Hello,
I originally posted this to the commons-l list ( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000277.html ) to little response. So let's see if I can do any better with a wider audience.
Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved: * To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers). Country copyrights vary considerably with regards to duration of copyright, "freedom of panorama" (Panoramafreiheit) /whether public objects such as statues and even buildings can be freely photographed and there is a lot of confusion about this. Should we respect local law always or interpret in terms of US law? (Big discussion about a photo of the interior of a German railway station: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image... )
* There was recently a discussion about the "Against DRM" license ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:ADRM & http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM ).
* Logos. This has still not been sufficiently resolved, in that there is not a clear enough solution that everyone is aware of. Do we consider copyright independently of trademark status? Is that even possible? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image... )
* "Agencia Brasil" license ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they intend to allow these specific rights?"
* Photographs of commercial products such as: Pokemon/Star Wars/Simpsons toys, box of Pringles, also people in dress-up outfits of characters such as Lara Croft/Chewbacca. Eloquence has raised this before ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives10#Vario... ) but I doubt even he would think this has been satisfactorily resolved.
* US presidential portraits ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Portraits_with_uncl... kind of got split up and was carried over from a debate on en.wp anyway).
* Photographs of art - if the artwork itself is old enough to be PD, is it true that any photograph of the art itself is also PD, but any photograph of the art in its frame or on a wall is not? (Because it is 3-D, not 2-D anymore)
* Personality rights. What permission is required of people photographed, if any? (eg "Can I take your picture"/"Can I publish your picture on a public database that allows commercial use?") Is this a copyright concern or a "other law" concern that we don't need to worry about? What if the people aren't recognisable (and how can you decide that anyway?)? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Kind_in_N... is a current one, also some of the "visible thong" pictures on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/G-string have been nominated before)
* Stock xchange images (current: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SXC villy also wrote http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu_%282%29 but it seems to have stalled). What should be done with the existing images (which are intentionally not categorised in any way as such, so they might be hard to find), what do we have to do (if anything) in order to use current images?
* Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but until then...? (current discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license... )
* Flag copyright - originality - again which laws to apply? (eg. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000385.html , is it true?)
I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal culpability.
Help, please?
Brianna commons, meta, en.wp:User:pfctdayelise
On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws
Every user is bound by their own local laws. Whether the project decides to adhere to any of those is more of a policy issue than a legal one.
- Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but until then...? (current discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license... )
The problem here is whether to trust the user who originally added a tag that no longer matches what is on flickr.
I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal culpability.
Has anyone said the avoid Foundation is refusing to answer questions for that reason? I'd assumed the problem was that no one knew the answers, not that they did but were purposefully withholding the information.
Angela
On 20/07/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
- Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but until then...? (current discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license... )
The problem here is whether to trust the user who originally added a tag that no longer matches what is on flickr.
Deciding this issue case-by-case depending on the "trustworthiness" of the original uploader doesn't seem very sensible to me, especially in a far-knit community like Commons. Besides which, everyone can make a mistake.
I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal culpability.
Has anyone said the avoid Foundation is refusing to answer questions for that reason? I'd assumed the problem was that no one knew the answers, not that they did but were purposefully withholding the information.
Well, it rather was suggested that ( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000278.html ), but good point, I wrote this in a fairly assuming way. So, sorry for that. Any and all attempted answers welcome.
Brianna
Photographs of copyrighted statues and of objects featuring copyrighted logos and images (Simpson's dolls) should be taken down immediately. I think photos of 2D and 3D PD art rarely can have claims of copyright, but I'm not a lawyer.
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Photographs of copyrighted statues and of objects featuring copyrighted logos and images (Simpson's dolls) should be taken down immediately. I think photos of 2D and 3D PD art rarely can have claims of copyright, but I'm not a lawyer.
IMNAL
But as far as I understand 3D certianly can under US law (I think the court decided that it could based on camera angels and lighting and such. I belive the case involved a photo of a statue in a graveyard). Photos of 2D objects are more complex since no one appears to want to risk a case in that area (situation is even worse in the UK).
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Photographs of copyrighted statues and of objects featuring copyrighted logos and images (Simpson's dolls) should be taken down immediately. I think photos of 2D and 3D PD art rarely can have claims of copyright, but I'm not a lawyer.
