On 19 Sep 2006, at 12:58, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 19/09/06, Stephen Streater
<sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:
Would the original poster be liable in the UK
for each copy made though? I don't have a
clear answer on this yet. By releasing something
under a free licence, am I saying:
"you have the right to copy this"
or am I saying
"you have the right to copy this subject to applicable laws"?
My interpretation is that you're saying "I have the right to copy
this, and I'm giving you these rights subject to the following
conditions..."
If you don't have the right to make commercial copies (or whatever),
you can't license the rights to do so. If you've attempted to license
it under something like the GFDL without first possessing all the
rights you're licensing, at the very least the license is invalid -
and there's a nontrivial possibility you're liable for breach of
contract. Even though you yourself haven't made commercial use of it,
you've knowingly permitted people to do so...
(It becomes more complex if you distribute it legally and then *I*
steal it and redistribute it under a free license - the license is
still invalid, but you're probably no longer liable)
Given that Fair Use is a US construct, does this mean
Wikipedia can never have access to England-generated
content which is available under non-commercial terms,
such as shots of a Royal Park?
It would be breaking English law to put it up under
a free licence or under Fair Use, and external linking
of media on Wikipedia is being phased out, so I
couldn't link to an external website hosting it either.
Is there a way around this?