This is somewhat related to the ongoing "fair use" discussion.
AFAIK, there are Wikipedia servers in Paris and Amsterdam.
Is it OK for Wikipedia to use an image under U.S. copyright law based on "fair use" and the given image is hosted on French or Dutch server and is served to French or Dutch clients but is copyrighted under French or Dutch law? Isn't that a copyright violation?
(I assumed that there is no equivalent of "fair use" in France or in the Netherlands, but I really don't have a clue...)
Wouldn't this be a problem as more and more servers are installed in an increasing number of countries?
Thanks, nyenyec
(I assumed that there is no equivalent of "fair use" in France or in the Netherlands, but I really don't have a clue...)
There's probably something. Here's my unofficial translation of a part of the Icelandic copyright laws law. I'm not a lawyer and I find it hard to translate Icelandic legelese.
"Article 14. It is permitted to quote a published work of literature, including plays and published films and musical compositions, for the purposes of criticism, science, general introduction or for other acceptable purposes, if it is done correctly and within reasonable boundaries. Under the same conditions it is allowed to publish pictures and drawings of published artworks and files, as per 3rd paragraph of article 1. If pictures or drawings of two or more works by the same author are published in connection with text relating to a general introduction the author has a right to renumeration."
The next article gives a further right to use copyrighted materials for purposes of reporting.
If I read this right the estate of [[Einar Jónsson]] would have a right to renumeration if the Wikipedia article were published in Iceland, since we use more than one picture of his works. However, the estate would not have the right to forbid publication of the article since the material is within reasonable limits and "correct".
Regards, Haukur
P.S.
The original:
"Heimil er tilvitnun í birt bókmenntaverk, þar á meðal leiksviðsverk, svo og birt kvikmyndaverk og tónverk, ef hún er gerð í sambandi við gagnrýni, vísindi, almenna kynningu eða í öðrum viðurkenndum tilgangi, enda sé hún gerð innan hæfilegra marka og rétt með efni farið. Með sömu skilyrðum er heimilt að birta myndir og teikningar af birtum listaverkum og gögnum, sem getið er í 3. mgr. 1. gr. Nú eru birtar myndir eða teikningar af tveimur verkum eða fleiri hins sama höfundar í sambandi við meginmál, sem lýtur að almennri kynningu, og á hann þá rétt til þóknunar." (from http://tinyurl.com/amb3e)
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
(I assumed that there is no equivalent of "fair use" in France or in the Netherlands, but I really don't have a clue...)
There's probably something. Here's my unofficial translation of a part of the Icelandic copyright laws law. I'm not a lawyer and I find it hard to translate Icelandic legelese.
You could have saved yourself some work. An English translation of the whole law is available at http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/iceland/iceland.html
"Article 14. It is permitted to quote a published work of literature, including plays and published films and musical compositions, for the purposes of criticism, science, general introduction or for other acceptable purposes, if it is done correctly and within reasonable boundaries. Under the same conditions it is allowed to publish pictures and drawings of published artworks and files, as per 3rd paragraph of article 1. If pictures or drawings of two or more works by the same author are published in connection with text relating to a general introduction the author has a right to renumeration."
The prevailing right to use one picture is especially interesting. In many instances that would be more than enough for our purposes.
The next article gives a further right to use copyrighted materials for purposes of reporting.
If I read this right the estate of [[Einar Jónsson]] would have a right to renumeration if the Wikipedia article were published in Iceland, since we use more than one picture of his works. However, the estate would not have the right to forbid publication of the article since the material is within reasonable limits and "correct".
The difficulty is in determining how much remuneration is fair.
Ec
You could have saved yourself some work. An English translation of the whole law is available at http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/copyright/iceland/iceland.html
Great! Thanks! Let's look at article 14 in a better translation than I could make:
"Article 14. It is permitted to quote from a disseminated literary work, including dramatic works, as well as disseminated cinematographic works and works of music, if this is done in the context of critical and scientific treatises, general information or some other recognized purpose, provided the quotation is correct and of reasonable length.
