Hello,
Klaus Graf wrote:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's
statement in this list
("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
adressed on a Wikisource case)
See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs…
We should not accept such nonsense.
Klaus Graf
Actually, this whole discussion resumes to a very short question: Which
law do we apply on Wikimedia projects? No problem to apply US law
because WMF is based in USA, but the "source country" has no definitive
meaning, so we get into absurb situations:
1. What is the "source country" for an image scanned in France from a
book bought in India by a British publisher (real case scenario)?
Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on
Wikimedia servers.
Then we have the opposite situation:
1. What about a French book published in France in 1935 from an author
who died in 1936? If we consider that US law doesn't apply the rule of
shorter term, this book is not in the public domain in USA, although it
is in the public domain in France, and was never published in USA.
Why not to apply just common sense?
Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres