Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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