On 14 Oct 2006 at 23:12, "the wub" thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
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)
What it sounds like is that the Philippine government is creating a separate type of intellectual property which is explicitly not "copyright", but which still restricts the commercial (but not noncommercial) use of the applicable material. Governments are allowed to do such things by law (within whatever constraints their constitution may make), but such laws apply only within their own borders (unless extended elsewhere by treaty). Since, as far as I know, there are no international treaties protecting non-copyrighted governmental works that have use restrictions by national law (this wouldn't fall under copyright treaties since it's not a copyright), they would only be able to enforce this restriction within the Philippines, and in the rest of the world the works would be entirely public domain. (But I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice.)
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 14 Oct 2006 at 23:12, "the wub" thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
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)
What it sounds like is that the Philippine government is creating a separate type of intellectual property which is explicitly not "copyright", but which still restricts the commercial (but not noncommercial) use of the applicable material. Governments are allowed to do such things by law (within whatever constraints their constitution may make), but such laws apply only within their own borders (unless extended elsewhere by treaty). Since, as far as I know, there are no international treaties protecting non-copyrighted governmental works that have use restrictions by national law (this wouldn't fall under copyright treaties since it's not a copyright), they would only be able to enforce this restriction within the Philippines, and in the rest of the world the works would be entirely public domain.
It would be interesting to see how Philippine courts have ruled on this. The law as stated does contradict itself, and in those circumstances it is prefectly normal to choose the interpretation that most suits us. If a government draft its legislation badly it needs to accept the consequences. I think that using such material as public domain material is perfectly safe.
Ec
On 10/15/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It would be interesting to see how Philippine courts have ruled on this.
Unlikely that they have.
The law as stated does contradict itself, and in those circumstances it is prefectly normal to choose the interpretation that most suits us.
No it isn't. It is prefectly normal to choose the interpretation that a) is legaly correct and b) keeps us safe.
If a government draft its legislation badly it needs to accept the consequences. I think that using such material as public domain material is perfectly safe.
Are you offering to be a test case?
geni wrote:
On 10/15/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It would be interesting to see how Philippine courts have ruled on this.
Unlikely that they have.
That's probably correct.
The law as stated does contradict itself, and in those circumstances it is prefectly normal to choose the interpretation that most suits us.
No it isn't. It is prefectly normal to choose the interpretation that a) is legaly correct and b) keeps us safe.
I guess you don't read many legal reports. In ambiguous circumstances either position is legally correct. Beyond that there comes a point where the notion of keeping safe is nothing more than a coward's retreat into paranoia.
If a government drafts its legislation badly it needs to accept the consequences. I think that using such material as public domain material is perfectly safe.
Are you offering to be a test case?
I can very easily say, "Yes," based on the available information. Nevertheless, the complete unlikelihood of such a case makes either a "Yes" or a "No" response hollow and unrealistic. In such a case I can, however, safely presume that I would be the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Before there can be a case there also needs to be an allegation of a specific violation, and any test case cannot be purely theoretical. As the potential defendant my decision would depend on the particular text, image, or other medium in dispute. Who then would be the plaintiff? What country's courts would have jurisdiction? If this is to be handled by Philippine courts, how effective could they be in enforcing these decisions in other countries without starting up a whole new case in another country.
Your question is an empty bluff.
Ec