Hi!
When "investigating" the copyright status of some old images, I realized that our {{PD-old}} template is quite a bit misleading.
IIANM (note: IANAL), works published after 1923 by authors who died between 1926 and 1936 (i.e. dead more than 70 years) are _not_ public domain in US (and will not be until at least 2019 [1]), although they are PD in EU states (among others). And as the US law is quite relevant to the WMF servers, we must consider those works to be copyrighted.
The copyright status of an old work is therefore determined not only by the death date of its author, but also by its publishing date and our templates (and procedures) should acknowledge that. (See also [[commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?]])
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine we would be able to explain the difficult rules on the upload form so that anyone would understand them. The need for a wizard-style upload is evident once again…
P. S. I must say I am afraid that this fact about US copyright law is ignored (not known) on more projects which consider works by authors who died before 1936 as PD regardless of the publishing date.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
[1] See e.g. [[en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights]]
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see on [1]).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}} from the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide but copyrighted in the USA. Can a non-us Commons media repository help on preventing to delete thousands of images?
foundation-l have a discussion started today based on the same problem: [3]
[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#PD-old_non-us..._I.27m_...
[2] http://www.debian.org/mirror/list-non-US
[3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029741.html
On 4/27/07, Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
When "investigating" the copyright status of some old images, I realized that our {{PD-old}} template is quite a bit misleading.
IIANM (note: IANAL), works published after 1923 by authors who died between 1926 and 1936 (i.e. dead more than 70 years) are _not_ public domain in US (and will not be until at least 2019 [1]), although they are PD in EU states (among others). And as the US law is quite relevant to the WMF servers, we must consider those works to be copyrighted.
The copyright status of an old work is therefore determined not only by the death date of its author, but also by its publishing date and our templates (and procedures) should acknowledge that. (See also [[commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?]])
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine we would be able to explain the difficult rules on the upload form so that anyone would understand them. The need for a wizard-style upload is evident once again…
P. S. I must say I am afraid that this fact about US copyright law is ignored (not known) on more projects which consider works by authors who died before 1936 as PD regardless of the publishing date.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
[1] See e.g. [[en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights]]
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
A very good idea.
Some servers in the UK would allow us to keep many images which are allowable under the UK's broad FOP provisions, but which are not allowed in the US. Not only public buildings but also 3D 'works of artistic craftsmanship' (eg any sort of 3D toy) which are on permanent display in an area to which the public have access (even on private property). A very nice way to get hold of legal photos of Barbie Dolls and the like. There are quite a few useful toy museums here ...
Michael Maggs
Luiz Augusto wrote:
I'm on a similar problem at the Portuguese Wikisource due to the [[:m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term]] (see on [1]).
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org http://us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}} from the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide but copyrighted in the USA. Can a non-us Commons media repository help on preventing to delete thousands of images?
foundation-l have a discussion started today based on the same problem: [3]
[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#PD-old_non-us..._I.27m_... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#PD-old_non-us..._I.27m_confused
[2] http://www.debian.org/mirror/list-non-US
[3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029741.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029741.html
Some servers in the UK would allow us to keep many images which are allowable under the UK's broad FOP provisions, but which are not allowed in the US.
As far as I know, the location of the servers is not really relevant. It's relevant who runs the servers, and also where the work was created, and where the uploader is located. The "golden rule of thumb" on commons is: it has to be PD in the US, the country of origin (or first publication), and the uploader should check with local laws. I don't think we can get around this.
So, just having a couple of servers in different places wouldn't help - it would have to be a completely separate organization. Which would also mean that images on such servers can't be used seamlessly on Wikipedia, etc.
Trying to interpret copyright law in the context of an international project driven by user created content is a real challenge; sticking with something like the smallest common denominator seems to have worked ok. Trying cheap tricks to work around this ("this image is ok now because the bits are on a different server") will only create an ugly mess, and is also not legally sound, as far as i know. As I said, it would have to be a completely separate, UK based project for "PD in UK only" stuff, having nothing to do with Wikimedia.
But IANAL. I'm just saying that technical solutions to legal problems tend not to work.
