There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was adressed on a Wikisource case)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
We should not accept such nonsense.
Klaus Graf
Klaus Graf ha scritto:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was adressed on a Wikisource case)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
We should not accept such nonsense.
Klaus Graf
Bridgeman vs. Corel only applies to reproductions made in the US of 2D works. For example, if someone takes a photograph in a State Museum in Italy, the copyright on that photograph belong to the photographer and to the museum (that's an Italian peculiarity) and by no means it can be uploaded as PD-art. Cruccone
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Klaus Graf ha scritto:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was adressed on a Wikisource case)
See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
We should not accept such nonsense.
Klaus Graf
Bridgeman vs. Corel only applies to reproductions made in the US of 2D works. For example, if someone takes a photograph in a State Museum in Italy, the copyright on that photograph belong to the photographer and to the museum (that's an Italian peculiarity) and by no means it can be uploaded as PD-art. Cruccone
Strictly speaking it is not a question of where the photograph was made, but where is the photograph is being published. Anyone who takes a photograph of a public domain work, whether in an Italian Museum or anywhere else, and publishes that image in the US would still be subject to Bridgeman v. Corel within the US. Similarly, someone who creates a photograph in the US, but publishes that photo in Italy would still be able to assert copyright under Italian law.
-Robert Rohde
Klaus Graf wrote:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was adressed on a Wikisource case)
There are some existing guidelines at this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag
The short answer is that it depends on the country. Bridgeman-like rules hold in the United States, Germany, Poland, Japan, and Switzerland, among other countries, but do not hold in all countries.
-Mark
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The short answer is that it depends on the country. Bridgeman-like rules hold in the United States, Germany, Poland, Japan, and Switzerland, among other countries, but do not hold in all countries.
On this subject, can please someone site good law from outside of the US (case law, as applicable, based on the jourisdiction) that clearly contradicts the ruling in Bridgeman v. Corel?
Thanks.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The short answer is that it depends on the country. Bridgeman-like rules hold in the United States, Germany, Poland, Japan, and Switzerland, among other countries, but do not hold in all countries.
On this subject, can please someone site good law from outside of the US (case law, as applicable, based on the jourisdiction) that clearly contradicts the ruling in Bridgeman v. Corel?
According to this summary (in French, sorry), cases in France have gone both ways: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Jastrow/PD-art
There also seems to be near-unanimous agreement among experts that a case in the UK would be decided the opposite of Bridgeman v. Corel, but it doesn't seem to have actually come up. Maybe everone's so sure of it that nobody bothers to try to challenge it.
-Mark
On 15/03/2008, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
There also seems to be near-unanimous agreement among experts that a case in the UK would be decided the opposite of Bridgeman v. Corel, but it doesn't seem to have actually come up. Maybe everone's so sure of it that nobody bothers to try to challenge it.
The last actual precedent was in 1851. There is widely held opinion that mere sweat of the brow may earn you a copyright even without a whole lot of creativity ... but no-one at all seems very keen to test it.
FWIW, the National Portrait Gallery hasn't bugged Wikimedia about images of pictures they own (which they claim copyright on, and which we have marked "public domain due to age") since Jimbo told them to sue and be damned, a few years ago. It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
- d.
On 15/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...
Since not much money in this case means zero UK assets that isn't the problem you might expect.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...
That doesn't exactly support any incentive to sue. Poverty has its advantages.
Ec
On 16/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...
That doesn't exactly support any incentive to sue. Poverty has its advantages.
Our 800-pound weight is our very many friends. Wikipedia is *nice*, you know.
We're simultaneously an organisation of less than ten employees and an organisation of tens of thousands of hard-working volunteers. As long as we remember the right one of these to be for any given situation ...
In disputes like this - free content and freedom of information - we can speak softly and ask nicely, because we carry the big stick of a tsunami of pissed-off geeks. Should anyone *really* threaten us. This behooves us to stay nice so people will in fact like us. Do well by doing good.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 16/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...