So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was on their building? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit blurry. A clearer example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg
Angela.
So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was on their building? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit blurry. A clearer example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg
If we can be sure that we aren't breaking the law, then I'd be very happy for Commons to house such images. I really can't say whether we're breaking the law to copyleft an image with a copyrighted logo in it, I certainly hope law isn't that restrictive.
On 21/07/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was on their building? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit blurry. A clearer example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg
If we can be sure that we aren't breaking the law, then I'd be very happy for Commons to house such images. I really can't say whether we're breaking the law to copyleft an image with a copyrighted logo in it, I certainly hope law isn't that restrictive.
The feeling at the moment tends to be: it's *in context* so it's OK. We have quite a few images that have a mishmash of logos. But if you crop any of those photos to just show one logo only, then that crop would not be free.
Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 21/07/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was on their building? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit blurry. A clearer example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg
If we can be sure that we aren't breaking the law, then I'd be very happy for Commons to house such images. I really can't say whether we're breaking the law to copyleft an image with a copyrighted logo in it, I certainly hope law isn't that restrictive.
The feeling at the moment tends to be: it's *in context* so it's OK. We have quite a few images that have a mishmash of logos. But if you crop any of those photos to just show one logo only, then that crop would not be free.
"May" not be free, not "would" not be free. There is no basis for such certainty.
In any event, why would anyone want to use a low resolution crop, when better pictures of the logo are probably more easily found?
Ec
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 21/07/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was on their building? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit blurry. A clearer example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg
If we can be sure that we aren't breaking the law, then I'd be very happy for Commons to house such images. I really can't say whether we're breaking the law to copyleft an image with a copyrighted logo in it, I certainly hope law isn't that restrictive.
The feeling at the moment tends to be: it's *in context* so it's OK. We have quite a few images that have a mishmash of logos. But if you crop any of those photos to just show one logo only, then that crop would not be free.
"May" not be free, not "would" not be free. There is no basis for such certainty.
OK, whatever. My point was: it would probably get nominated for deletion and that would probably succeed.
In any event, why would anyone want to use a low resolution crop, when better pictures of the logo are probably more easily found?
Because they're a user from a non-fair use/commons-only project who doesn't understand copyright very well.
Brianna
Oldak Quill wrote:
So, you wouldn't allow photos of buildings where a company's logo was on their building? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Top_of_the_Rock_Pano.jpg is a featured image on commons and has logos, even if they are a bit blurry. A clearer example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melb_cbd.jpg
If we can be sure that we aren't breaking the law, then I'd be very happy for Commons to house such images. I really can't say whether we're breaking the law to copyleft an image with a copyrighted logo in it, I certainly hope law isn't that restrictive.
You can NEVER be sure that you aren't breaking the law. Please stop expecting miracles.
Whether something like this is copyrightable depends on the law of the country where the object is located. The notion that a picture of a building with a company logo on it might be a breach of copyright is preposterous. Has there ever been a single case in any country that supports this notion?
Ec
Oldak Quill wrote:
Photographs of copyrighted statues and of objects featuring copyrighted logos and images (Simpson's dolls) should be taken down immediately. I think photos of 2D and 3D PD art rarely can have claims of copyright, but I'm not a lawyer.
If you're not a lawyer why are you pushing these legal interpretations?
How are you distinguishing between copyrighted and non-copyrighted statues?
Even for the other photos of copyrighted objects depend on how they are used for determination of breach of copyright.
Ec
On 21/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you're not a lawyer why are you pushing these legal interpretations?
Because that's what we're all doing. I don't think my conservative interpretation of the law is dangerous in any way.
On 7/21/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you're not a lawyer why are you pushing these legal interpretations?
Because that's what we're all doing. I don't think my conservative interpretation of the law is dangerous in any way.
Saying that photos of 3D pd works do not carry copyright is not a conservative interpretation. :)
The only reason that we hold the position that (in the US) photographs of PD 2D works don't gain the photographers copyright is because of Bridgeman v. Corel.
On 22/07/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Saying that photos of 3D pd works do not carry copyright is not a conservative interpretation. :)
I said that them carrying copyright is rare. I was entirely mistaken in this sentence. My point relating to 3D PD works was more that if the author uses odd shadowing and angles or anything creative like that I would certainly consider them copyrighted. Naturally, all photography of 3D objects employs shadow to some extent and I don't think the copyright/non-copyright line can be drawn between degrees of shadow-use.
