Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
Sources for the restrictions: * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikimedia Ch gives usually accreditations and we did it in the past also for sport's events.
Naturally we gives accreditation only to people who send as formal request and are identified (no unknown people).
In general we contact the press office of the event and inform them that a defined number of photographers will participate, as soon we receive the notification, these persons are accredited.
Naturally these persons will operate as Wikimedia Ch personel and may be protected with an insurance (at least within Switzerland).
Anyway we have received no requests of accreditation for Olympics 2012.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
May be we should take such anomalies to public forums!
Slash dot? Free knowledge forums? Press? Media?
Olympics is not just a money spinning sponsored affair. Information about the happenings there is the right of every universal citizen!
The 'long' camera may have something to do with security. But accreditations?
My 2 cents of thoughts. -Viswam
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
Sources for the restrictions:
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2012/7/24 ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) vp2007@gmail.com:
May be we should take such anomalies to public forums!
I'm not actually sure that it's an anomaly. As I said, I don't follow sports and I only noticed such a thing now for the first time, but I don't find it extremely surprising.
I can even understand the restrictions somewhat - it's possible that it's not just a matter of greed, but also of privacy, press ethics, etc. Some screening of participation in a major public event is not entirely unreasonable. The main question is - is there a reasonable way in which a Free-Culture-friendly photographer could pass such screening.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
This issue is not merely theoretical. Many will recall the controversy surrounding the free-licensed photo of Usain Bolt, on Commons, taken during the Beijing Olympics: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-10-12/In_the... - http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-heading...
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland, actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but it may be worth a try.
Frédéric
On 24/07/12 11:05, Liam Wyatt wrote:
This issue is not merely theoretical. Many will recall the controversy surrounding the free-licensed photo of Usain Bolt, on Commons, taken during the Beijing Olympics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-10-12/In_the...
http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-heading...
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love& metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2012/7/24 Frederic Schutz schutz@mathgen.ch:
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland, actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but it may be worth a try.
According to what is written there:
http://www.london2012.com/media-centre/
It is actually too late to apply for press/photo accreditation :-(
On 24/07/12 11:43, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland, actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but it may be worth a try.
According to what is written there:
http://www.london2012.com/media-centre/
It is actually too late to apply for press/photo accreditation :-(
Of course; I was thinking more in terms of discussing their policies, and trying a avoid a big fuss when (not if) another picture is posted under a license that allows commercial use (e.g. on commons).
Frédéric
On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland, actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but it may be worth a try.
Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics, but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Paralympic_Games
2012/7/24 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland, actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but it may be worth a try.
Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics, but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:
Aha! Now this starts to be a problem that justifies a campaign for allowing Wikmedia-compatible licensing. At the very least, a post about this issue in the Foundation blog or in one of the chapters' blogs.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
WMUK have asked, and we live in London; some of us next door to the stadium. The answer is a resounding 'no' from all corners, even when we speak to the government. We've got a volunteer with very good access to the games, but even behind the scenes it's difficult to get photographs.
The IOC are not here to give things away for free, it seems: something which is painfully apparent to those who've seen the ticket prices!
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 24, 2012 10:59 AM, "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2012/7/24 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this
matter?
If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in
Switzerland,
actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic,
but
it may be worth a try.
Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics, but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:
Aha! Now this starts to be a problem that justifies a campaign for allowing Wikmedia-compatible licensing. At the very least, a post about this issue in the Foundation blog or in one of the chapters' blogs.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2012/7/24 Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk:
WMUK have asked, and we live in London; some of us next door to the stadium. The answer is a resounding 'no' from all corners, even when we speak to the government. We've got a volunteer with very good access to the games, but even behind the scenes it's difficult to get photographs.
Thank you very much for this answer. I'm very glad to hear that you tried.
Did they explain the resounding 'no'? Do they consider WM-UK to be not worthy of accreditation in general? Or do they refuse to give a permission to release photos under Free Wikimedia-compatible licences?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
On 24/07/12 12:15, Richard Symonds wrote:
WMUK have asked, and we live in London; some of us next door to the stadium. The answer is a resounding 'no' from all corners, even when we speak to the government. We've got a volunteer with very good access to the games, but even behind the scenes it's difficult to get photographs.
The IOC are not here to give things away for free, it seems: something which is painfully apparent to those who've seen the ticket prices!
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
Did you try to get a compromise offering a delayed publication? ie. You take photographs but do not make them available under a free license until after X time (you coould use a more restrictive license such as CC-BY-NC-SA or not to publish it at all during the "embargo").
As I see it, they want that the media reporting the event is all acreditated, not republishing third-party images (perhaps to get some quality level, maybe to make it a selling point for accreditations)
However, all those agencies, TVs and newspapers have no use of those images after the event. Much less to scrape others coverage. One month after the event, it will get buried in the archive. But our article will be left without a free image for 70 years (plus author lifetime). It would be suboptimal not being able to publish them right away, but it is very sad not having a photograph of <sport> gold medal just because IOC sold draconian tickets.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland, actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic,
but
it may be worth a try.
Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics, but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Paralympic_Games
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I think that it is connected with the kind of the category of accreditation.
There are some restrictive categories.
There would be no sense to block this possibility to a professional photoreporter if a newspaper could release the same photo under free license afterwards.
Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Frederic Schutz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:
Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
This conversation came up about a month ago on the Communications Committee list and Jimmy mentioned that he had made requests through his channels and had also been told no.
-Matthew
I assume that a photographer with an accreditation may take photos also for commercial use.
I suppose that the IOC connects the right to take this kind of photos with the accreditation and to pay a contingent grant as soon this accreditation is assigned.
The use of limited photo equipments for the no accredited persons assures that the photos will be low qualitative.
In my opinion the position of IOC is correct. If someone would take professional photos, he may request an accreditation.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
This issue is not merely theoretical. Many will recall the controversy surrounding the free-licensed photo of Usain Bolt, on Commons, taken during the Beijing Olympics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-10-12/In_the...
http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-heading...
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 24 July 2012 10:35, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2012/7/24 ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) vp2007@gmail.com:
May be we should take such anomalies to public forums!
I'm not actually sure that it's an anomaly. As I said, I don't follow sports and I only noticed such a thing now for the first time, but I don't find it extremely surprising.
Exactly. Actually, there are much greater “anomalies” around Olympics… See e.g. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2012/07/21/london-olympics-l...
It is probably interesting to point out we have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:NCR stating basically we ignore such “house rules” (or, in other words: if anyone without an accreditation dares to upload his photos under a free license, we will happily keep the images on Commons, whatever was written on the tickets, with any possible risks on the uploader, of course).
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
Sources for the restrictions:
I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed. That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or individuals depicted in the photo". The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its copyright with others, but if one wants to use the photo for commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author) through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
Could it work?
Cristian
2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
Sources for the restrictions:
I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed. That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or individuals depicted in the photo". The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its copyright with others, but if one wants to use the photo for commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author) through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
Could it work?
No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra restrictions which are not compatible with the licence. However, CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...
Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue? Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess that would be worth the trouble...
Lodewijk
2012/7/24 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
Sources for the restrictions:
I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed. That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or individuals depicted in the photo". The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its copyright with others, but if one wants to use the photo for commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author) through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
Could it work?
No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra restrictions which are not compatible with the licence. However, CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2012/7/24 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue? Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess that would be worth the trouble...
Generally, I think that it would be a good idea. I'm just not very comfortable with the fact that I'm not so good myself at political and commercial strategies and that I expect other people to actually do the lobbying, but as far as ideological campaigns go, it seems that this one is quite right for Wikimedia.
Maybe it doesn't even have to be confrontational ("the IOC is evil") or preachy ("all information must be free"). Maybe somebody who is an experienced researcher in social and commercial media can simply convince the IOC that releasing some photos or giving Wikimedians a permission to take photos and to publish them under a free license is beneficial to the IOC itself. Maybe I'm just fantasizing.
Most of all, I'm still curious about the reasons that the IOC (or whoever is in charge) provided for the refusals.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
~ Keegan Sent mobile On Jul 24, 2012 2:50 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Most of all, I'm still curious about the reasons that the IOC (or whoever is in charge) provided for the refusals.
In the immortal words of Steve Martin in The Jerk, "It's a profit deal! That really takes the pressure off."
-- ~Keegan
Lodewijk
I agree with you. It makes a lot of sense to start now a negotiation with the IOC in order to prepare for the next Olympic Games taking place in Brazil in 2016. It may take a long time for us to see the first results and thereafter we should start asap a "more thorough long term lobby on this issue". Who else would like to join this task force?
Thomas TSB
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue? Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess that would be worth the trouble...
Lodewijk
2012/7/24 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
Sources for the restrictions:
I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed. That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or individuals depicted in the photo". The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its copyright with others, but if one wants to use the photo for commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author) through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
Could it work?
No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra restrictions which are not compatible with the licence. However, CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2012/7/25 Thomas Souza-Buckup thomassouzabuckup@gmail.com:
Lodewijk
I agree with you. It makes a lot of sense to start now a negotiation with the IOC in order to prepare for the next Olympic Games taking place in Brazil in 2016.
The winter games in Sochi 2014 are supposed to be quite interesting, too.
It may take a long time for us to see the first results and thereafter we should start asap a "more thorough long term lobby on this issue". Who else would like to join this task force?
Myself, because I care about free culture. (And for the sake of fairness, since I started the thread :) )
But more people are needed - particularly people who know something about sports, about commercial media and about lobbying.
-- Amir
On 25 July 2012 10:29, Thomas Souza-Buckup thomassouzabuckup@gmail.com wrote:
Lodewijk
I agree with you. It makes a lot of sense to start now a negotiation with the IOC in order to prepare for the next Olympic Games taking place in Brazil in 2016. It may take a long time for us to see the first results and thereafter we should start asap a "more thorough long term lobby on this issue". Who else would like to join this task force?
Brazil is, of course, a very good situation to be looking at - Agencia Brasil defaults to using CC-BY for much of its web content, and this may be a good position to work from.
http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/
"Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil."
Even if we cannot practically get anything in place for 2016 for "outside" free content people, if ABr are able to release material in 2016 and the sky doesn't fall in, we're in a good position for 2018/2020...
It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue? Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess that would be worth the trouble...
Lodewijk
Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture.
We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc. ;)
Pete / the wub
On 26 July 2012 13:53, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue? Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess that would be worth the trouble...
Lodewijk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.
Well, you may not run into trouble *with the IOC* for taking pictures of all the security, but you may very well get into trouble with the police / army / private security, and I'm not sure that's preferable :)
(speaking as someone who once covered a G8 summit where security was, well, what you'd expect around a meeting between heads of state and their delegations).
On 07/26/12 9:31 AM, Peter Coombe wrote:
Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture.
We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc. ;)
It would be a great reflection on the Olympic movement if the only pictures in Wikipedia were of security and gridlock, with nothing about the athletic events. :-)
Ray
Naive and over reactive. Do that all the time and it's pointless (loses value). That was the consensus at the time of SOPA and I don't see anything that's changed since. Blackouts are the rarest of rare protests, certainly not for matters that don't threaten us. At worst inability to freely photo a sports event is no different than inability to freely photograph inside some country's museums - negotiation and good example gets further than petulant actions.
Photography in circumstances like the olympics is a very common matter - the National Portrait Gallery issue wasn't dissimilar in a way, images were validly able to be distributed without breaching copyright but location owner had imposed conditions of entry on the person wishing to do so, that were widely (by those in his camp anyway) felt to be unfair or desirous to bypass. Obtainer decided to and obtained images anyway and freely made them available to others.
This generic situation is quite common, though not often so high profile as NPG or the olympics.
FT2
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
Two quick notes
- Photography from public land is permissible, though security/police may try to objecthttp://blogs.metro.co.uk/olympics/photographers-right-to-be-angry-about-competing-in-olympics-security-hurdles/. Cannot be stopped, equipment seized, or photos deleted unless "reasonable" suspicion of terrorism or evidence of terrorism. Security guards have claimed "you are breaching our security" but have no right in law to act on public ground; police and industry bodies have tried to train event security staff to be aware of this.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/16/02-olympic-venues-row-security-photography The British Security Industry Association has a leaflet which spells out the law: *"If an individual is in a public place photographing or filming a private building, security guards have no right to prevent the individual from taking photographs," ... [adding that filming or taking a photograph].. does not in itself indicate hostile reconnaissance or other suspicious behaviour*". *[previous link] * - Reports and ticket terms conflict. Reports say "Earlier this year, Locog said photographers will not face confiscation of camera gear at the gates, but that security staff have a right to challenge people whose equipment interferes with the view of other spectators once inside. ‘No way are we trying to target camera users,' said a Locog spokesman in February. ‘The issue is basically around size.' "http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538819/olympics-photography-restrictions-announced-update-2-45pm but ticket T&C prohibitions include "unauthorised transmissions and/or recording through mobile telephones or other instruments (video cameras, tape recorders, etc)"http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
On 07/26/12 5:01 PM, FT2 wrote:
but ticket T&C prohibitions include "unauthorised transmissions and/or recording through mobile telephones or other instruments (video cameras, tape recorders, etc)"<http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html>
I saw that in 19.3.2. It seems inconsistent with 19.6.3 where restricting publication rights would be meaningless if you can't take the photos in the first place.
