On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
of course I dont expect
people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they
do know the principles of it and what they can do
Are you sure? In the US, at
least, industry groups go to a lot of
trouble to "remind" people of the things they're not supposed to do.
But I'm not sure the provisions you point to are actually so unusual.
- Non protected works Article 9 section c -- news
of the day published
by the press or broadcast
This is in the Berne Convention (article 2, section
- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation
article 29 section b -
reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to photographic
process by <snip> documentation centres <snip> or teaching organisations
..... refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
I don't know if Wikipedia would actually be covered by this:
terms are probably pretty narrow (and this is just a translation of
the law, anyway). In any event, it's pretty standard for copyright
laws to make allowances for limited educational use.
- article 30 - is the key here it enables
translation into Portuguese
after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis are
having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage
uploading of media
This appears to implement article 2 of the Berne
provisions regarding developing countries" (Angola isn't a signatory,
but it has signed the TRIPS Agreement, which incorporates those
provisions). It actually looks quite restrictive (the license has to
be granted by the "State Secretariat for Culture", you have to try to
get permission first, there are limitations on export, and you still
have to pay the copyright holder).
I don't think problematic uploads from mobile are a new or regional
phenomenon—I seem to recall an earlier "selfiepocalypse".