The only reason that we hold the position that (in the US) photographs of PD 2D works don't gain the photographers copyright is because of Bridgeman v. Corel.
Yes, I had heard of a case. Thanks for the name.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 21/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you're not a lawyer why are you pushing these legal interpretations?
Because that's what we're all doing. I don't think my conservative interpretation of the law is dangerous in any way.
Nobody is saying that it's dangerous.
The frequency of these "IANAL" statements make me wonder about whether people are too busy idolizing lawyers to believe in what they say.
Ec
Angela wrote:
On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws
Every user is bound by their own local laws. Whether the project decides to adhere to any of those is more of a policy issue than a legal one.
Yes. Every contributor should accept responsibility for his own actions.
- Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but until then...? (current discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license... )
The problem here is whether to trust the user who originally added a tag that no longer matches what is on flickr.
I was looking at the Register discussuions on this as they relate to YouTube. They make an important point about this sort of situation: Withdrawing the licence is not retroactive. Those who used the material before the licence was withdrawn were perfectly right to do so. If YouTube transfers all its materials to a new YouTube Two the withdrawal may not have any effect on the new company.
I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal culpability.
Has anyone said the avoid Foundation is refusing to answer questions for that reason? I'd assumed the problem was that no one knew the answers, not that they did but were purposefully withholding the information.
I don't think that it's a simple matter of answering questions or not. That no-one knows the answers is exactly right. At the same time there are probably many Wikipedians who would feel more comfortable with a wrong answer than no answer; that would give them an excuse to pass on responsibility if the occasion ever demanded it.
The whole field of copyright law is so full of pitfalls and uncertainties that almost any expression of legal opinion, whether by a lawyer or layman, can be easily challenged to the point that either opposite has an equal chance of prevailing.
WMF would probably do best to distance itself from these issues. It has too much to lose from a wrong decision. The fundamental premise should be that the uploader of material has the primary responsibility for establishing the copyright status of what he provides. At the same time it needs to safeguard its founding principle that it is providing an free access resource. I certainly have ideas for attempting to reconcile these concepts, but I'll save them for another time.
Ec
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
WMF would probably do best to distance itself from these issues. It has too much to lose from a wrong decision. The fundamental premise should be that the uploader of material has the primary responsibility for establishing the copyright status of what he provides. At the same time it needs to safeguard its founding principle that it is providing an free access resource. I certainly have ideas for attempting to reconcile these concepts, but I'll save them for another time.
Well, the thing is, a huge part of Commons' role is to play Media Copyright Police. And as this thread has shown it is really, really, hard. The same issues keep coming up again and again, no satisfactory results, it's like arguing with windmills. Having the same debates again and again is very weary-making. It's easy enough to upload at Commons then forget about it, but each project is only as strong as its weakest link, and then it comes to copyright, that could well be Commons. So this thread is me asking for help. Is it not the WMF's role to support and help its projects?
Regards, Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
WMF would probably do best to distance itself from these issues. It has too much to lose from a wrong decision. The fundamental premise should be that the uploader of material has the primary responsibility for establishing the copyright status of what he provides. At the same time it needs to safeguard its founding principle that it is providing an free access resource. I certainly have ideas for attempting to reconcile these concepts, but I'll save them for another time.
Well, the thing is, a huge part of Commons' role is to play Media Copyright Police. And as this thread has shown it is really, really, hard.
I agree. The unfortunate danger with playing any kind of police is in developing a police mentality.
The same issues keep coming up again and again, no satisfactory results, it's like arguing with windmills. Having the same debates again and again is very weary-making.
Absolutely, but it's also unavoidable. There are always new people who have never participated in these debates before. How do we let them know that their opinions matter.
It's easy enough to upload at Commons then forget about it, but each project is only as strong as its weakest link, and then it comes to copyright, that could well be Commons.
I see no difficulty in having each project develop its own policies about copyright, and how much it will allow. The important thing is that there remain an essential respect for the rights of the copyright owners.
So this thread is me asking for help. Is it not the WMF's role to support and help its projects?
I can sympathize with your position. The answer to your question is clearly "Yes." But that help should not extend to making the decisions that each project should be making for itself.
