Short version:
A few countries currently do not participate in international copyright treaties. Most such countries have domestic copyright laws; however, many works originating in these countries are considered to be in the public domain in the United States due to the lack of a treaty relationship. In 2005, Jimbo declared that we would nonetheless respect the copyright laws of non-treaty countries as best we can [1]. Since mid-January, English Wikipedia has been having a well-advertised, but poorly-attended discussion that contemplates overturning this Jimbo-created rule.
The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin" (as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to be freely used. The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for implementation on this basis [3].
Though all participants agree there no US copyright protection for works originating in non-treaty nations, this proposal raises a number of ethical and logistical problems.
Longer version:
As September 2010, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San Marino and Turkmenistan have no copyright relations with the US. [4] All works published in these countries by nationals of these countries are considered to be in the public domain in the US unless they were also published in a country that has US copyright relations within 30 days of their original appearance.
This means many modern and historical works originating in these countries may currently be used freely in the US.
Nonetheless, most of these countries have domestic copyright laws protecting the intellectual property rights of their nationals.
The law here is not in dispute, the question is how Wikipedia should respond to these works. Under Jimbo-created policy originating in 2005, we treat works from these countries as if they the countries DID have copyright relations with the US, even though they do not. This means excluding many works from Wikipedia that we would be legally entitled to.
Personally, I agree with Jimbo that respecting the intellectual property rights of authors in non-treaty states is ethically the right thing to do. Simply appropriating all content published in Iran, Iraq, etc., as free is disrespectful to the authors involved. This is especially true since individual authors in these countries generally have no influence over whether their government chooses to participate in international copyright agreements.
Allowing such images to be used on Wikipedia would also create a number of foreseeable problems for us and for reusers. Firstly, works in the public domain due to non-treaty status can be restored to copyright if the nation at issue chooses to join the relevant treaties. At the stroke of a pen, these nations could ensure their works were no longer usable. Such a change could create significant additional work for Wikipedians and numerous hassles for any reusers that chose to rely on such images. It is unclear how likely these countries are to seek treaty status in the future. However, membership in international copyright treaties is generally seen as a prerequisite for full member status in the World Trade Organization. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Ethopia all have been applying for full member status in the WTO (the process takes years, and Iran began the application in 1996). The desire to join the WTO would appear to make it significantly more likely that these countries will join international copyright treaties in the foreseeable future.
Personally, I think Wikipedia ought to focus on truly free content rather than "public domain" content with a significant chance of being revoked in the future.
There are also practical problems with determining that a work originates in a non-treaty state, that the authors are all nationals of that country, and that the work was not also published in a treaty state. (Some US courts have suggested that placing a work on the internet actually counts as publishing in all countries were it is available, which would imply that internet works would be frequently covered by treaty obligations.)
Anyway, I think a change of this magnitude needs a more thorough vetting by the community. A "consensus" of 9-3 shouldn't really be sufficient to change how Wikipedia deals with content from non-treaty states. Though this discussion has been presented to RFC and has been open for quite a while, I suspect that the way the issue was framed made it hard for most people to participate.
I'm raising the issue here, because I know many people on foundation-l care about issues surrounding copyright and reuse, and a change like this could set a precedent for what we ultimately do on the other projects.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Usage_Option_1_Suppor... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_... [4] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple question for me - do I want to participate in the political disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no control over whether their government chooses to sign international treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no rights in their own work.
Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38:
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple question for me - do I want to participate in the political disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no control over whether their government chooses to sign international treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no rights in their own work.
Could you please define "take advantage"? Or, how such taking advantage could harm them (it's not clear to me). I thought it was more a way to "keep Wikipedia legal" also in such countries, to facilitate participation from there.
Nemo
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38:
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
question for me - do I want to participate in the political disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no control over whether their government chooses to sign international treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no rights in their own work.
Could you please define "take advantage"? Or, how such taking advantage could harm them (it's not clear to me). I thought it was more a way to "keep Wikipedia legal" also in such countries, to facilitate participation from there.
Nemo
I'm not sure how to explain that more clearly without describing concepts you are undoubtedly already familiar with, so bear with me for a moment. Copyright provides authors with a right of ownership and control over their work for a generally fixed period; the idea is to give them exclusivity for their own benefit for that period, after which the public has more or less unlimited rights to their work. We can agree that the domestic and international copyright regime is grounded in principles that are economic, legal and moral. There are a small number of nations that refuse to join this regime, and they share some traits - they are often failed states, or states with limited or no meaningful rights of citizen political participation. As a result, while Iranian artists may desire to benefit from their work internationally, they may not be able to - and they have no real recourse in their political system.
