In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public domain.>>
------------------------ David that isn't relevant. Copyright and Credit are two seperate items. We need to discuss them seperately. You don't Credit the Copyright holder. You Credit your source, which may or may not be a copyright holder.
You credit where *you* got it from. You even "Credit" public domain sources such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on anything whatsoever.
"Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", it has to do with "Normal scholarly citation methods"
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public domain.>>
Copyright and Credit are two seperate items. We need to discuss them seperately. You don't Credit the Copyright holder. You Credit your source, which may or may not be a copyright holder.
You credit where *you* got it from. You even "Credit" public domain sources such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on anything whatsoever.
"Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", it has to do with "Normal scholarly citation methods"
You are only right to a limited extent. While it makes sense to say that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights. If Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to be noted.
Ec
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:33:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
This does not square with copyright law in any way. It's also arguable morally, given their clear and blatant attempts to enclose the public domain.>>
Copyright and Credit are two seperate items. We need to discuss them seperately. You don't Credit the Copyright holder. You Credit your source, which may or may not be a copyright holder.
You credit where *you* got it from. You even "Credit" public domain sources such as "the Monroe County courthouse" which holds no copyrights on anything whatsoever.
"Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", it has to do with "Normal scholarly citation methods"
You are only right to a limited extent. While it makes sense to say that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights. If Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to be noted.
Turning it around and stepping into a time machine, it is interesting to speculate about what people will think in 100 years time when they are looking at a photograph and the credit is to "Pbroks13" to use a random example of a featured picture. Will the people around then argue whether some of the usernames used today are truly pseudonymous or not, and get into long and involved arguments about that? And does it make sense to talk about GFDL works eventually falling into the public domain, and does it make any difference? :-)
Or to put it another way, is GFDL freer or less-free than PD?
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Or to put it another way, is GFDL freer or less-free than PD?
Less free. Explicitly so. There are strict and specific limitations on what you can do with GFDL content. The goal, of course, is that in the end a GFDL regime will be more free on the whole, but that requires that the world is full of GFDL regimes. If it is not, then using GFDL content (or CC content or whatever) becomes fairly difficult unless you can re-negotiate the license.
(This is one of the reasons I had long supported the idea of more flexible free licenses, like the ability to multi-license at a later date* if, for example, a new copyleft regime emerges that is more desirable than GFDL and is incompatible with it. In the end, since nobody seemed to care a whole lot about this, I just decided that I should re-license everything of mine as PD.)
(*What I envisioned here was some sort of "trust," bundle license, that would say, "I give X the ability to license my contributions and to multi-license it in the future assuming that the following Y conditions are met by the license in question." So content that was GFDL today could be CC-SA tomorrow, or XY-AB ten years from now, as long as certain core requirements were met, like ability to use commercially, must be viral in some way, etc. In short it would be a hedge-your-bets measure -- don't rely on the fact that GFDL will be used in the future, because it might not, and ideally one licensed with GFDL in the first place because one wanted maximum reuse, which again only works if you have a lot of GFDL use in the first place. But I repeat myself.)
FF
On 14/01/2009, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
You are only right to a limited extent. While it makes sense to say that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights. If Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to be noted.
It's not legally true either. For example if a newspaper or magazine gets a PD image from Corbis and publishes it, they *are* bound by their contract they made with Corbis to obtain the image.
However, readers aren't so bound. If one of them copies the image, they have every right to do so, and are not legally (and probably not morally either) obliged to credit the magazine or Corbis, the readers usually don't have any contractual obligation, and copyright doesn't apply since it's still PD.
So Corbis does have some protection, even for PD images, from contract law, but it's easily bypassed.
Ec
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:45 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
"Credit" doesn't need to know who holds the copyright, you are merely stating what your own source was. "Credit" has nothing to do with "Law", it has to do with "Normal scholarly citation methods"
Note that nobody here is talking about credit except for you! We are talking about copyright law! I think you are missing the entire point of the discussion. Once one has hammered out the specifics of the law then one can worry about the niceties of credit.
FF