G'day UnforgettableID,
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.
American law can go to Hell.
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.
It's not a matter of copyright or trademark law[0]. If I wanted to restrict the things you could do with photographs you take of the interior of my house, I wouldn't claim copyright. Oh, no! I would simply make it a condition of entry to my house that, if you wish to enter and take photographs, you do not use the photographs in a commercial manner or release it under a licence that permits others to do so.
If you took a photograph of my bedroom (planning to reveal the dead sexy secrets within), and released it under the GFDL, I couldn't claim copyright on my rose-petal-strewn bed[1] ... but I could say you breached our contract.
[0] Rumour has it, in France, it's no longer possible to claim copyright over a photograph of the Eiffel Tower at night?
[1] Or, as I like to call it, "the groove-maker".