In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a country where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they would have full rights to control and benefit from their work internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually everyone else in the world?
Nathan
Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27:
In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a country where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they would have full rights to control and benefit from their work internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually everyone else in the world?
I can understand this reasoning from a "moral" perspective, but from a practical point of view (or is it just economical?) I doubt this makes much sense. As they already don't have any way to claim their rights outside their country, by redistributing their works without compensation we're not making them lose anything, unless we "compete" also with distribution and ruin their market in their home country. Moreover, given the embargo in Iran, does someone know if a publisher would even be /allowed/ to give them a compensation? And speaking of embargo, let me express some more concerns (might be wild speculations): I consider it a very controversial political action, I don't know if it's considered obvious and uncontroversial in the USA. I think we shouldn't do anything to reinforce (nor evade) the embargo, because it would be a political choice (or an illegal one, but that's out of question) – we shouldn't discuss it on this list either, I hope this is not going to open an off-topic flame –. If neither agreed nor non-agreed publishing is possible, wouldn't "respecting" the country's original copyright just be a way to worsen the situation of those authors, from a practical point of view? Also, I think this situation might have some precedent in some early 20th or 19th century copyright regulations clashes across European countries, which made life very hard for some authors. (This is a very vague thought: Emilio Salgari disappointed with English translations of his works?)
Nemo
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27:
In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a
country where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they would have full rights to control and benefit from their work internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually everyone else in the world?
I can understand this reasoning from a "moral" perspective, but from a practical point of view (or is it just economical?) I doubt this makes much sense. As they already don't have any way to claim their rights outside their country, by redistributing their works without compensation we're not making them lose anything, unless we "compete" also with distribution and ruin their market in their home country. Moreover, given the embargo in Iran, does someone know if a publisher would even be /allowed/ to give them a compensation? And speaking of embargo, let me express some more concerns (might be wild speculations): I consider it a very controversial political action, I don't know if it's considered obvious and uncontroversial in the USA. I think we shouldn't do anything to reinforce (nor evade) the embargo, because it would be a political choice (or an illegal one, but that's out of question) – we shouldn't discuss it on this list either, I hope this is not going to open an off-topic flame –. If neither agreed nor non-agreed publishing is possible, wouldn't "respecting" the country's original copyright just be a way to worsen the situation of those authors, from a practical point of view? Also, I think this situation might have some precedent in some early 20th or 19th century copyright regulations clashes across European countries, which made life very hard for some authors. (This is a very vague thought: Emilio Salgari disappointed with English translations of his works?)
Nemo
Don't forget - while I used Iran as an example, it isn't the only country affected.
~Nathan
The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin" (as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to be freely used. The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for implementation on this basis [3].
If U.S. law (or rather lack thereof) is to prevail because the projects are hosted in the U.S. I have two questions:
1) How would re-use of Wikipedia content look like to users in the respective countries? Wouldn't they be limited in re-using some content if it was obtained from sources under some kind of protection in their countries, but considered public domain in the U.S.?
2) What about projects like Farsi Wikipedia, where we can assume significant amount of editors comes from Iran - are they legally able to license that content to the rest of the world?
//Marcin
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info wrote:
The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin" (as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to be freely used. The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for implementation on this basis [3].
If U.S. law (or rather lack thereof) is to prevail because the projects are hosted in the U.S. I have two questions:
- How would re-use of Wikipedia content look like to users
in the respective countries? Wouldn't they be limited in re-using some content if it was obtained from sources under some kind of protection in their countries, but considered public domain in the U.S.?
- What about projects like Farsi Wikipedia, where we can
assume significant amount of editors comes from Iran
- are they legally able to license that content to
the rest of the world?
//Marcin
You raise a more general issue that has always been a problem for some reusers. In various disclaimers, the projects make it clear that downstream reuse is at the risk of the reuser, and that compliance with legal requirements (U.S. or otherwise) isn't guaranteed. We mitigate this risk by having a more-strict-than-the-law-requires approach to the fair use doctrine (which is not universal outside the U.S.), and we also advise editors that actions they take which are legal in the U.S. may not be legal in their home jurisdiction.