Ray
2012/7/24 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com:
2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
Hi,
The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
Sources for the restrictions:
I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed. That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or individuals depicted in the photo". The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its copyright with others, but if one wants to use the photo for commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author) through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
Could it work?
No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra restrictions which are not compatible with the licence. However, CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...
I really can't figure out the difference between your example about personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to some extent. So may you clarify?
Thanks, Cristian
kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
Sources for the restrictions:
I really can't figure out the difference between your example about personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to some extent. So may you clarify?
There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.
On 07/26/12 2:23 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
Sources for the restrictions:
I really can't figure out the difference between your example about personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to some extent. So may you clarify?
There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.
Athletes in the performance of their sport are public figures so the personality rights are more limited. This may be more of a concern in selecting which pictures to publish, and avoiding anything indiscrete.
The enforceability of those lengthy so-called contractual terms may be unrealistic. I do understand that there may be some justification in section 19.2.3 for a ban on refrigerators.
Ray
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), or as a work of joint authorship. And joint works in the UK are quite different from joint works in the US. To grant a license on a UK joint work, you need the permission of all the joint owners. (It's also possible that you don't own the copyright at all in a picture you take, because you didn't contribute anything copyrightable, but that's unlikely to be the case in this sort of scenario.
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), <snip>
I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
This claim of photographs as derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion While I felt certain at the time, there was some error in this claim. I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The comments are actually were is explained in lay terms instead judicial terms.
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.ht... http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.ht...
Birgitte SB
The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you struggled through it. Here it is again with copy-editing.
On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), <snip>
I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest.
Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The comments are actually were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.ht... http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.ht...
Birgitte SB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
And here is the correct second link:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-work...
On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:13 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you struggled through it. Here it is again with copy-editing.
On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), <snip>
I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest.
Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The comments are actually were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.ht... http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.ht...
Birgitte SB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), <snip>
I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative works.
Not necessarily. Hence the word "might".
On 07/26/12 3:51 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a derivative work (extending only to your contributions), or as a work of joint authorship. And joint works in the UK are quite different from joint works in the US. To grant a license on a UK joint work, you need the permission of all the joint owners. (It's also possible that you don't own the copyright at all in a picture you take, because you didn't contribute anything copyrightable, but that's unlikely to be the case in this sort of scenario.
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos. From the IOC's perspective the presence of a joint owner is marginal.
Ray
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded.
Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing.
I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown. Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-)
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think
it's safe
to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the
creative
decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded.
Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Sounds like you're prepared for some flash photography. Ahem. On Jul 27, 2012 8:08 PM, "Richard Symonds" richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown. Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-)
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think
it's safe
to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the
creative
decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the
colour
saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image
that
was originally recorded.
Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Even for the east end of London, I got some odd looks. Video was a but rubbish, but I tried!
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 8:12 PM, "Stevie Benton" stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Sounds like you're prepared for some flash photography. Ahem. On Jul 27, 2012 8:08 PM, "Richard Symonds" < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown. Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-)
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think
it's safe
to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the
creative
decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely
I'd
alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the
colour
saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective,
clone
out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is
some
other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image
that
was originally recorded.
Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 07/27/12 7:15 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded.
Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing.
I suppose that, like any good Wikimedian, we like to balance ourselves on the edge cases. We can imagine many. The underlying case would be IOC vs. Uploader. These other points about joint authorship and photo editing really have more bearing on the identity of the defendant. They could possibly arise, but at this stage they just obscure the main issue.
Ray
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I suppose that, like any good Wikimedian, we like to balance ourselves on the edge cases. We can imagine many. The underlying case would be IOC vs. Uploader. These other points about joint authorship and photo editing really have more bearing on the identity of the defendant.
I assume that the IOC has been granted some sort of permission by the various participants in the olympic events. So if you're photographing, say, the opening ceremony, then your concern would not only be with regard to the rights of the IOC directly, but also with the rights of any opening ceremony participants who granted an exclusive license to IOC.
On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright. Considering just this moment in time, it is far, far more likely that there is no copyright created at all than that a joint authorship situation is created. However, many things can occur after this point in time which will result in a work with joint authorship.
Birgitte SB
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright.
Well, no, I disagree. It is not at all "safe to say".
Would you also say that whoever presses "record" on a tape player is the sole owner of the copyright of the recording?
On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright.
Well, no, I disagree. It is not at all "safe to say".
Would you also say that whoever presses "record" on a tape player is the sole owner of the copyright of the recording?
The making of a recording is probably less likely than a photograph to create a copyright at all, but . . .