With the same limitations it is permitted to reproduce pictures and drawings of disseminated works of art and documents mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 1.
If pictures or drawings of two or more works by the same author are reproduced in the context of a text for general information, then the author is entitled to remuneration."
So, that's Icelandic fair use for you. The wording sounds broad enough, what with "general information" and all.
What I want to know is if all of Wikipedia would be considered one text, which would be severely limiting, or if each article would be considered on its own - which would allow one to do almost anything.
At any rate this doesn't sound any less clear or more limiting than what I've been able to glean of U.S. fair use stipulations.
As for the rest of Europe I don't know. One thing to remember is that Iceland is not a part of the European Union, an organization which I seem to remember recently publishing a little directive concerning this...
The prevailing right to use one picture is especially interesting. In many instances that would be more than enough for our purposes.
Yes, that's actually pretty reasonable.
The difficulty is in determining how much remuneration is fair.
Other such remuneration stipulations always seem to be as a percentage of money made. But I'm not a lawyer.
Regards, Haukur
P.S. Here's a quote from article 15:
"It is permitted to reproduce in newspapers, periodicals, television programmes and in films, pictures or drawings of disseminated works of art in connection with narrative accounts of current events."
This would be helpful for an Icelandic version of something like wikinews.
Ray Saintonge (saintonge@telus.net) [050715 13:37]:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
The difficulty is in determining how much remuneration is fair.
Other such remuneration stipulations always seem to be as a percentage of money made.
We can afford that! :-)
Yes, but could a mirror site?
- d.
"Article 14. It is permitted to quote a published work of literature, including plays and published films and musical compositions, for the purposes of criticism, science, general introduction or for other acceptable purposes, if it is done correctly and within reasonable boundaries. Under the same conditions it is allowed to publish pictures and drawings of published artworks and files, as per 3rd paragraph of article 1. If pictures or drawings of two or more works by the same author are published in connection with text relating to a general introduction the author has a right to renumeration."
The prevailing right to use one picture is especially interesting. In many instances that would be more than enough for our purposes.
*Sigh*. Turns out we *do* have to implement the hated EU directive since we're part of the European Economic Area. And, sure enough, this perfectly reasonable clause on fair use of individual pictures will almost certainly be ruined come autumn with the addition of the words "for non-commercial purposes only".
Say, I hear Saudi Arabia still has some reasonable clauses in their copyright code...
Regards, Haukur
On 7/14/05, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
This is somewhat related to the ongoing "fair use" discussion.
AFAIK, there are Wikipedia servers in Paris and Amsterdam.
Is it OK for Wikipedia to use an image under U.S. copyright law based on "fair use" and the given image is hosted on French or Dutch server and is served to French or Dutch clients but is copyrighted under French or Dutch law? Isn't that a copyright violation?
(I assumed that there is no equivalent of "fair use" in France or in the Netherlands, but I really don't have a clue...)
Wouldn't this be a problem as more and more servers are installed in an increasing number of countries?
Thanks, nyenyec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I recall that the theory is that since they are cache servers rather than master database servers we should be ok (this is important since laws about what wikipedia can contain differ from country to country).
I think there are two things we should remember
First, the fact that DB are only in USA right now, does not mean no DB will ever be in other countries. It could happen sooner than expected and within the precautionary principle, I'd say it is probably a good idea to avoid using fair use image as much as possible.
Second, we should not forget we are not building an unique central resource for final users, but building a resource to be used by anyone. While we repeat over and over that our resource is free to use, this is only true for text and as such potentially confusing for those reusing the entirery of the content. I feel that each time we provide an image which is only "with permission for wikipedia" or "fair use (in the USA)", we are bringing confusion to those reusing our content, as they may not realise *they* have no permission to use the image, or are using an image illegal in their country.
It is embarassing. It is not just a "legal" issue, that is an ethical issue.
ant
Nyenyec N a écrit:
This is somewhat related to the ongoing "fair use" discussion.
