Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why? None of these are cut and dry. If we limit ourselves to only the images that are zero risk we would have a LOT less content... and we'd have to reject a lot which will be free for all meaningful purposes. When it comes down to it, most of these things can only be decided in a court, and courts rule in strage ways. An official statement by the foundation would be risky and without much gain... after all, what would a statement really accomplish that we couldn't?
Individual responsibility! Otherwise there are problems at both ends of the scale.
The cases I have mentioned are not about uploaders who don't care about copyright. They're about good uploaders who don't happen to be aware of every nook and cranny of copyright of every country whose laws might apply to their images. They are being as responsible as they know how. Who would've thought a statue in the public might not be allowed to be photographed?
This depends on the country where the statue is located. In Canada this is specifically permitted in subsection 32.2(1) of the Copyright Act for statues on permanent exhibit.
Who would've thought a PHOTO of a pokemon toy (not the toy itself) would be copyrighted? Who would've thought a Flickr user whose photo says CC-BY didn't really mean it, as it turns out? etc.
The issue here is whether a grant of a license is revocable.
So IMO this doesn't have a lot to do with uploaders.
Infringement is an act. It has to do with uploaders because they are the ones who know the circumstances about the origin of what they upload.
Ec