Question for the copyright experts. See this image: http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission? 2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright expired? 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright?
I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer, imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
Steve
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Question for the copyright experts. See this image: http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
- On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
- In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright expired? 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright?
I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer, imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
Taken 1903. Assume photographer was 20 or so. Died aged 80, some 60 years later. You can't assume it has been 70 years since the photographer died. However, as you don't know the photographer, some other rule applies. In this case, there probably was a record somewhere of who the photographer was (probably a news photographer attending the opening of this railway), or where the photograph first appeared (probably a newspaper), but it seems this information has been lost over the years.
The simplest answer is often to contact the people who have published this image and ask them about the history and provenance of the image. This requires being friendly, rather than starting out by saying you intend to demand the right to use the photo (even if you are right, you still need to be polite if you want people to give you the information you want).
"What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright?"
We have categories of photos like that on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_files_with_unknown_copyright...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_a_rationale_but_unknown_co...
Those are usually uploads of contemporary pictures, but there are also large numbers of historical pictures where people fail to fill in the paperwork, or no-one knows the true copyright status, and such pictures usually get deleted anyway, out of some sense of needing to keep things tidy, I suppose, and a failure to realise that for historical photos, the provenance is not always known. It is something that Wikipedia needs to tackle, I think. Excluding a large swath of historical photos because they have poor provenance will make Wikipedia more verifiable, but less informative.
I can't find the category I was thinking of. It had pictures like that one of a funny-shaped car.
Some of the old NFCC discussions might help as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_41#Unkn...
If I find that category I was thinking of, I'll post it here.
Carcharoth
It looks like the rule in Australia is currently life of the creator +70 for public domain but actually thats very new (2005) and before that it was only 50 years after death so anything where the creator died after 1958/9 should be public domain. ( http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/Australian_Copyright_Blog_Guide.pdf page 77) In the US anything published before 1923 is public domain already automatically (which that picture sure seems to be with the date). Between 1923-1949 IF it was published with a copyright notice it can be extended up to 95 years from published date but thats 28 years with a 47 year renewal and a 20 year extension (most arts were NOT renewed and so expired after 28 years)http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdfSo long story short, I think it's almost guaranteed to be in the public domain... Under both US and Australian law. I'm not sure why they are trying to claim that you need permission to use it. The Australian law actually says if the goverment was the one who published it first (possible) that it's only 50 years from publication regardless of the authors death date so then it's even more likely it's in the public domain.
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable then I will respond but It looks like it's in the public domain to me but you may want to shoot them an email or something to ask about it.
... and Edit Conflict while looking for links another email response just came in from Carcharoth Oh well I'm going to send anyway so that you get the links :)
-Jamesofur
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Question for the copyright experts. See this image: http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
- On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
- In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright expired? 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright?
I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer, imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve, that image is now PD in Australia. In Australia, the copyright of photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955 has expired and they are now in the public domain. The template for using PD Australian images on Wikipedia is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia and Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia.
There's some old discussion about the Australian libraries claiming permission requirements for reuse under the first section on the talk page of the template on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australia). It seems to be pretty much standard now for the Australian libraries (and other cultural institutions) to have similar permission notes on their websites, but sometimes their permission requirements are just ensuring they get credit for where the image came from and backlinks to their site.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Question for the copyright experts. See this image: http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
- On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
- In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright expired? 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright?
I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer, imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Is that "date taken" or "date published"? This is why provenance of photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed dates are mixed up. Also, the location where something is published can be important.
To cut a long story short, the more details you have, the better. The fewer details you have, the more difficult it is to be definitive about anything. And the requirements at Wikipedia and Commons for as many details as possible, and a tendency to delete if any of those details are missing, can make it difficult sometime.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
Steve, that image is now PD in Australia. In Australia, the copyright of photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955 has expired and they are now in the public domain. The template for using PD Australian images on Wikipedia is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia and Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia.