AFAIK, there are Wikipedia servers in Paris and Amsterdam.
Is it OK for Wikipedia to use an image under U.S. copyright law based on "fair use" and the given image is hosted on French or Dutch server and is served to French or Dutch clients but is copyrighted under French or Dutch law? Isn't that a copyright violation?
(I assumed that there is no equivalent of "fair use" in France or in the Netherlands, but I really don't have a clue...)
Wouldn't this be a problem as more and more servers are installed in an increasing number of countries?
Thanks, nyenyec
On 7/14/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I think there are two things we should remember
First, the fact that DB are only in USA right now, does not mean no DB will ever be in other countries. It could happen sooner than expected and within the precautionary principle, I'd say it is probably a good idea to avoid using fair use image as much as possible.
Second, we should not forget we are not building an unique central resource for final users, but building a resource to be used by anyone. While we repeat over and over that our resource is free to use, this is only true for text and as such potentially confusing for those reusing the entirery of the content. I feel that each time we provide an image which is only "with permission for wikipedia" or "fair use (in the USA)", we are bringing confusion to those reusing our content, as they may not realise *they* have no permission to use the image, or are using an image illegal in their country.
It is embarassing. It is not just a "legal" issue, that is an ethical issue.
ant
Nyenyec N a écrit:
This is somewhat related to the ongoing "fair use" discussion.
AFAIK, there are Wikipedia servers in Paris and Amsterdam.
Is it OK for Wikipedia to use an image under U.S. copyright law based on "fair use" and the given image is hosted on French or Dutch server and is served to French or Dutch clients but is copyrighted under French or Dutch law? Isn't that a copyright violation?
(I assumed that there is no equivalent of "fair use" in France or in the Netherlands, but I really don't have a clue...)
Wouldn't this be a problem as more and more servers are installed in an increasing number of countries?
Thanks, nyenyec
It's people having their heads in the sand is what it is.
The incorporation of "fair use" images in Wikipedia ensures that the encyclopaedia as a whole cannot straightforwardly be used/redistributed outside of the US.
The grand theories of a free resource for all ring hollow with so much work required to create a redistribution of the encyclopaedia, omitting the non-GFDL images, but including all the great free licence ones that are there.
Zoney
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 7/14/05, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
It's people having their heads in the sand is what it is.
The incorporation of "fair use" images in Wikipedia ensures that the encyclopaedia as a whole cannot straightforwardly be used/redistributed outside of the US.
The grand theories of a free resource for all ring hollow with so much work required to create a redistribution of the encyclopaedia, omitting the non-GFDL images, but including all the great free licence ones that are there.
Which is why images are tagged. All one has to do is run an SQL query to remove images that have pages tagged with non-free licenses. It's not our fault that people are so anal about their copyrights.
- --Slowking Man
The incorporation of "fair use" images in Wikipedia ensures that the encyclopaedia as a whole cannot straightforwardly be used/redistributed outside of the US.
As I keep pointing out "fair use" images aren't the only problem. Wikipedia has many photographs of old artworks. The photographs themselves are explicitly protected by copyright law in Europe but not in the United States as the Bridgeman ruling showed.
So, many of the images tagged "pd-art" or with other pd-tags aren't actually in the public domain in Europe.
And then there are books published before 1923 in Europe. Those are in the public domain in the United States but often not in Europe. The artwork of [[Arthur Rackham]] is a good example. A British reuser would do well to be careful in using those, their pd-tags notwithstanding. Currently few people pay attention to this as is demonstrated by the fact that one of these images was recently promoted to a featured picture. The featured pictures are the images on Wikipedia that have received the greatest scrutiny, including scrutiny of their license.
And I hear there may be problems with public domain images from U.S. federal agencies outside of the United States.
All in all a version of Wikipedia stripped of all images that could be problematic outside the United States would be stripped of *many* good images. I don't really think that's a good course to take. We should, however, be careful to tag everything clearly.
Regards, Haukur