*Assuming the recording in question is contemporary. *Assuming the recording is not itself an infringement. *Assuming the recording is not utilitarian. *Assuming the recording contains a minimal amount of original expression. *Assuming the recording was produced with consent of the performers. *Assuming the recorder is not bound by a contract that specifies otherwise.
. . . Then, yes, any person who fixes an original work of authorship by pressing "record" on a tape-recorder will be granted the copyrights to the expression that they have recorded. This why black-box recordings (¡non-utilitarian non-infringing portions thereof!) of airline pilots in the US are in the public domain. The Federal Government (FAA) owns copyrights for arranging the recordings of these otherwise unfixed performances by the consenting pilots.
It can get even crazier than that; see Walter v. Lane.
Birgitte SB
Fair warning to those less familiar with this subject: Copyright is not Commonsense!
On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
Sources for the restrictions:
I really can't figure out the difference between your example about personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to some extent. So may you clarify?
There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.
This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this contract in a commercial manner. However the IOC cannot possibly extend the contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police third-parties. Let's run a few possibilities:
Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook. It goes viral across the Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace. IOC wishes to end poster sales. Your position that this the contract must be effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work. If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.
TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the photo to Sis to use in advertising. The IOC does not even have the standing to discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the creator's copyright. Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of their work. IOC can do nothing.
TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's Olympics. IOC can do nothing.
TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC can do nothing.
The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about the Usain Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily tracked down on Commons. This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) has been well hashed over in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim on this issue. I have actually dug around for the links to past discussions of "contracts for access used in attempt to control copyright", but sadly no luck. (I did however find useful links on three other issues sitting at the back of my mind!)
Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not under copyright, not under contract law. It can in a very limited way exert control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep.
Birgitte SB
On 27/07/12 03:47, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.
This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this contract in a commercial manner. However the IOC cannot possibly extend the contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police third-parties. Let's run a few possibilities:
Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook. It goes viral across the Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace. IOC wishes to end poster sales. Your position that this the contract must be effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work. If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.
TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the photo to Sis to use in advertising. The IOC does not even have the standing to discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the creator's copyright. Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of their work. IOC can do nothing.
TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's Olympics. IOC can do nothing.
TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC can do nothing.
An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
That would be equivalent to sneaking in, since tickets are non-transferable.
2012/7/28 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
That would be equivalent to sneaking in, since tickets are non-transferable.
There is certainly a possibility to buy a ticket for somebody else. I suppose there is a difference between the ticket holder and the cash/credit card handler. I see 100 cases where this is necessary.
Yann
On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.
http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html Birgitte SB
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.
Well, yeah, but legally that's nonsense. I can write "by reading this email you agree to comply with these Terms and Conditions", but (hopefully?) no court is going to uphold that.
The key to enforcability is that the ticket grants a license. If you don't agree to the Terms and Conditions, then you don't have a valid license to enter the premises.
On 28/07/12 19:44, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:28 PM, PlatonidesPlatonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.
Haven't we concluded that this can only apply to the person buying the ticket, not to other people?
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On 28/07/12 19:44, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.
Haven't we concluded that this can only apply to the person buying the ticket, not to other people?
Who concluded that, and on what basis?
On 07/26/12 6:47 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
Sources for the restrictions:
I really can't figure out the difference between your example about personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying that the above approch could not work, but IANAL.
As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to some extent. So may you clarify?
There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.
This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this contract in a commercial manner. However the IOC cannot possibly extend the contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police third-parties. Let's run a few possibilities:
Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook. It goes viral across the Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace. IOC wishes to end poster sales. Your position that this the contract must be effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work. If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.
TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the photo to Sis to use in advertising. The IOC does not even have the standing to discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the creator's copyright. Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of their work. IOC can do nothing.
TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's Olympics. IOC can do nothing.
TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC can do nothing.
The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about the Usain Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily tracked down on Commons. This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) has been well hashed over in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim on this issue. I have actually dug around for the links to past discussions of "contracts for access used in attempt to control copyright", but sadly no luck. (I did however find useful links on three other issues sitting at the back of my mind!)
Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not under copyright, not under contract law. It can in a very limited way exert control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep.
Birgitte SB
In general terms I think that a lot of these "contracts" on the back of a ticket, Terms of Use, and End User License Agreements may have a very limited enforceability. How many people really "read, understand and agree to" what they say? How do they know if the often lengthy legalese violates rights that they have under the law? In the case of software updates where the terms must be agreed to again there is great opportunity to quietly and subtly introduce new terms that won't be noticed except by careful comparison of the old and new versions.
Ray
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org