[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer 2. It's on the frickin' main page right now
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
John
John Lee wrote:
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Or that the problem is hard, and has had more people throwing rocks than working on scalable solutions. I've put out several ideas for process improvement in the past couple of days, and have had almost no substantive response, either positive or negative. I find it hard to take complaints seriously when the issue is ignored for months at a time, then there a paroxysm of righteous indignation, then it goes back to being ignored. We need X number of people who are going to work on this steadily for Y hours per week, exact values to be determined by the efficiency of the processes we develop.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Or that the problem is hard, and has had more people throwing rocks than working on scalable solutions. I've put out several ideas for process improvement in the past couple of days, and have had almost no substantive response, either positive or negative. I find it hard to take complaints seriously when the issue is ignored for months at a time, then there a paroxysm of righteous indignation, then it goes back to being ignored. We need X number of people who are going to work on this steadily for Y hours per week, exact values to be determined by the efficiency of the processes we develop.
Stan
Where? Not to be obnoxious, but I haven't seen any of your proposals. Ever since I became properly acquainted with fair use, I've tried to ensure images I upload at least comply with the American law. The problem is that when I stumble across obviously not fair use pictures uploaded by others, there's no good process for handling them.
John
John Lee wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Or that the problem is hard, and has had more people throwing rocks than working on scalable solutions. I've put out several ideas for process improvement in the past couple of days, and have had almost no substantive response, either positive or negative. I find it hard to take complaints seriously when the issue is ignored for months at a time, then there a paroxysm of righteous indignation, then it goes back to being ignored. We need X number of people who are going to work on this steadily for Y hours per week, exact values to be determined by the efficiency of the processes we develop.
Stan
Where? Not to be obnoxious, but I haven't seen any of your proposals. Ever since I became properly acquainted with fair use, I've tried to ensure images I upload at least comply with the American law. The problem is that when I stumble across obviously not fair use pictures uploaded by others, there's no good process for handling them.
Talk pages of Fair use review, WikiProject Fair use, and TBSDY's proposal page Fair use criteria/Amendment. Logical places, or so I thought... :-)
Stan
On 3/3/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Where? Not to be obnoxious, but I haven't seen any of your proposals. Ever since I became properly acquainted with fair use, I've tried to ensure images I upload at least comply with the American law. The problem is that when I stumble across obviously not fair use pictures uploaded by others, there's no good process for handling them.
John
Orphan them. Deal with anyone who disagrees then delete them after a week
-- geni
On 3/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/3/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Where? Not to be obnoxious, but I haven't seen any of your proposals. Ever since I became properly acquainted with fair use, I've tried to ensure images I upload at least comply with the American law. The problem is that when I stumble across obviously not fair use pictures uploaded by others, there's no good process for handling them.
John
Orphan them. Deal with anyone who disagrees then delete them after a week
The alternative is to willfully ignore the problem. Seriously -- when things upset me on Wikipedia, I make a limited attempt to change them, make a note on my user page that I disagree with it, perhaps engage in some discussion, then, if I hit intransigence, drop it.
I do that with AfD, the "Counter Vandalism Unit", mergism, wacko articles, and other instances that raise my hackles. And every so often I just don't edit Wikipedia at all for a while.
Just remember to stay happy.
The principle of fair use is pretty much useless for Wikipedia, IMHO, especially as it restricts downstream use of Wikipedia content. But deleting other people's images holds no appeal for me, so I don't get involved.
John Lee wrote:
[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
- It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
- It's on the frickin' main page right now
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Ec
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
- It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
- It's on the frickin' main page right now
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Ec
Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
Further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellane... -- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
- It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
- It's on the frickin' main page right now
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Ec
Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
Further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellane...
Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee of the German government. The talk page for the article cites http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyP... "Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party" The 70 year clock for government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made public. The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy properties. The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
What "wrong country" are you talking about?
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
- It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
- It's on the frickin' main page right now
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Ec
Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
Further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellane...
Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee of the German government. The talk page for the article cites http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyP... "Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party" The 70 year clock for government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made public. The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy properties. The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
What "wrong country" are you talking about?
Ec
I seem to remember reading something about the Allies voiding all German government copyrights at the end of WWII. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I seem to remember something about the copyright of Mein Kampf being a special case, since it was never owned by the German state.
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
- It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
- It's on the frickin' main page right now
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Ec
Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
Further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellane...
Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee of the German government. The talk page for the article cites http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyP... "Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party" The 70 year clock for government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made public. The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy properties. The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
What "wrong country" are you talking about?
Ec
I seem to remember reading something about the Allies voiding all German government copyrights at the end of WWII. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I seem to remember something about the copyright of Mein Kampf being a special case, since it was never owned by the German state.
See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.pdf
There is no reason why this would not also apply to Mein Kampf. The state goverment of Bavaria claims that it owns the copyright, although at least one Swedish court has denied that claim while simultaneously saying that it was still protected even if the owner could not be identified. The net effect is that the German language edition is in the public domain in the United States. All four English translations are still protected. The three American ones were all properly renewed for the Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston. Murphy, the British translator, IIRC died in 1946, and his version would thus be protected until the end of 2016. A person with a lot of time on his hands could safely do a new translation that could be released under GFDL. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but...
- It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer
- It's on the frickin' main page right now
Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on.
Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Ec
Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
Further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellane...
Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee of the German government. The talk page for the article cites http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyP... "Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party" The 70 year clock for government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made public. The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy properties. The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
What "wrong country" are you talking about?
Ec
I seem to remember reading something about the Allies voiding all German government copyrights at the end of WWII. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I seem to remember something about the copyright of Mein Kampf being a special case, since it was never owned by the German state.
See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.pdf
There is no reason why this would not also apply to Mein Kampf. The state goverment of Bavaria claims that it owns the copyright, although at least one Swedish court has denied that claim while simultaneously saying that it was still protected even if the owner could not be identified. The net effect is that the German language edition is in the public domain in the United States. All four English translations are still protected. The three American ones were all properly renewed for the Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston. Murphy, the British translator, IIRC died in 1946, and his version would thus be protected until the end of 2016. A person with a lot of time on his hands could safely do a new translation that could be released under GFDL. :-)
Doesn't this fall under the scope of Project Gutenburg?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
John Lee wrote:
>[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery >itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the >subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those >images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It >has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not >been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a >copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. >It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but... > >1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer >2. It's on the frickin' main page right now > >Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use >and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most >Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use >review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on. > > Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003.
Further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellane...
Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee of the German government. The talk page for the article cites http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemyP... "Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party" The 70 year clock for government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made public. The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy properties. The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
What "wrong country" are you talking about?
I seem to remember reading something about the Allies voiding all German government copyrights at the end of WWII. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I seem to remember something about the copyright of Mein Kampf being a special case, since it was never owned by the German state.
See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr19287.pdf
There is no reason why this would not also apply to Mein Kampf. The state goverment of Bavaria claims that it owns the copyright, although at least one Swedish court has denied that claim while simultaneously saying that it was still protected even if the owner could not be identified. The net effect is that the German language edition is in the public domain in the United States. All four English translations are still protected. The three American ones were all properly renewed for the Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston. Murphy, the British translator, IIRC died in 1946, and his version would thus be protected until the end of 2016. A person with a lot of time on his hands could safely do a new translation that could be released under GFDL. :-)
Doesn't this fall under the scope of Project Gutenburg?
I don't know about Project Gutenburg's criteria for inclusion, but I would see nothing wrong in having this included in Wikisource.
Ec
On 3/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy properties. The rights there expired at the end of 1985.
I'd not heard that. Cite, please? I'd also be interested in how wide the scope of 'enemy properties' is.
-Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005.
Because it doesn't enter the public domain until 70 AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR.
- -- Sean Barrett | No, Grasshopper! Carry hibachi by handles! sean@epoptic.org |