How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old? This isn't right. He doesn't deserve it. Anyone who takes works and decides to sell it as a MASS PRODUCED PRODUCT doesn't deserve financial security. On 10/19/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

He's doing the next worst thing: taking a public domain revolutionary publication and owning it. It's not even his. On 10/19/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The article does mention other language editons (Danish, Russian). So I just want to point out that he very well may own the copyright on the translations. Most all websites do a poor job of distingiushing the different copyrights of the variety of material they host. It is quite common for people simply write the terms of use to cover the most restrictive copyright material on the site. I have only seen *one* website that mentions the issue of underlying PD material on their Terms of Use, despite the fact that many websites contain these kinds of material. He may well think it is quite obvious that anyone can take the PD material and do as they like. On the other hand he may not. But lets not jump to conclusions here. Birgitte SB --- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

geni wrote: Links would be enough. Ec

geni wrote: Thanks. I wonder how much of it is enforceable. Of course it only relates to film and videos. It does not appear to cover text or still photographs. For specific observations: the Museum copyrights in 3.1 would not operate to restore copyrights that had already expired. Section 3.6 assigning one's own copyrights to the IWM seems to be way over the top. A common problem with a lot of these kinds of conditions is that they are seldom enforced strictly, and contain more bark than bite. Any real argument always needs to involve specific circumstances. To the extent that it is a contract rather than a statute it cannot directly bind third parties. The contract may require you to bind end-users to the contract, but if you fail to do so they can only go after you. Any actions that they may have against third parties will be limited to those provided by the law alone, and not those allowed in the contract. This then becomes a matter of how much risk the person signing an agreement with them is willing to accept. Ec