-- Daniel
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
As I said, it would have to be a completely separate, UK based project for "PD in UK only" stuff, having nothing to do with Wikimedia.
Would there be benefit in a repository of PD-UK images as a sort of holding-cell so the images are not lost between now and when they become PD-worldwide?
I don't know, but I suspect that many of the images that are PD-UK would be useable under fair use in the USA. If so would it be possible to use a dual licesnse along the lines of "This images is public domain in the United Kingdom and other countries that use death+70. In the United States this image is contended to be fair use because of xyz" ?
Maybe we should ignore for a short time this problem. Put on sitenotice on all projects:
''Support our petition for change copyright in US''
And we will have millions of supporters during few weeks ;)
Then post it to legislature of US and work's done ;)
AJF/WarX
On 4/28/07, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should ignore for a short time this problem. Put on sitenotice on all projects: ''Support our petition for change copyright in US'' And we will have millions of supporters during few weeks ;) Then post it to legislature of US and work's done ;)
The majority of our work is unharmed by copyright. We build our own material and release it for free to give the public an *alternative* to restrictively copyrighted works. We could accomplish most of our mission under the longest lasting and most restrictive systems imaginable. As such, our efforts can be supported by those from both the anti-copyright and pro-copyright camps.
I believe that branding ourselves as extreme anti-copyright activists would be counter-productive.
Not only would doing so cost us the support of many large organizations who's support we could reasonably expect to obtain today, but it would provide a convenient way for detractors to attack us ("Wikimedia are just a bunch of anarchists who want to take the bread from the mouths of the babes of authors"), and it would be likely unsuccessful: There are billions of dollars behind the current system, and the US is the largest net-exporter of informational goods.
Increasingly we should expect that copyright will be perpetual and that virtually nothing created in the US will ever become PD in any major country. This is terrible, and there are groups working to fight it (for example, publicknowledge).. but it is the trend. Fortunately, most of our activity will not be harmed by this.
Yes, actually following the nuance of the law will cause us to reject some works which people have previously uploaded. This is unfortunate. However, a more accurate policy will also allow us to accept works which we have previously rejected (such as a work published in 1920 only in the US whos author died within 70 years).
I don't know, but I suspect that many of the images that are PD-UK would be useable under fair use in the USA. If so would it be possible to use a dual licesnse along the lines of "This images is public domain in the United Kingdom and other countries that use death+70. In the United States this image is contended to be fair use because of xyz" ?
Images are never "fair use" on their own. Specific uses may be fair, for *any* image. There's no such thing as a collection of fair use images, by definition.
-- Daniel
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
I don't know, but I suspect that many of the images that are PD-UK would be useable under fair use in the USA. If so would it be possible to use a dual licesnse along the lines of "This images is public domain in the United Kingdom and other countries that use death+70. In the United States this image is contended to be fair use because of xyz" ?
Images are never "fair use" on their own. Specific uses may be fair, for *any* image. There's no such thing as a collection of fair use images, by definition.
The collection isn't of fair use images, the collection is a UK-based collection of images that are public domain in the United Kingdom. The collection doesn't involve fair use at all.
The images could then be used on a wikimedia project with the dual license of PD-UK and addtionally fair use in the USA.
Chris
The images could then be used on a wikimedia project with the dual license of PD-UK and addtionally fair use in the USA.
This option already exists. Just upload the image to the english wikipedia (which allows fair use under US terms). Add a tag that says that it's PD in the UK or Europe or whatever, if you like.
-- Daniel
Anyone here is remembering that the Wikimedia Foundation is onwer of 9 free culture projects and ~730 wikis?
On 4/28/07, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
The images could then be used on a wikimedia project with the dual
license
of PD-UK and addtionally fair use in the USA.
This option already exists. Just upload the image to the english wikipedia (which allows fair use under US terms). Add a tag that says that it's PD in the UK or Europe or whatever, if you like.
-- Daniel
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Luiz Augusto wrote:
Anyone here is remembering that the Wikimedia Foundation is onwer of 9 free culture projects and ~730 wikis?
I'm not forgetting that. Some of those allow fair use, under diverse conditions. None can use material that is not in the PD in the US without claiming fair use.