Ec
On Thu, July 20, 2006 13:00, Brianna Laugher wrote:
Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).
Something that was in The Register yesterday (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/19/youtube_copyright/) includes
"That protection [the DCMA] is irrelevant in the UK, says another intellectual property expert. Kim Walker is a partner who specialises in media law at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.
...
Because this is intellectual property, the law that applies is that of the place the alleged infringement took place," said Walker. "That applies even if the servers are in Madras or the Channel Islands."
Alison
On Thu, July 20, 2006 13:00, Brianna Laugher wrote:
Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).
Will the placing of some media servers in countries with more liberal copyright laws ever be a viable option? Even if we housed some media in, say, Sweden, would the content still be judged by the standards of Florida because that is where the Foundation is based?
Oldak Quill wrote:
On Thu, July 20, 2006 13:00, Brianna Laugher wrote:
Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).
Will the placing of some media servers in countries with more liberal copyright laws ever be a viable option? Even if we housed some media in, say, Sweden, would the content still be judged by the standards of Florida because that is where the Foundation is based?
To a large extent this is unanswerable, and waiting for legal certainty is a sure road to paralysis. The laws of Florida on copyright matters do not have a big impact on what we do since copyright is a federal matter in the United States. There may be slight variations from one state to another or from one federal judicial district to another, but in carving out broad policy on copyright it is probably reasonable to say that what applies in one U.S. state will also apply in all the others.
As things stand US copyright laws in many of the aspects that concern us are at the liberal end of the scale. In particular the United States has developed the fair use concept more than most other countries. There are also other peculiar features to U.S. law that have been since repealed, but are nevertheless grandfathered that give some advantages to having U.S. law apply at least until the year 2046. If the laws of Sweden or any other country were to be made applicable it should be based on a positive case for that being made by the proponents. That case would of course include an examination of the relevant laws of that country.
In my mind the only positive case that exists so far is for Wikisource to include certain materials on servers in countries with a Berne Convention life + 50 expiry on copyrights. Project Gutenberg appears to have done this successfully on Australian servers before that country changed its copyright laws. The important thing in those circumstances would be to have those servers under the control of that national organization and with a top level domain in that country.
For now, I can see no other practical situation where this would apply.
Ec
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, July 20, 2006 13:00, Brianna Laugher wrote:
Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).
Something that was in The Register yesterday (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/19/youtube_copyright/) includes
"That protection [the DCMA] is irrelevant in the UK, says another intellectual property expert. Kim Walker is a partner who specialises in media law at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW. ... Because this is intellectual property, the law that applies is that of the place the alleged infringement took place," said Walker. "That applies even if the servers are in Madras or the Channel Islands."
I suspect that this case will be fact driven, notably over who really owns the copyright and exactly what material is copyright.
The idea of "where the infringement takes place" is not viewed in the same way in the UK and other countries as it is in the US. The UK views infringement as happening where the material is used or viewed. By this doctrine the viewing of a protected site by a UK resident is sufficient to give the UK jurisdiction over the site.
It would appear though that an ISP would still need to be notified that there is an infringement before it has to take it down.
Ec
On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).
[snip]
1) Uploaders should obey their local laws. 2) Content on the site should obey laws in Florida. 3) As a project with international goals an impact our content should be as widely useful world wide as possible and thus be as free as possible in every place with sane laws.
The content commons should host should be only content which passes under each of those three broad areas.
German "right of panorama" work obviously passes (1). In the US material which is permitted under German right of panorama would be okay because the inclusion of copyrighted works is in incidental inclusion, making the content okay where our servers are (2). And most countries have some kind of established common sense principal, furthermore almost no image of an urban public space is possible withone some degree of incidental inclusion... So whatever problems an image might have in some country no other simmlar image would be free of them. (3)
- There was recently a discussion about the "Against DRM" license (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:ADRM & http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM ).
I haven't yet read the discussion, but I can't see with a surfance glance why we would forbid this license. Although the license appears to be fairly poorly written it appears no more restrictive than the GFDL. The wording is a bit unclear since it doesn't disambiguate use in DRM apps with DRM distribution, but the intent seems clear enough. Have we attempted to contact the authors to get them to make the license more clear?