What sets this apart is that we are actively taking advantage of political disarray in some nations to withhold rights that creators would otherwise almost universally enjoy. While U.S. law allows us to do that, it doesn't require us to, and I believe we should choose not to.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
..
As September 2010, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San Marino and Turkmenistan have no copyright relations with the US. [4] All works published in these countries by nationals of these countries are considered to be in the public domain in the US unless they were also published in a country that has US copyright relations within 30 days of their original appearance.
On English Wikisource, we consider these to be public domain. We tag them that as public domain and explain why.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Ethiopia https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iran https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iraq
Afghanistan is different. They dont have any laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_and_copyright_issues
Commons also treats their works as public domain.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Afghanistan
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:52 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On English Wikisource, we consider these to be public domain. We tag them that as public domain and explain why.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Ethiopia https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iran https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iraq
I didn't know Wikisource did this. This would seem to imply that Wikisource is willing to import virtually any text at all from these countries, which seems like an ethically bad idea to me, for much the same reason that importing all possible images on Wikipedia seems like a bad idea.
However, setting aside the ethical issues for the moment, it is important to note that these templates are frankly very incomplete, which makes their conclusions potentially erroneous.
Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention), establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those templates only address the most obvious one. These requirements are:
1) The work was first published in a country that has no copyright relations with the US. 2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that does have copyright relations with the US. 3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work was never also published in any other state that does have copyright relations with the US.
Currently, those templates only mention the first point. However, the Berne Convention extends copyright protection to all citizens of the treaty states regardless of where they publish (point #2), so it is also important to consider the nationality of the authors involved.
The third point is actually the most difficult in practice, since it requires proving a negative. The Berne Convention and US Copyright Law consider any publications occurring during the first thirty days to be effectively simultaneous, and authors will enjoy full protection under the treaty if their work was published in any country where the copyright treaty would apply. It is often very difficult to determine with certainty that a work was never published internationally during that first 30 day window. This is especially true as technology has made it easier for works to be widely distributed across international borders. In Kernal Records OY v. Moseley (US District Court, 2011), the court held that putting a sound file online for download amounted to simultaneous publication in all countries where the internet was available. Following that logic, no work first published on the internet could be considered as public domain due to non-treaty status. However, the US case law also contains a largely contradictory ruling in Moberg v. Leygues (US District Court, 2009), involving images appearing on a German website. So the issue of determining national origin in the internet age would seem to be somewhat unsettled in the US.
However, the one thing that is clear though is that any claim to public domain status due to the lack of copyright relations needs to address all three factors raised above. John, can you raise these concerns at Wikisource?
-Robert Rohde
On 2/23/2012 9:37 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention), establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those templates only address the most obvious one. These requirements are:
- The work was first published in a country that has no copyright
relations with the US. 2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that does have copyright relations with the US. 3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work was never also published in any other state that does have copyright relations with the US.
Regarding the second point, the coverage is actually even broader than citizenship, it includes residency. So if one of the authors is an Iranian exile living in Turkey, the work may be subject to copyright protection in the US even if it was published only in Iran.
I think it's interesting to note that although the approach under discussion may seem like a mechanical application of law and entirely neutral on its face, the scenario I've indicated suggests that its structural effects could be far from neutral, with significant political consequences. Basically, it means that when a country that does not participate in international copyright agreements, to the extent that it may be a repressive and often censorious regime whose opponents are commonly forced into expatriate life, we could be indiscriminately republishing works acceptable to the regime while taking a much more restrictive approach to works from a dissident perspective.
--Michael Snow
I have updated
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Afghanistan
in an attempt to be compliant with US law and started a discussion about this at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#PD-Afghanistan
The prior template, and the way it appeared to be used in some cases, seemed to suggest that any image taken inside Afghanistan was PD. This is of course not the case. Hopefully my updates at least address the minimum legal issues.
I'm not at all convinced that having PD-Afghanistan (or any comparable PD templates on other projects) is a good thing, but at the very least such templates need to be consistent with Berne / US laws regarding the treatment of content from non-treaty states. In my opinion, the larger ethical issues still deserve further consideration though.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 2/23/2012 9:37 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention), establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those templates only address the most obvious one. These requirements are:
- The work was first published in a country that has no copyright
relations with the US. 2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that does have copyright relations with the US. 3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work was never also published in any other state that does have copyright relations with the US.