See, if there *was* a server run by a UK or on UK servers, with material PD in the UK, but not in the US... how would it be used by WMF projects, and would it be legal to use it? Which project could claim fair use for which images? How would you look for them? Any USian who has rights to the material (in the US) would have a strong case against the WMF, I think.
But IANAL. I just think that we should collect and promote free content - not content soon-to-be-free-in-some-places.
-- Daniel
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
The images could then be used on a wikimedia project with the dual license of PD-UK and addtionally fair use in the USA.
This option already exists. Just upload the image to the english wikipedia (which allows fair use under US terms). Add a tag that says that it's PD in the UK or Europe or whatever, if you like.
-- Daniel
And how do you use the image on other projects ?
Ant
Florence Devouard wrote:
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
The images could then be used on a wikimedia project with the dual license of PD-UK and addtionally fair use in the USA.
This option already exists. Just upload the image to the english wikipedia (which allows fair use under US terms). Add a tag that says that it's PD in the UK or Europe or whatever, if you like.
-- Daniel
And how do you use the image on other projects ?
Ant
You do not. That is the point: laws and policy regarding fair use is very different on individual projects.
Also, we where talking about the case in which the works are not PD in the US - so, a collection of such unfree works would be illegal in the US. Any US-based project making direct use of such a collection would be an easy target for lawsuits.
You can't magically make non-free images free by moving bits off-shore. Especially not if you want seamless integration. See, saying "there's such and such a project in some place, you can look for images there" is one thing. "you can use this directly from our special UK server to bypass US laws" is something else entirely.
To be honest, I would simply do away with all fair use stuff on wikimedia projects. It makes re-use hard, and it a pain to police. But that's just my personal opinion.
-- Daniel
On 27/04/07, Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com wrote:
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}} from the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide but copyrighted in the USA. Can a non-us Commons media repository help on preventing to delete thousands of images?
That is a *brilliant* idea. Yes, please, definitely.
- d.
On 4/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That is a *brilliant* idea. Yes, please, definitely.
It's bad enough haveing stuff that is only free in the US. Adding only free in the UK (copyright length on sound recordings) or wherever to it is not much of an improvement.
On 4/27/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've proposed in a private e-mail to Anthere (not yet replied, I think that she is busy in others subjects) to create a set of wikis <lang>.non- us.wikisource.org hosted outside of the United States ({{derivative}} from the Debian non-us software repository [2]) to host works PD-old worldwide but copyrighted in the USA. Can a non-us Commons media repository help on preventing to delete thousands of images?
That is a *brilliant* idea. Yes, please, definitely.
No, it's a completely misguided idea. I'll break it down a simple bullet points:
1) The WMF is a US based non-profit. Its activities are constrained by US law. Period.
2) Because of Uruguay Round and other international treaties, many works which are widely believed to only be copyrighted in jurisdiction X have copyrights which are enforceable everywhere. The idea that you can move to escape a local copyright is usually incorrect.
3) All but one (NTT) transit-free ISP is a US corporation, and all international Internet providers do substantial business in the US, as such, all are in a position where they would need to comply with a US court order to refuse to carry traffic from a site breaking US law. It's generally misguided to think that you can escape US regulation of anything available to the US by simply moving equipment.
4) By establishing additional operations in another country, the Wikimedia Foundation would risk subjecting itself to that laws of that country. US law is very favorable to our activities, the laws of many other nations not nearly so.
If you can actually come up with a sizable body of material which could be legally distributed from someplace with decent connectivity and a decent user base (keep in mind, you may end up blocked from all places where your content isn't legal)... then by all means, grab a copy of Mediawiki and setup a repository. .. There is no need, however, to have the Foundation involved in this.
On 4/27/07, Petr Kadlec petr.kadlec@gmail.com wrote:
When "investigating" the copyright status of some old images, I realized that our {{PD-old}} template is quite a bit misleading.
IIANM (note: IANAL), works published after 1923 by authors who died between 1926 and 1936 (i.e. dead more than 70 years) are _not_ public domain in US (and will not be until at least 2019 [1]),
Yes. This is why I have recommended many times that commons adopt Wikisource's treatment of public domain tagging. The Wikisource tags are far closer to getting it right than anything on commons.