Peter Blaise wrote:... I do not expect anyone to
come running after me on the street and say,
"Hey, prove you own that car" ... I do not expect
someone else who is NOT the original author and
/ or copyright owner to come running after me
and say, "Hey, prove you have the rights to those
words / pictures / intellectual property." ...
Will wrote: Contributions are scrutinised to ensure
that the content is now, and will be in the future,
freely distributable, because the license it is
published under is validly offered. This is quality
assurance on a core object of Wikipedia and
Commons.
Peter Blaise responds: "... scrutinised ..." by whom? No one but the
parties to the original contract have any authority over that contract,
including the courts, should the original property owner or licensee not
want to pursue a court settlement. By what authority does anyone other
than the original property owner have the right or is empowered or
obliged to scrutinize someone else's use to that property, to demand to
see a satisfactory licensing contract, and to pass judgment on the
legitimacy of the contract?
Are Wikipedia and Commons willing to indemnify viewers and linkers
against subsequent lawsuits for any and every thing contained in
Wikipedia and Commons? Are Wikipedia and Commons so absolutely
confident that their intellectual property rights "quality assurance" is
accurate, appropriate, thorough and complete, up to infallible and
incontestable standards to the satisfaction of the original intellectual
property rights owners and licensees? No? Then why are they wasting
their time trying to anticipate the desires and whims of intellectual
property rights owners and licensees - something we can do for ourselves
on our own very well, than you very much.
Will wrote: Publishing under an open licence is more
akin to selling a car than driving it down the street.
Peter Blaise responds: I disagree. Viewing a web page is like viewing
my car on the street. Neither the owner of the "street" nor the
visiting viewer has any authority to scrutinize and pass judgment on my
ownership or license of the property in question.
While I appreciate that we all want to protect each other's intellectual
property rights, that does not suddenly empower any of us, even as
publishers, to become the intellectual property police. I believe that
the best way to protect intellectual property rights is to honor them
ourselves and set a stellar, sterling example by policing our own
intellectual property, not by trying to preemptively police other
people's presumed intellectual property agreements or lack of
agreements.
I do not expect to have to PROVE to Xerox that I have permission to copy
something before I use a Xerox machine. The Internet changes nothing,
permission wise. Neither Xerox nor Wikipedia admins nor Commons admins
nor ISP admins have any right (nor empowerment nor SKILL) to police my
use of their publicly available service, copyright wise. As always,
intellectual property interests are in the purview of the intellectual
property owners, just as any property interests are in the purview of
the property owners.
Try this:
Prospective customer: "Hi, I'd like to rent your plane to photograph the
city from above."
Pilot: "I'm afraid I might get sued for transporting stolen property.
Before I'll let you use my otherwise publicly available service, you
must first PROVE to my whimsical satisfaction that you own your camera
gear. I don't like receipt - they can be faked. I want a notarized
statement form the previous owner of the transfer of ownership to you.
I want 3 IDs that you are who you say you are, too."
Can you imagine if everyone offering a public service felt compelled and
empowered to scrutinize their prospective customer's rights before they
let the public partake in their otherwise publicly offered services?
Can't enter a restaurant without proving you didn't steal the money
you're planning to pay with! And those are your clothes, right? Got a
receipt? And my restaurant's standards for an acceptable receipt is
w-a-y tougher than other restaurants - because I, as a restaurant
owner, don't wanna get sued ... or worse, I, as a restaurant employee,
don't want to get fired, so I'm inflicting my brand of overzealous
scrutiny on whomever I dang well please!
So, bottom line, what we're saying here is that non-property rights
owner's fears of getting sued are the overriding concern, so our ability
to freely share with each other will be constrained along those lines.
Any volunteers to live in THAT world?
- Peter Blaise