Regarding the second point, the coverage is actually even broader than citizenship, it includes residency. So if one of the authors is an Iranian exile living in Turkey, the work may be subject to copyright protection in the US even if it was published only in Iran.
I think it's interesting to note that although the approach under discussion may seem like a mechanical application of law and entirely neutral on its face, the scenario I've indicated suggests that its structural effects could be far from neutral, with significant political consequences. Basically, it means that when a country that does not participate in international copyright agreements, to the extent that it may be a repressive and often censorious regime whose opponents are commonly forced into expatriate life, we could be indiscriminately republishing works acceptable to the regime while taking a much more restrictive approach to works from a dissident perspective.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As a footnote to the prior discussion, it has now come to light that Afghanistan apparently does have a copyright law [1]. It was enacted in the summer of 2008, and establishes life+50 years protection for many works, including those published before the law was enacted. Unfortunately, none of the wiki editors had noticed this apparent change of status during the last 3.5 years.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=241541 (English version)
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:52 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On English Wikisource, we consider these to be public domain. We tag them that as public domain and explain why.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Ethiopia https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iran https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iraq
I didn't know Wikisource did this. This would seem to imply that Wikisource is willing to import virtually any text at all from these countries, which seems like an ethically bad idea to me, for much the same reason that importing all possible images on Wikipedia seems like a bad idea.
However, setting aside the ethical issues for the moment, it is important to note that these templates are frankly very incomplete, which makes their conclusions potentially erroneous.
Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention), establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those templates only address the most obvious one. These requirements are:
- The work was first published in a country that has no copyright
relations with the US. 2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that does have copyright relations with the US. 3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work was never also published in any other state that does have copyright relations with the US.
Currently, those templates only mention the first point. However, the Berne Convention extends copyright protection to all citizens of the treaty states regardless of where they publish (point #2), so it is also important to consider the nationality of the authors involved.
Feel free to update Wikisource templates too ;-)
btw, we also have https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Afghanistan
And these templates are occasionally discussed. e.g.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Arch...
The third point is actually the most difficult in practice, since it requires proving a negative. The Berne Convention and US Copyright Law consider any publications occurring during the first thirty days to be effectively simultaneous, and authors will enjoy full protection under the treaty if their work was published in any country where the copyright treaty would apply. It is often very difficult to determine with certainty that a work was never published internationally during that first 30 day window. This is especially true as technology has made it easier for works to be widely distributed across international borders. In Kernal Records OY v. Moseley (US District Court, 2011), the court held that putting a sound file online for download amounted to simultaneous publication in all countries where the internet was available. Following that logic, no work first published on the internet could be considered as public domain due to non-treaty status. However, the US case law also contains a largely contradictory ruling in Moberg v. Leygues (US District Court, 2009), involving images appearing on a German website. So the issue of determining national origin in the internet age would seem to be somewhat unsettled in the US.
However, the one thing that is clear though is that any claim to public domain status due to the lack of copyright relations needs to address all three factors raised above. John, can you raise these concerns at Wikisource?
You can .. ;-)
Here is our village pump.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:00:50 -0800, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Short version:
...
I'm raising the issue here, because I know many people on foundation-l care about issues surrounding copyright and reuse, and a change like this could set a precedent for what we ultimately do on the other projects.
-Robert Rohde
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Usage_Option_1_Suppor...
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_...
Is anybody aware of the situation on Commons with these countries? Should I alert Commons on this discussion?
An obvious argument against treating works from these countries as PD would be that soon or later the countries will sign the treaties and the works would have to be removed from WM projects. At the same time, having them temporarily as PD would obscure usual work on getting free media such as stimulating taking photos of free buildings, contacting authors for permissions etc.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Is anybody aware of the situation on Commons with these countries? Should I alert Commons on this discussion?
<snip>
Commons requires that all images be free of copyright in both the US and their country of origin. Since most of the non-treaty countries do have domestic copyright laws, the restrictions originating from such laws continue to be enforced on Commons.
The notable exception is Afghanistan which apparently has no domestic copyright laws at all.
The case of PD-Afghanistan on Commons is mentioned in prior emails on this thread.
-Robert Rohde
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty regime?
Newyorkbrad
On 2/23/12, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Is anybody aware of the situation on Commons with these countries? Should I alert Commons on this discussion?
