On 18/09/06, User:Unforgettableid unforgettableid@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
There may be rights issues as well. It's not as simple as just uploading a video, unfortunately. Some content I have shot is only available for non-commercial use because it was shot in Royal Parks, so this cannot be released under a free licence so cannot be included in Wikipedia.
Why would that be? Can a tree, a river, or a building be copyrighted? You claim that there "may" be rights issues but you have not cited any American law which back up your claim.
Recently, a lot of [[Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt]] has been spread regarding these issues: Popular Photography magazine discussed them recently. In reality, a building, a park, or such _cannot_ be trademarked.
To the best of my knowledge, the United States does not possess any "royal parks". Given Stephen appears to live in the UK, a country which does have royal parks, it seems reasonable to assume he shot the videos there. In which case, the question of what American laws apply to the filming seems a bit less relevant.
If you are going to complain about people spreading "fear, uncertainty and doubt" about legal issues, it may be useful to spend some time considering
a) that different jurisdictions have different laws; b) that moving to one jurisdiction does not magically invalidate any implicit or explicit contract you made in another; and c) that "trademarked" and "copyrighted" are Not The Same Thing At All.