Hello,
Birgitte SB wrote:
The WMF licensing policy puts the burden on being
able
to declare a work to be "free content" or else use an
EDP. Unless something is *really* old you have to
know who held the copyright in order to show that
their rights have expired. Not being able to
determine the copyright holder, or even being able to
prove the copyright holder is 100% unknown and always
was, does not release the work into the Public Domain.
Orphaned works are still copyrighted in the US.
There is no provision for a work to be declared "free
content" unless it a) released under a free license or
b) in the Public Domain. *Many* works do not fit
either of those criteria and still have 0% chance of
anyone being awarded damages for copyright
infringement.
But we are limited by the WMF licensing resolustion,
which has a very high standard for "free content" and
what is allowed to be hosted as such on WMF servers. I
don't particularly like the licensing resolution for a
number of reasons, but we can't just ignore that it
exists and decide use a different standard that is
more appealing.
I think that this argument can be easily reversed.
Copyright without a copyright holder is just nonsense, because only the
copyright holder can claim it. Nobody, not even the "State" or any
public body, can do it on the holder's behalf. So I think that we should
apply common sense, and allow images of which the copyright holder has
disappeared in the mists of time.
Birgitte SB
Regards,
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