A copyleft license is somewhat pointless if it doesn't prohibit people from removing the freedom via technological measures. I understand that some people involved with Wikimedia are strongly against copyleft, but their personal wishes shouldn't be setting our policy.
- Logos. This has still not been sufficiently resolved, in that there
is not a clear enough solution that everyone is aware of. Do we consider copyright independently of trademark status? Is that even possible? (
Yuck. Cant we just leave these images for the projects to host locally for now? We're not even near mastering copyright yet... Trademark is an even more fun ball of yuck.
- "Agencia Brasil" license (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they intend to allow these specific rights?"
In American english "You may use this image" does not imply that you can grant others unlimited redistribution rights, and the right to make derivative works. Perhaps if someone said "you may use" with the full knoweldge of who we are and what we do... but never as a general permission on a website.
This isn't a new position.
- Photographs of commercial products such as: Pokemon/Star
Wars/Simpsons toys, box of Pringles, also people in dress-up outfits of characters such as Lara Croft/Chewbacca. Eloquence has raised this before ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives10#Vario... ) but I doubt even he would think this has been satisfactorily resolved.
Copyrighted sculptures are an issue... And in theory that includes pokemon dolls and the like.
Sad as it is, if we want to be confident that our content is free we must not include these things except incidentally.
However, I feel these are the least of our problems right now... our effort would be better spent on other images.
- US presidential portraits (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Portraits_with_uncl... kind of got split up and was carried over from a debate on en.wp anyway).
- Photographs of art - if the artwork itself is old enough to be PD,
is it true that any photograph of the art itself is also PD, but any photograph of the art in its frame or on a wall is not? (Because it is 3-D, not 2-D anymore)
Since I forgot to mention it before, I am not a lawyer. This is my personal view. It has more to do with what I think our posisiton should be irrespective of the law and what I worry the law might become rather than what it is.
It depends. If it is a mechnical reproduction, suchs works would be free under US law due to Bridgeman v. Corel.
It's not clear to me that Bridgeman v. Corel would actually stand if someone tried to apply it to, for example, works galleries publish of because most of the time such works are not mere mechnical reproduction but require substantial artistic and technical decision making (try getting cobalt containing watercolors to come out right on normal film or a normal CCD sensor.. YUCK).
As much of a problem as the above may be for us, it's not the worst of it: Simmlar cases to Bridgeman v. Corel have come up in the UK and the decision has been exactly the opposite.
I'd be much happier if we had people sneaking into galleries and taking pictures (no flash please)... I don't have confidence that a dependance on Bridgeman v. Corel will be good for us long term.
Like above I don't think this is (yet) the biggest of our problems.
- Personality rights. What permission is required of people
photographed, if any? (eg "Can I take your picture"/"Can I publish your picture on a public database that allows commercial use?") Is this a copyright concern or a "other law" concern that we don't need to worry about? What if the people aren't recognisable (and how can you decide that anyway?)? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Kind_in_N... is a current one, also some of the "visible thong" pictures on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/G-string have been nominated before)
This is something we need to do something about... We should at least propose a standard model release for Wikipedian photographers to use...
Without a releas photographs with identifyable people are not free content in the US.
- Stock xchange images (current:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SXC villy also wrote http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu_%282%29 but it seems to have stalled). What should be done with the existing images (which are intentionally not categorised in any way as such, so they might be hard to find), what do we have to do (if anything) in order to use current images?
They are easy to identify by searching for the external links. I'm in the process of trying to contact all the SXC authors, but keeps blocking my IP. :)
- Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but until then...? (current discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license... )
What is worse, is that uploaders on commons simply get them wrong fairly often.. So it's hard to take a high ground on the subject.
When it comes down to it, these people don't have a contract with us.. we've compensated them not a lick... they are completely unaware of our use. As a result our position is weak.
It's simply not possible for a person to accidently free their work (i.e. by making a wrong selection from a drop down, and not catching it before a Wikimedia commons scavenger finds it). If someone protests we can, we do, and we must remove the work. It is the only ethical thing to do (or do we want a reputation as a bunch of jerks trying to rip creators off), and it is quite possibly the only legal thing to do.
This is just another reason that we should reduce our reliance on image scavengers and instead ask people to upload their works directly and with full knoweldge of the consiquences However, people seem far more interested in running bots to scavange rather than sending out email invitations to join our effort. One pumps your contrib count and makes you look good, the other brings you no positive attention but helps the project more.
I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal culpability.
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?
On 7/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
As much of a problem as the above may be for us, it's not the worst of it: Simmlar cases to Bridgeman v. Corel have come up in the UK and the decision has been exactly the opposite.
Of course Bridgeman v. Corel did include a view that UK law would produce the same result. I suspect that there are number of people trying to make sure that there is no repeate case in the UK.
I'd be much happier if we had people sneaking into galleries and taking pictures (no flash please)...
It is posible you could get permission from smaller galleries.
Like above I don't think this is (yet) the biggest of our problems.
As long as we make sure to lable where we are useing it it should not be a massive problem to fix.
This is just another reason that we should reduce our reliance on image scavengers and instead ask people to upload their works directly and with full knoweldge of the consiquences However, people seem far more interested in running bots to scavange rather than sending out email invitations to join our effort. One pumps your contrib count and makes you look good, the other brings you no positive attention but helps the project more.
Are you sure that exposeing wikipedians to the outside is a good idea?
On 7/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Of course Bridgeman v. Corel did include a view that UK law would produce the same result. I suspect that there are number of people trying to make sure that there is no repeate case in the UK.
Yes indeed, this is why I was quite shocked and disappointed when JamesF told me otherwise. :-/
I'd be much happier if we had people sneaking into galleries and taking pictures (no flash please)...
It is posible you could get permission from smaller galleries.
Yes, Absolutely.
Like above I don't think this is (yet) the biggest of our problems.
As long as we make sure to lable where we are useing it it should not be a massive problem to fix.
Yes, and no... I don't think that the corel case would ever entirely stop being a factor... but what exactly counts as a slavish reproduction is an area which will see much debate in the future.
We may be in a position where we are stuck reviewing all the bridgeman v. corel tagged images... and not being able to tell based on some future precedent.
Are you sure that exposeing wikipedians to the outside is a good idea?
Don't worry, you can get internet access outside now.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
- To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers).
[snip]
- Uploaders should obey their local laws.
- Content on the site should obey laws in Florida.
- As a project with international goals an impact our content should
be as widely useful world wide as possible and thus be as free as possible in every place with sane laws.
The content commons should host should be only content which passes under each of those three broad areas.
So how do we define "sane" law? And how do we know whether uploaders are obeying their local laws?
- Logos. This has still not been sufficiently resolved, in that there
is not a clear enough solution that everyone is aware of. Do we consider copyright independently of trademark status? Is that even possible? (
Yuck. Cant we just leave these images for the projects to host locally for now? We're not even near mastering copyright yet... Trademark is an even more fun ball of yuck.
Trademark infringement depends even more on what you are using the material for, or whether you are using the design to promote your own business. As long we're just using it to illustrate the fact that it is that company's trademark we are safe.
- "Agencia Brasil" license (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they intend to allow these specific rights?"
In American english "You may use this image" does not imply that you can grant others unlimited redistribution rights, and the right to make derivative works. Perhaps if someone said "you may use" with the full knoweldge of who we are and what we do... but never as a general permission on a website.
The statement was in Brazilian Portuguese, not American English. Where are you granting these rights yourself? All you are doing is conveying the source's position on the rights the user has. If no restrictions are specified about the usage those restrictions do not exist.
- Photographs of art - if the artwork itself is old enough to be PD,
is it true that any photograph of the art itself is also PD, but any photograph of the art in its frame or on a wall is not? (Because it is 3-D, not 2-D anymore)
Since I forgot to mention it before, I am not a lawyer. This is my personal view. It has more to do with what I think our posisiton should be irrespective of the law and what I worry the law might become rather than what it is.
What the law might become can indeed be quite worrisome. See Peter Suber's SPARC Newsletter at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-06.htm#collateral He mentions WIPO's proposed Webcasting Treaty:
A draft treaty now before WIPO would create a new level of protection, above and beyond copyright, for "webcasters" --anyone who sends images and sounds "at substantially the same time" over the internet. The proposal would let webcasters block the copying and redistribution of the webcasts even if the copyright holder had consented to OA, even if the webcast content had a valid Creative Commons license or equivalent, even if the content was in the public domain, and even if the content was legally uncopyrightable.