There's some old discussion about the Australian libraries claiming permission requirements for reuse under the first section on the talk page of the template on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-Australia). It seems to be pretty much standard now for the Australian libraries (and other cultural institutions) to have similar permission notes on their websites, but sometimes their permission requirements are just ensuring they get credit for where the image came from and backlinks to their site.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Question for the copyright experts. See this image: http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
- On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
- In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright expired? 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright?
I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer, imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Is that "date taken" or "date published"? This is why provenance of photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed dates are mixed up. Also, the location where something is published can be important.
If the photographer is known, it's 'taken before 1 Jan 1955'. If the photographer is not known or they are anonymous or pseudonymous, it's 'taken or published before 1 Jan 1955'.
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
"To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to publish is obtained prior to publication." "All requests for permission to publish should be made in writing, giving details of the item/s required and their proposed use. The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not copyright, to ensure copyright and donor provisions are met, the State Library of South Australia receives due acknowledgement and promotion for use of material from its collections, material is cited in a way that ensures it can be found by other researchers."
Am I the only one who follows links? http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com
wrote:
Is that "date taken" or "date published"? This is why provenance of photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed dates are mixed up. Also, the location where something is published can be important.
If the photographer is known, it's 'taken before 1 Jan 1955'. If the photographer is not known or they are anonymous or pseudonymous, it's 'taken or published before 1 Jan 1955'. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
"To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to publish is obtained prior to publication."
Right, this is the issue I raised at the start. The library "requires" permission - but on what basis? If the image is public domain, and someone else copies it and republishes it - where do they stand? If it's not copyright infringement, what is it? Contract violation? On the basis that you used the website and agreed to the library's terms and conditions, and have now violated them?
Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it.
Steve
Good point.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
"To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to publish is obtained prior to publication."
Right, this is the issue I raised at the start. The library "requires" permission - but on what basis? If the image is public domain, and someone else copies it and republishes it - where do they stand? If it's not copyright infringement, what is it? Contract violation? On the basis that you used the website and agreed to the library's terms and conditions, and have now violated them?
Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
"To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to publish is obtained prior to publication."
This is absolutely standard, at least in Australia. For example, see the permission statement here http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn3696029(National Library of Australia) and here http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/item/itemLarge.aspx?itemID=6984(State Library of New South Wales). They both state words to the effect of "you may use this for yourself but you must ask permission for anything else. This is a standard statement placed on every single record item in the collection of institutions because, more often than not, they have made a risk-assessment that they do not want to advise people about the copyright status of an item in case someone complains/sues. So, they will only give copyright advice in private and on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, because there is no metadata field about copyright status, this "you must ask us permission" statement appears next to every single item in the catalogues.
This issue is raised in GLAM-WIKI recommendations "Law section - to GLAM - number 2: "Pro-actively publish the copyright status of specific content in the online collection rather than blanket access statements for the whole collection. Give guidelines for users to make their own copyright assessment" and number 4: "Remove the policy that requires users to ask permission for use of public domain content." http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_Recommendations
Right, this is the issue I raised at the start. The library "requires" permission - but on what basis? If the image is public domain, and someone else copies it and republishes it - where do they stand? If it's not copyright infringement, what is it? Contract violation? On the basis that you used the website and agreed to the library's terms and conditions, and have now violated them?
Precisely. The approach is taken directly from the institution's policies about making copies and access with regards to the physical object and applied online. That is, there is an assumption when you go to a museum or library that you must abide by the rules of the organisation - the conditions of entry (e.g. no flash photography). So, these conditions of entry now become the "terms of use" online... They assume that by accessing their website then you are under an implied contractual agreement.
Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it.
It's rarely the case that the museum/library owns the copyright to the objects in their collection therefore it is not up to them to chose Creative-Commons - they don't have the right. But, what happens instead is that if you purchase a high resolution of something in their collection they will give it to you only if you sign a contract detailing the ways you are allowed to use the item. This contract is legal (perhaps immoral, but legal) and is a way of creating copyright-like restrictions where otherwise they would have expired. (however this contract is not binding on third parties who come across the re-publication).