That doesn't exactly support any incentive to sue. Poverty has its advantages.
Our 800-pound weight is our very many friends. Wikipedia is *nice*, you know.
We're simultaneously an organisation of less than ten employees and an organisation of tens of thousands of hard-working volunteers. As long as we remember the right one of these to be for any given situation ...
In disputes like this - free content and freedom of information - we can speak softly and ask nicely, because we carry the big stick of a tsunami of pissed-off geeks. Should anyone *really* threaten us. This behooves us to stay nice so people will in fact like us. Do well by doing good.
King Kong and Mighty Joe Young were really very gentle until they had to start interacting with humans.
Ec
On 16/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
In disputes like this - free content and freedom of information - we can speak softly and ask nicely, because we carry the big stick of a tsunami of pissed-off geeks. Should anyone *really* threaten us. This behooves us to stay nice so people will in fact like us. Do well by doing good.
King Kong and Mighty Joe Young were really very gentle until they had to start interacting with humans.
See, interacting with humans is an area we're still finding our way on ...
- d .
Hoi, The 800-pound gorilla may not have that much money but when we are to fight a good cause in court, I am sure that a fighting fund raiser would prove popular. Obviously, before you end up in court there is a lot that can be done. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Gerard ha scritto:
FWIW, the National Portrait Gallery hasn't bugged Wikimedia about images of pictures they own (which they claim copyright on, and which we have marked "public domain due to age") since Jimbo told them to sue and be damned, a few years ago. It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
Interesting. In Italy we managed to go on the press when the Museums of Florence forced us to take down all the images of works owned by them. As a result a law introducing some kind of fair use has been passed by the Parliament, and now it may be possible to publish one's own photographs of PD work of arts owned by State museums with a noncommercial licence (if they're owned by private museums they're completely PD). Of course we are in the situation where we cannot put on the Italian Wikipedia images that are on commons; this is very far from Bridgeman vs Corel...
Cruccone
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden. There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard ha scritto:
FWIW, the National Portrait Gallery hasn't bugged Wikimedia about images of pictures they own (which they claim copyright on, and which we have marked "public domain due to age") since Jimbo told them to sue and be damned, a few years ago. It can be *very useful* to be the 800-pound gorilla of free content.
Interesting. In Italy we managed to go on the press when the Museums of Florence forced us to take down all the images of works owned by them. As a result a law introducing some kind of fair use has been passed by the Parliament, and now it may be possible to publish one's own photographs of PD work of arts owned by State museums with a noncommercial licence (if they're owned by private museums they're completely PD). Of course we are in the situation where we cannot put on the Italian Wikipedia images that are on commons; this is very far from Bridgeman vs Corel...
Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:56 PM, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden. There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
The Italian law refers to "beni culturali", basically work of arts, so I'd
say there shouldn't be any problem in uploading the images :)
Marco
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden. There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
Plants are not covered by copyright, as they are not "works" created by human originality. You can upload them without any problems.
Ciao Henning
Grazie!
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.netwrote:
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical
garden.
There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
Plants are not covered by copyright, as they are not "works" created by human originality. You can upload them without any problems.
Ciao Henning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This poses an interesting question on what happens when we are genetically engineering :) Because then in fact it *is* a work made by humans (or at least adapted, just like a cut wooden tree, a carved stone tablet etc), and in some cases even artictic somehow (think of the glowing fish). Anyway, not that it is very relevant, but an intriguing mindgame :)
-- Lodewijk
2008/8/21 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden. There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
Plants are not covered by copyright, as they are not "works" created by human originality. You can upload them without any problems.
Ciao Henning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden. There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience, non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright; and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the future.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
Cary Bass wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden. There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience, non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright; and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the future.
Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim copyright on plant layout or somesuch. I'm not aware that this has ever happened, however, and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a problem when photographing individual plants, unless they are [[living sculpture]]s.
I just photographed individual plants, so layout does not come into question.