I don't know if he's just being alarmist, but we don't even have an article on this. Don't think that just because the people we here tend to associate with are supportive of free access to information means that there are no people who are just as dedicated to accomplishing exactly the opposite.
When one frames what our position should be irrespective of the law one saves a lot of confusion by not expressing it in terms of the law as it might already exist. We begin with a position that is both ideal and reasonably fair, and only after we have done that do we compare that position with the existing laws to see if our ideal can in any way be accomodated.
It depends. If it is a mechnical reproduction, suchs works would be free under US law due to Bridgeman v. Corel.
It's not clear to me that Bridgeman v. Corel would actually stand if someone tried to apply it to, for example, works galleries publish of because most of the time such works are not mere mechnical reproduction but require substantial artistic and technical decision making (try getting cobalt containing watercolors to come out right on normal film or a normal CCD sensor.. YUCK).
As much of a problem as the above may be for us, it's not the worst of it: Simmlar cases to Bridgeman v. Corel have come up in the UK and the decision has been exactly the opposite.
I'd be much happier if we had people sneaking into galleries and taking pictures (no flash please)... I don't have confidence that a dependance on Bridgeman v. Corel will be good for us long term.
Like above I don't think this is (yet) the biggest of our problems.
I agree.
- Personality rights. What permission is required of people
photographed, if any? (eg "Can I take your picture"/"Can I publish your picture on a public database that allows commercial use?") Is this a copyright concern or a "other law" concern that we don't need to worry about? What if the people aren't recognisable (and how can you decide that anyway?)? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Kind_in_N... is a current one, also some of the "visible thong" pictures on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/G-string have been nominated before)
This is something we need to do something about... We should at least propose a standard model release for Wikipedian photographers to use...
Without a releas photographs with identifyable people are not free content in the US.
Again, common sense should prevail.
- Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but until then...? (current discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license... )
What is worse, is that uploaders on commons simply get them wrong fairly often.. So it's hard to take a high ground on the subject.
Costant reference by jargony abbreviations doesn't help.
When it comes down to it, these people don't have a contract with us.. we've compensated them not a lick... they are completely unaware of our use. As a result our position is weak.
Dutch courts have upheld CC licences. These are licences, not contracts.
It's simply not possible for a person to accidently free their work (i.e. by making a wrong selection from a drop down, and not catching it before a Wikimedia commons scavenger finds it). If someone protests we can, we do, and we must remove the work. It is the only ethical thing to do (or do we want a reputation as a bunch of jerks trying to rip creators off), and it is quite possibly the only legal thing to do.
Acting ethically does not depend on legal compulsion.
This is just another reason that we should reduce our reliance on image scavengers and instead ask people to upload their works directly and with full knoweldge of the consiquences However, people seem far more interested in running bots to scavange rather than sending out email invitations to join our effort. One pumps your contrib count and makes you look good, the other brings you no positive attention but helps the project more.
A person should be held just as responsible for the actions of his bots as for what he does directly. If you let your dog off the leash and he digs up somebody's flower garden (or worse) it's you that pays the fine not the dog. Letting bots off the leash should be no different.
I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal culpability.
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.
Ec
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? 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. So IMO this doesn't have a lot to do with uploaders.
Brianna
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
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Hello,
I originally posted this to the commons-l list ( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000277.html ) to little response. So let's see if I can do any better with a wider audience.
- Logos. This has still not been sufficiently resolved, in that there
is not a clear enough solution that everyone is aware of. Do we consider copyright independently of trademark status? Is that even possible? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image... )
The image has already been deleted so I have no idea what it refers to. Nevertheless if it refers to a German entity, and German law allows it that should be the end of the story. More on this below.
- "Agencia Brasil" license (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they intend to allow these specific rights?"
"Todo esse conteúdo pode ser adquirido em várias definições, inclusive em alta resolução, e ser utilizado livremente, mediante citação do crédito." This seems clear enough. If commercial or derivative use is not clearly forbidden than one should be able to presume that it is allowed. Isn't this a general principle of law? Since he became Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil has done much to move Brazil ahead. Consider this extract from "Wired" Magazine: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/linux.html
For Gil, "the fundamentalists of absolute property control" - corporations and governments alike - stand in the way of the digital world's promises of cultural democracy and even economic growth. They promise instead a society where every piece of information can be locked up tight, every use of information (fair or not) must be authorized, and every consumer of information is a pay-per-use tenant farmer, begging the master's leave to so much as access his own hard drive. But Gil has no doubt that the fundamentalists will fail. "A world opened up by communications cannot remain closed up in a feudal vision of property," he says. "No country, not the US, not Europe, can stand in the way of it. It's a global trend. It's part of the very process of civilization. It's the semantic abundance of the modern world, of the postmodern world - and there's no use resisting it."
