There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any fair-use rationale...
Many of them appear to be official seals, for which an appropriate fair use rationale could indeed be given.
Others, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Food.jpg
which is linked from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_the_Philippines
can and should be deleted immediately and replaced as soon as possible with a free alternative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jinggoy.jpg is a photo of a living, actively serving politician. This is another one which should be deleted and replaced with a free alternative.
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any fair-use rationale...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Then it's not really available in the public domain. Public domain means that you don't need a license from a copyright holder. Non-commercial stipulations are types of licenses.
FF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any fair-use rationale...
I think that is probably a mistranslation of original government text. My guess is that it actually means 'this work is only available _to the public_ under a non-commercial and permission-based license'. Not having seen the original (and not being able to understand any language other than English or /extremely/ basic French) I can't guarantee this however.
Cynical
The relevant bit of the law (from http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_10/RA08293.pdf) reads:
SEC. 176. Works of the Government. – 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)
(English is an official language of the Phillipines, and this is from an official site, so I presume this is a good translation)
So they explicitly state there is no copyright (rather than saying "public domain"), then go on to claim no commercial use is allowed. Something of a contradiction I think, but it seems pretty clear what the intention is. Such images would not be acceptable on Wikipedia (other than under fair use)
the wub
On 10/14/06, David Alexander Russell david@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any fair-use rationale...
I think that is probably a mistranslation of original government text. My guess is that it actually means 'this work is only available _to the public_ under a non-commercial and permission-based license'. Not having seen the original (and not being able to understand any language other than English or /extremely/ basic French) I can't guarantee this however.
Cynical -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFMVaVg8fvtQYQevcRAsjNAJ0Xq9mQsgJ0ujyZ7tVp/xMI9rgBkQCZAdrh uFheVzQdrU6luaCxmWCV5zw= =cYDk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
the wub wrote:
The relevant bit of the law (from http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_10/RA08293.pdf) reads:
SEC. 176. Works of the Government. – 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)
The second part sounds like actual public domain ("no prior approval or conditions"), so I guess wikisource can freely use, for example, public speeches made by the president. The list does not include pictures, sadly.
-Mark
On 10/15/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The second part sounds like actual public domain ("no prior approval or conditions"), so I guess wikisource can freely use, for example, public speeches made by the president. The list does not include pictures, sadly.
-Mark
I would argue that we are not currently exploiting the pictures that are already in the public domian.
On 14/10/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any fair-use rationale...
This may well be a mistranslation or misconception. "Public domain" only means "free without restrictions and out of copyright" when used to talk about copyright; however, it's perfectly possible to, say, call a recent publication "in the public domain" in that it is *available* to the public, it's not restricted by secrecy legislation or the like.
In other words, it can mean "is not copyrighted" or "is not an official secret" or - often - both.
I see this a lot with various Freedom of Information / Access to Information legislation - the laws themselves, or the explanatory material, often talk about "putting material in the public domain" without ever mentioning copyright issues, and people jump to the conclusion that it means the former and not just the latter, because we communally get a bit hung up on copyright and assume people are talking about it all the time...
The
On 10/14/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any fair-use rationale...
This may well be a mistranslation or misconception. "Public domain" only means "free without restrictions and out of copyright" when used to talk about copyright; however, it's perfectly possible to, say, call a recent publication "in the public domain" in that it is *available* to the public, it's not restricted by secrecy legislation or the like.
In other words, it can mean "is not copyrighted" or "is not an official secret" or - often - both.
I see this a lot with various Freedom of Information / Access to Information legislation - the laws themselves, or the explanatory material, often talk about "putting material in the public domain" without ever mentioning copyright issues, and people jump to the conclusion that it means the former and not just the latter, because we communally get a bit hung up on copyright and assume people are talking about it all the time...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 14/10/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any fair-use rationale...
This may well be a mistranslation or misconception. "Public domain" only means "free without restrictions and out of copyright" when used to talk about copyright; however, it's perfectly possible to, say, call a recent publication "in the public domain" in that it is *available* to the public, it's not restricted by secrecy legislation or the like.
In other words, it can mean "is not copyrighted" or "is not an official secret" or - often - both.
I see this a lot with various Freedom of Information / Access to Information legislation - the laws themselves, or the explanatory material, often talk about "putting material in the public domain" without ever mentioning copyright issues, and people jump to the conclusion that it means the former and not just the latter, because we communally get a bit hung up on copyright and assume people are talking about it all the time...
MOST of the population don't know the copyright meaning of "public domain". They assume that it is the same as "available to the public" and hence, we get horrible copyright violations tagged as "PD-self" - as in, "I took a photo of copyrighted book/movie/whatever, and I'll let you see it". There's a similar issue with "Copyright free use" too - "It's probably copyrighted, but hey, they didn't charge me anything to look at it on Google images!".