There was no sign with a copyright claim or remark about photographs at the entrance - in fact it was hard to find an entrance at all. The only sign we found was a wooden sign "botanical garden" - that direction.
In hindsight, there may have been a text or direction on the walls of the refugio (mountain hut), some 100 meters away, but we were glad to have located the botanical garden at all, and didnt think of it.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical
garden.
There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of
the
botanical garden has some form of ownership?
This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience, non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright; and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the future.
Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim copyright on plant layout or somesuch. I'm not aware that this has ever happened, however, and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a problem when photographing individual plants, unless they are [[living sculpture]]s.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
teun spaans wrote:
I just photographed individual plants, so layout does not come into question.
There was no sign with a copyright claim or remark about photographs at the entrance - in fact it was hard to find an entrance at all. The only sign we found was a wooden sign "botanical garden" - that direction.
In hindsight, there may have been a text or direction on the walls of the refugio (mountain hut), some 100 meters away, but we were glad to have located the botanical garden at all, and didnt think of it.
Of course, I was semi-joking there.
--- On Fri, 8/22/08, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
From: teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 4:48 AM I just photographed individual plants, so layout does not come into question.
There was no sign with a copyright claim or remark about photographs at the entrance - in fact it was hard to find an entrance at all. The only sign we found was a wooden sign "botanical garden" - that direction.
In hindsight, there may have been a text or direction on the walls of the refugio (mountain hut), some 100 meters away, but we were glad to have located the botanical garden at all, and didnt think of it.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of
plants in a botanical
garden.
There was no admittance fee, it was publicly
accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took
there, or does the owner of
the
botanical garden has some form of ownership?
This is not to say that the botanical garden
doesn't claim restriction
on the use of images taken within its walls (in
my experience,
non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact,
such restrictions are
quite commonplace for botanical gardens,
zoological parks, and many
other facilities. This should not be mistaken
for a claim of copyright;
and at most they might do is deny you access to
their property in the
future.
Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim
copyright on plant
layout or somesuch. I'm not aware that this has
ever happened, however,
and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a
problem when
photographing individual plants, unless they are
[[living sculpture]]s.
Concerns about restrictions placed on images by way of admittance, although a real issue, is not a copyright issue. These are instead a contract issue and while this is binding on the photographer, is does not apply to the image like copyright does. For example a photographer pays to atttend a museum exhibit and the ticket states attendees may use images only for non-comercial purposes. That photagrapher could be sued for a breach of contract if they sold an image they took at the exhibit. But if they upload an image to Commons. They have not used the image commercially (they provided it free of charge to a non-profit) and have not violated the contract. Everyone else in the world that did not purchase a ticket to this exhibit is not bound by any contract and may do whatever is allowed by the copyright.
Birgitte SB
Some discussion on this topic at: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-piracy-scam-canada-insulted-ag...
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Concerns about restrictions placed on images by way of admittance, although a real issue, is not a copyright issue. These are instead a contract issue and while this is binding on the photographer, is does not apply to the image like copyright does. For example a photographer pays to atttend a museum exhibit and the ticket states attendees may use images only for non-comercial purposes. That photagrapher could be sued for a breach of contract if they sold an image they took at the exhibit. But if they upload an image to Commons. They have not used the image commercially (they provided it free of charge to a non-profit) and have not violated the contract. Everyone else in the world that did not purchase a ticket to this exhibit is not bound by any contract and may do whatever is allowed by the copyright.
Birgitte SB
That's a correct statement of US law, as I understand it, but I'm far less sure that this issue resolves itself the same way in all jurisdictions. I seem to recall reading about jurisdictions where that law swung the other way and people who were "harmed" by the illicit photography/distribution had rights (even beyond copyright) to squash further distribution. The analogy being drawn more along the lines of distributing stolen property (which isn't okay in the US either), rather than a copyright issue in the traditional sense.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the context in which I read this, so I'm not sure about where it applies.
-Robert Rohde
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden. There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the botanical garden has some form of ownership?
