May be we should take such anomalies to public forums!

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_th… - http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-headin… -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love& metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz <schutz(a)mathgen.ch> wrote: 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

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.

On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz <schutz(a)mathgen.ch> wrote: but 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(a)dunelm.org.uk

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_th… - http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-headin… -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com>om>: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Most of all, I'm still curious about the reasons that the IOC (or whoever is in charge) provided for the refusals.

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?

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

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's time to black out coverage of the olympics. This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.

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 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?

Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you take.

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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.h… http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h… Birgitte SB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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.

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.

wikimail(a)inbox.org wrote: wrote: it's safe creative 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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: I'd clone some _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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.

On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: 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.

*Assuming the recording was produced with consent of the performers.

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: 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.

On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote: What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?

On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote: What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?

On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Platonides&lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: 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