and to offer next steps to politicians or lawyers who decide to get involved in making them happen. And it would help the WMF, chapters, and other large movement groups to run a campaign for a specific change if that is called for.
This is surely something Meta can be used for, but it's probably not that good a platform. But I'm not good at planning political campaigns like this.
Right now there is no permanent collection of these sorts of positions;
the thread on Commons VP is simply archived. And there are dozens of other conversations that lead to useful human-readable syntheses of the current state of international copyright law, which aren't quite gathered together in one place. Compiling these discussions and approaches into a single forum for copyright issues would also be a general service to everyone who cares about the copyfight.
Factual documentation should not necessarily be all centralised. Commons and Wikisource complement each other quite well, I found; on the other hand (English) Wikipedia's project pages are mostly confusing duplicate content and should mostly be moved elsewhere.
On Meta perhaps? Currently there are separate discussions on commons,
wikisources, and wikipedias. http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Category:Copyrighthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright is quite sparse.
The category and its parent need some categorization effort (I did some but not everything), there's much more stuff around although not as much as one could want.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l