This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience, non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright; and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the future.
Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim copyright on plant layout or somesuch.
I think the word you are searching for is "topiary". And it definitely is an art.
I'm not aware that this has ever happened, however, and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a problem when photographing individual plants, unless they are [[living sculpture]]s.
It would be amusing if panorama freedom would apply to topiary, since the whole point of topiary is the creation of panorama pleasing to the aesthetic sense.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Klaus Graf wrote:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was adressed on a Wikisource case)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying issue, but if I follow the discussion correctly it shows absolutely no reason to think Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything. The statement from Mike that is being pointed to is about a different question entirely.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Klaus Graf wrote:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was adressed on a Wikisource case)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying issue, but if I follow the discussion correctly it shows absolutely no reason to think Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything. The statement from Mike that is being pointed to is about a different question entirely.
What's concerning about this is that we are referring to a statement by Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were providing legal advice to the entire community would it not be more appropriate on a page addressed to a more general population. Anybody can read anybody else's talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue between any two persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private quality to personal talk pages. That someone should derive a legal position based on eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem at all the best way to go about this sort of thing.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Klaus Graf wrote:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's
statement in this list
("[W]e've consistently held that faithful
reproductions of
two-dimensional public domain works which are
nothing more than
reproductions should be considered public domain
for licensing
purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's
statement (which was
adressed on a Wikisource case)
See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying
issue, but if I
follow the discussion correctly it shows
absolutely no reason to think
Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything. The
statement from Mike that is
being pointed to is about a different question
entirely. What's concerning about this is that we are referring to a statement by Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were providing legal advice to the entire community would it not be more appropriate on a page addressed to a more general population. Anybody can read anybody else's talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue between any two persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private quality to personal talk pages. That someone should derive a legal position based on eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem at all the best way to go about this sort of thing.
Ec
Come on Ec! Admit that you dislike Mike's conclusion when giving reasons to not use it. ;)
More on-topic, I cannot see any discrepancy between Erik's and Mike's opinion, even though they are responses to different questions. Erik basically supports the conclusion of Bridgeman v. Corel and Mike says we must follow US law. Since Bridgeman v. Corel *is* US law, I cannot understand what the issue is.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge wrote:
What's concerning about this is that we are referring to a statement by Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were providing legal advice to the entire community would it not be more appropriate on a page addressed to a more general population. Anybody can read anybody else's talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue between any two persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private quality to personal talk pages. That someone should derive a legal position based on eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem at all the best way to go about this sort of thing.
Ec
Come on Ec! Admit that you dislike Mike's conclusion when giving reasons to not use it. ;)
More on-topic, I cannot see any discrepancy between Erik's and Mike's opinion, even though they are responses to different questions. Erik basically supports the conclusion of Bridgeman v. Corel and Mike says we must follow US law. Since Bridgeman v. Corel *is* US law, I cannot understand what the issue is.
Birgitte SB
The simple fact that Mike is a lawyer doesn't make his opinion superior to anyone else's, but my point was how such issues are presented. Suddenly we have an interpretation out of the context of a personal talk page being taken as an ex-cathedra pronouncement that affects us all. It's especially inappropriate to be extrapolating from a vague statement about the need to follow US law to a disavowal of Bridgeman vs. Corel. In that regard we do not differ.
The Canadian banknote in question is more than 50 years old and is in the public domain. So is any photograph of it.
Ec
Hello,
Klaus Graf wrote:
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was adressed on a Wikisource case)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs....
We should not accept such nonsense.
Klaus Graf
Actually, this whole discussion resumes to a very short question: Which law do we apply on Wikimedia projects? No problem to apply US law because WMF is based in USA, but the "source country" has no definitive meaning, so we get into absurb situations:
1. What is the "source country" for an image scanned in France from a book bought in India by a British publisher (real case scenario)? Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on Wikimedia servers.