<snip>
Commons requires that all images be free of copyright in both the US and their country of origin. Since most of the non-treaty countries do have domestic copyright laws, the restrictions originating from such laws continue to be enforced on Commons.
The notable exception is Afghanistan which apparently has no domestic copyright laws at all.
The case of PD-Afghanistan on Commons is mentioned in prior emails on this thread.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty regime?
Newyorkbrad
Based on the discussion, I don't think we could assume anything that reasonable would happen in such a case.
On 23/02/2012 19:14, Newyorkbrad wrote:
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty regime?
Any one want to explain what the implications of this are in respect to any Iranian work that is published on the internet?
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/09/does-posting-on-the-internet-trigger-us-copy...
In particular, just how much copyright would the work be invested in? Just how wilful would a decision to treat such works as PD be? And would the liabilities be in the Tennenbaum region?
Dunno about the implications for Iranian works, but I will say that these photographers:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_photographers_from_Iran
would be none to happy to find their works being uploaded to English Wikipedia as being in the public domain.
Russavia....
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:41 AM, ??? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 23/02/2012 19:14, Newyorkbrad wrote:
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty regime?
Any one want to explain what the implications of this are in respect to any Iranian work that is published on the internet?
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/09/does-posting-on-the-internet-trigger-us-copy...
In particular, just how much copyright would the work be invested in? Just how wilful would a decision to treat such works as PD be? And would the liabilities be in the Tennenbaum region?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If folks commenting here would like a voice on the policy itself, feel free to comment on the RfC linked in the original post. It could still use more input.
~Nathan
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty regime?
One of the most vocal commenters at w:Talk:Copyrights, would almost certainly say no.
For example:
"... [T]hey have the opportunity to obtain copyrights elsewhere and chose not to do so. That is their responsibility."
"The rights of copyright for the individuals end at the border of Iran, period."
At least some of the Wikipedia commenters seem prepared to draw a hard line on this issue with no exceptions.
Personally, I'd like to believe that we as a community are more reasonable than that.
-Robert Rohde
This would be shockingly inappropriate, to the point that I would urge intervention at the Foundation level if this were to happen.
The Wikimedia communities' approaches to copyright and related issues often reflect what I consider a bewildering contradiction. On the one hand, even when it damages the encyclopedias, we are often careful to uphold intellectual property rights that hypertechnically might conceivably exist, even where it is blindingly obvious that no real person or entity has any existing interest in the intellectual property and there is no prospect that any claim will ever be asserted.
On the other hand, we sometimes are just as strongly willing to disregard actual assertions of rights by bona-fide creators and rightsholders on the basis of the slightest arguable legal defect in the rights claim, without regard to any other considerations. The position you describe below would be an example of the latter, and in my view a well-nigh indefensible one.
Newyorkbrad
On 2/23/12, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty regime?
One of the most vocal commenters at w:Talk:Copyrights, would almost certainly say no.
For example:
"... [T]hey have the opportunity to obtain copyrights elsewhere and chose not to do so. That is their responsibility."
"The rights of copyright for the individuals end at the border of Iran, period."
At least some of the Wikipedia commenters seem prepared to draw a hard line on this issue with no exceptions.
Personally, I'd like to believe that we as a community are more reasonable than that.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'd just like to echo NYB here. I'm dissappointed that so many of our community are taking such a view.
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I'd just like to echo NYB here. I'm dissappointed that so many of our community are taking such a view.
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992
One more echo from here. Our position should be clear that we are not neutral when anyone tries to make it harder for communitymembers assert what our purpose for existing is. Strongly supporting copyright protections that make it possible to be copyleft, are a strong part of that. IP-protections that *enable* rather than hinder that, are a very good indeed. And vice versa. We can only assert copyleft if copyright is correctly followed. And if copyright is draconically asserted, our ability to protect our copyleft is harmed just as much, if not more.
Just voted on the issues, so if any one is curious...
Just thought I'd add this as an addendum to discussion of copyright in foreign parts.
In Belgium a rights lobby [1] wants to charge libraries when they read books to children [2].
I guess they see it as akin to playing music in a public place, which here in the UK is charged by the Performing Rights Society [3].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABAM [2] http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/03/13/belgian-rightsholders-group-wants-to-... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_Right_Society
Bodnotbod
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org