This issue is raised in GLAM-WIKI recommendations "Law section - to GLAM - number 8: "Remove "clickwrap" and contracts which place copyright-like restrictions on public domain content."
-Liam [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
This is absolutely standard, at least in Australia. For example, see the
<snip>
Thanks for that informative reply, that was really helpful. I wish I'd gone to GLAM-WIKI, I probably could have gotten work to pay for it too...
Steve
Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it.
Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself, a "work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore, licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or whatever) is simply not possible
Also:
"The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not
copyright"
Does ownership actually allow you to supersede copyright like this? Surely not.
- Chris
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com wrote:
Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it.
Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself, a "work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore, licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or whatever) is simply not possible
What I was getting at, is that the image you see on the web is low quality. Since it is a different form of the original PD image, you presumably can do what you want with it. If you want to do something with the high quality image, you're going to have to get it from them - regardless of what the copyright situation. (Just like galleries prevent you taking photos - the images may be PD, but if you can't physically get a copy, that doesn't help you.)
My reasoning may be totally wrong, I'm just trying to explain my thought process.
Also:
"The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not
copyright"
Does ownership actually allow you to supersede copyright like this? Surely not.
That's what I want to know. They're effectively asserting that they have the right to set conditions on your use of the work. I would like to know on what basis they make that claim. What I'm presuming is it's just based on the fact that they physically control the high quality versions of the work, which means that once you physically get a copy, they're not in a position to stop you. But again, I could be well and truly wrong.
Steve
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Also:
"The requirement for permission to publish is based on ownership, not
copyright"
Does ownership actually allow you to supersede copyright like this? Surely not.
That's what I want to know. They're effectively asserting that they have the right to set conditions on your use of the work. I would like to know on what basis they make that claim. What I'm presuming is it's just based on the fact that they physically control the high quality versions of the work, which means that once you physically get a copy, they're not in a position to stop you. But again, I could be well and truly wrong.
If the image is PD, you can take a copy and do whatever you want with it. They can see that as a breach of their conditions for you using their page, and can try to block you from doing it again (IP filtering, password protection, whatnot). Legally, there's nothing they can do (IANAL).
Cheers Magnus
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com wrote:
Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it.
Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself, a "work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore, licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or whatever) is simply not possible
Legally, I think you are correct, but in *practice* different-sized images are used very differently and this is reflected in how they are (in the commercial world) priced very differently. There is also sometimes more effort and labour involved in producing a high-resolution image (i.e. when careful scanning using hi-tech equipment is involved, as opposed to changing a setting on a digital camera).
Consider a close-up of a high-res picture, showing previously unseen detail. The same close-up, with a low-res picture, would be a pixellated mess. Ask people if the images are different, and they would say "yes". So while they are both from the same "work", they are different images. They contain different sets of data and the information contained in that data is different. Sometimes high-resolution images will show you things that are not obvious to the naked eye when looking at the original.
And high-resolution images are the ones used in print media, and to produce large poster-sized images in adverts. That is where the money side of things comes in. Low-resolution images are useless for most print purposes.
So while none of this strictly relates to copyright, it does relates to the financial side of things, so it is unsurprising that people want to protect any investment they made have made in producing high-resolution images. That is something that can be sometimes forgotten by those taking a stand on the 'free culture' side of things. We are used to seeing others benefit from the fruit of our labours. Others are not.
Carcharoth
Actually the Bundesarchiv did something along those lines with 100,000 images last December. They owned unambiguous copyright over the collection so they relicensed medium resolution versions under CC-by-sa and uploaded those to Commons while they retained full copyright over the high resolution versions.
Of course Germany isn't Australia, and WMF servers are in the States, and the readers of this list are scattered across a variety of countries. It bears repeating that cultural institutions have been asserting a variety of innovative claims in order to assert proprietary control over media in their collections. One runs into these kinds of obstacles all the time when working with historic media. The claims range across copyright and contract law, often entering untested areas.