Then we have the opposite situation:
1. What about a French book published in France in 1935 from an author who died in 1936? If we consider that US law doesn't apply the rule of shorter term, this book is not in the public domain in USA, although it is in the public domain in France, and was never published in USA.
Why not to apply just common sense?
Yann
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on Wikimedia servers.
It's even more complicated than that. Wikimedia servers are located in Florida, Amsterdam and Korea, so depending on where you're coming from (Europeans will probably be served from Amsterdam, Americans from Florida, etc.) the data might even come from a place that is not under US law.
-- Hay / Husky
Husky wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on Wikimedia servers.
It's even more complicated than that. Wikimedia servers are located in Florida, Amsterdam and Korea, so depending on where you're coming from (Europeans will probably be served from Amsterdam, Americans from Florida, etc.) the data might even come from a place that is not under US law.
Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is uploaded there.
-- Hay / Husky
Regards,
Yann
Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is uploaded there.
The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?
Nothing can be a complete certain in international law. The government can do whatever it pleases - after all it is their country. Granted international law isn't an experimental anarchy, but often governments will do things they are not supposed to do if it is convenient enough. Even if it is safe now it can be unsafe tomorrow.
I think this crazy set of what ifs is fundamentally flawed.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is uploaded there.
The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is uploaded there.
The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?
Before they can claim jurisdiction someone will have to start a case in their courts. Until that happens it's all hypothetical.
Ec
On Sat, March 15, 2008 18:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is uploaded there.
The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?
I was asked at a conference I was speaking at yesterday whether we (WMF/WMUK) had plans to put servers in the UK (ie squids) and I answered that we were presently disinclined to do so as various bodies, inc government ones, have mooted that any cached content on ISP servers is the responsibility of the ISP and hence we (WMF/WMUK) could be held liable for the content on a squid, albeit that it is ephemeral. The UK has some of the, um, 'most problematic' libel laws around and I'm not sure we want to lead anyone into the temptation of trying to sue us (WMF/WMUK)!
Co-coincidently, I'll be at the National Picture Gallery on Tuesday. Might see what I can and can't do in there re whether it is possible to take a photo pf something oneself, so bypassing their current argument that any photograph must be a copy of their own photograph, hence their copyright ...
Alison
Thomas,
The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?
IANAL, but..
So do routers, switches, etc - the data is buffered and kept in memory for shorter or longer time on nearly every piece of internet infrastructure. Squids just speed up data delivery from data store somewhere else. The major issue in such case would be do we work on squid storages as standalone media systems (thats like, if you start filtering content - you're the one who is responsible for it in the end). Squids are 'data transfer' infrastructure, not 'data storage' infrastructure, and operating a squid is same as operating a browser (which also does caching), or operating network backbone.
BR,
IANAL, but..
So do routers, switches, etc - the data is buffered and kept in memory for shorter or longer time on nearly every piece of internet infrastructure. Squids just speed up data delivery from data store somewhere else. The major issue in such case would be do we work on squid storages as standalone media systems (thats like, if you start filtering content
- you're the one who is responsible for it in the end).
Squids are 'data transfer' infrastructure, not 'data storage' infrastructure, and operating a squid is same as operating a browser (which also does caching), or operating network backbone.
Now, I'm neither a lawyer nor a network expert, but as I understand it, routers etc. only store the data as long as is necessary for a particular transfer. The squids cache data from one transfer in case it's needed for another transfer - I suspect that makes a big difference.
On Saturday 15 March 2008 12:55:49 Yann Forget wrote:
- What is the "source country" for an image scanned in France from a
book bought in India by a British publisher (real case scenario)? Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on Wikimedia servers.
Why not to apply just common sense?
My common sense tells me to run away and hide.
I can offer a nuclear bunker to hide in. :)
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 15 March 2008 12:55:49 Yann Forget wrote:
- What is the "source country" for an image scanned in France from a
book bought in India by a British publisher (real case scenario)? Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on Wikimedia servers.
Why not to apply just common sense?
My common sense tells me to run away and hide.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org