Gil laughs, as he often does when even he finds himself a little over the top. But these days it's not exactly unusual to hear this sort of thing from high-level members of the Brazilian government. The preservation and expansion of the information commons has long been a cause of hackers, academics, and the odd technoliterate librarian, but in the world's fifth-largest country it is fast becoming national doctrine. And the implications hardly end with free samba: Brazil, in its approach to drug patents, in its support for the free software movement, and in its resistance to Big Content's attempts to shape global information policy, is transforming itself into an open source nation - a proving ground for the proposition that the future of ideas doesn't have to be the program of tightly controlled digital rights now headed our way via Redmond, Hollywood, and Washington, DC.
Is this characteristic of a situation where someone's anal fears require every bit to be questioned?
- Photographs of commercial products such as: Pokemon/Star
Wars/Simpsons toys, box of Pringles, also people in dress-up outfits of characters such as Lara Croft/Chewbacca. Eloquence has raised this before ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives10#Vario... ) but I doubt even he would think this has been satisfactorily resolved.
Most of these are probably fair use. How else are you going to illustrate these things. It's interesting to read to read the attorney's fee decision in Mattel v. Forsythe http://illegal-art.org/print/forsythe.pdf Forsythe had used a representation of Barbie in a parody, and was awarded over $1.8 million to compensate him for the costs of standing up to the toy giiant. Mattel's action was judged unreasonable. We aren't even doing parodies but simple neutral representations of the logos and other images.
Fair use did not come into U.S. law out of a vacuum. It was not a part of the Copyright Act before 1909. Instead the concept developed through a series of court decisions which were effectively codified in 1909. Canada's Copyright Act does not go into a lot of great detail about defining fair dealing, but the Supreme Court of Canada has used the United States experience with approval. When dealing with similar matters in the law of other countries it would be more helpful if people referred to real precedents rather than simply guessing about what the law means.
- US presidential portraits (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Portraits_with_uncl... kind of got split up and was carried over from a debate on en.wp anyway).
Many of these guys died before 1923. Is there a suggestion that some of these are posthumous pictures? :-)
- Photographs of art - if the artwork itself is old enough to be PD,
is it true that any photograph of the art itself is also PD, but any photograph of the art in its frame or on a wall is not? (Because it is 3-D, not 2-D anymore)
How old is the frame? If the frame has its own copyright, can it be cropped out? This would not be a problem in the US, but the UK situation remains unresolved.
- Personality rights. What permission is required of people
photographed, if any? (eg "Can I take your picture"/"Can I publish your picture on a public database that allows commercial use?") Is this a copyright concern or a "other law" concern that we don't need to worry about? What if the people aren't recognisable (and how can you decide that anyway?)? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Kind_in_N... is a current one, also some of the "visible thong" pictures on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/G-string have been nominated before)
The only thing that I would feel confident in saying is that copyrights and privacy rights are distinct legal concepts, and this has nothing to do with copyrights.
If the child in the picture is Ethiopian, and the picture was taken in Ethiopia what is the Ethiopian law on this? Is this a news picture?
Is someone alleging that the people are recognizable? Is it because of the tatoos? Has the subject complained? The G-string pictures seem posed to me with at least one instance describing the person as a model. That seems to imply consent. Looks like the do-gooders are running rampant on this.
- Flag copyright - originality - again which laws to apply? (eg.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000385.html , is it true?)
There is nothing original about an exact copy of a flag.
Ec
On 7/20/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I originally posted this to the commons-l list ( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000277.html ) to little response. So let's see if I can do any better with a wider audience.
(...)
* "Agencia Brasil" license (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they intend to allow these specific rights?"
Agencia Brasil has changed your site license in 7 July 2006. Anything from agenciabrasil.gov.br, including images, videos and text, are now under a CC-by 2.5 Brazil license
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org