Remember that while US caselaw is clear on this point, it is less clear-cut elsewhere. We at WM tend to take a clear line that 2D reproductions are ineligible, but it's not a guaranteed absolute truth, particularly in the UK! We can predict how a court might rule... but they haven't yet, and claiming copyright is a legally defensible position in many cases.
("Legally defensible" is not always "correct", of course...)
As a result, an explicit declaration is a positive thing and definitely should not be discouraged.
A. On 16 Dec 2013 04:57, "Robinson Tryon" bishop.robinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its more legal/copyright descriptive, that necessitates the wording than just release them to the public which can still indicate they have restrictions
I guess I was just concerned that it was sending the wrong message re: the images, suggesting that the British Library had to put the images into the Public Domain because they (or some other entity) could still hold copyright to them.
If it is unclear to the public that slavish reproductions of out-of-copyright 2D works are not themselves eligible for copyright, then perhaps we should work to improve that understanding. It's difficult for a member of the public to exercise his rights unless he knows to what he is entitled!
--R
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 12/16/2013 03:36 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Remember that while US caselaw is clear on this point, it is less clear-cut elsewhere. We at WM tend to take a clear line that 2D reproductions are ineligible, but it's not a guaranteed absolute truth, particularly in the UK! We can predict how a court might rule... but they haven't yet, and claiming copyright is a legally defensible position in many cases.
("Legally defensible" is not always "correct", of course...)
As a result, an explicit declaration is a positive thing and definitely should not be discouraged.
I would actually prefer it be more explicit. The EXIF data says "public domain", but Flickr says "No known copyright restrictions" (why not "public domain" or "CC0"?).
However, we can do our own standard PD-Art analysis to confirm this.
Matt Flaschen
2013/12/17 Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu:
I would actually prefer it be more explicit. The EXIF data says "public domain", but Flickr says "No known copyright restrictions" (why not "public domain" or "CC0"?).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org