There are basically four ways of responding: 1. Ignore the claims and use the material. Probably nothing bad will happen to you although you might win the 'lottery' and end up in the same legal position as Derrick Coetzee. Do you want to risk that hassle?
2. Jump through the institution's hoops. You may have qualms about acting in ways that validate an assertion of rights that you basically disagree with, but if the requirement isn't very onerous it's one clear way of avoiding problems later on. In the particular instance of this library, part of the 'permission' requirement amounts to an offer to have the staff research copyright status. If it would take about the same effort to do that research yourself then it might be worthwhile.
3. Back away sheepishly. Not very satisfying, but safe.
4. Persuade the staff to change policy. This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time. A group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward that end. We've had some successes and are gaining momentum. For more information see the open letter I coauthored for Signpost in July.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Open_le...
And one of our subsequent successes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-10/Tropenm...
If this sounds intriguing, write to me off list. Especially if you happen to live near Montreal, Canada or Santa Barbara, California. ;)
-Durova
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com wrote:
Although I suspect what's also happening is the image that we see there is low quality, and you'd need permission to get a higher quality, printable version. And they'd never give permission to cc-sa it.
Copyright doesn't work like that. An image is not copyrighted by itself,
a
"work" is, and most people would not consider an image that is simply resized to be an entirely different work to the original. Therefore, licensing a resized version differently to a higher quality original (or whatever) is simply not possible
Legally, I think you are correct, but in *practice* different-sized images are used very differently and this is reflected in how they are (in the commercial world) priced very differently. There is also sometimes more effort and labour involved in producing a high-resolution image (i.e. when careful scanning using hi-tech equipment is involved, as opposed to changing a setting on a digital camera).
Consider a close-up of a high-res picture, showing previously unseen detail. The same close-up, with a low-res picture, would be a pixellated mess. Ask people if the images are different, and they would say "yes". So while they are both from the same "work", they are different images. They contain different sets of data and the information contained in that data is different. Sometimes high-resolution images will show you things that are not obvious to the naked eye when looking at the original.
And high-resolution images are the ones used in print media, and to produce large poster-sized images in adverts. That is where the money side of things comes in. Low-resolution images are useless for most print purposes.
So while none of this strictly relates to copyright, it does relates to the financial side of things, so it is unsurprising that people want to protect any investment they made have made in producing high-resolution images. That is something that can be sometimes forgotten by those taking a stand on the 'free culture' side of things. We are used to seeing others benefit from the fruit of our labours. Others are not.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
- Persuade the staff to change policy.
This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time. A group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward that end. We've had some successes and are gaining momentum. For
Interesting, what's in it for them? They're giving up control over their "property", but what do they get in return?
Steve
Most of these institutions have a mission to inform the public. Openness helps fulfill that mission. In the Bundesarchiv's case, donation of 100,000 images significantly increased their sales of images. That may seem counterintuitive but if an organization is smart about it everyone benefits. We're working to build synergies. Various kinds of synergies can develop. That's one of them.
-Durova
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
- Persuade the staff to change policy.
This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time. A group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward
that
end. We've had some successes and are gaining momentum. For
Interesting, what's in it for them? They're giving up control over their "property", but what do they get in return?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote in message news:b8ceeef70909172048yc896bagb11452fdc30452bb@mail.gmail.com...
Question for the copyright experts. See this image: http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
- On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
- In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright expired? 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright?
I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer, imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.
I do not know, man. I was reading information from one lawyer saying, effectively, that I could use a Sherman Brothers' lyric with my own tune-- It would not even be a derivative work in legal terms. Then, I hear on the radio that Coldplay settled out of court because they used someone else's tune for their lyrics. Could be they would've won in the States and lost in Canada.
In a similar vein, the wikipedia decision on whether patents on MP3 encoders and players hav expired is either out of date or not internationally applicable. (Last year I saw was 2007). A lot more MP3 hardware is out there than there is of OGG. _______ Create a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. Mathematicians do it in fields. Words you do not want to hear from your driver: "Watch This!". Where in the war does Micro$oft want to take me today?