Hi,
Sometime before, we used the word meanings from a technical glossary
provided by Tamil Virtual University for the Tamil Wiktionary project. Our
rational is that only the presentation can be copyrighted and not the word
or meaning. If the word or meaning itself is copyrighted, then there is no
point in providing that word itself. Two years later after this initiative,
we got the glossary donated to us formally. So, the copyright issue doesn't
arise any more.
Most Governments and public institutions do mean to provide data for
public use though they are not aware of Wikipedia compatible license. We can
try contacting them and hope to get a favourable response. But, the legal
and bureaucratic hurdles need not stop us from delaying our initiatives for
too long. While I do understand the legal and philosophical significance of
proper license to publish things, sometimes we also need to be bold and use
things for larger good. Governments have many other jobs than suing us
everyday !
Ravi
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Gautam John <gautam(a)prathambooks.org>wrote;wrote:
Vickram, in my opinion and that of a friend,
asking for a voluntary
license (18,19,30A) along with the fact that it is a transformative
use is probably the best bet. If not, fair dealing but that does leave
us open to a legal challenge. Aside from this, there is the issue that
even if we did get a license, we then do not have the ability to
re-license it out under a CC-BY-SA license as required by Wikipedia
and that would also run afoul of the fair dealing clause.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam
________
http://social.prathambooks.org/
On 8 June 2011 05:17, Vickram Crishna <vvcrishna(a)radiophony.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gautam John <gautam(a)prathambooks.org>
wrote:
>
> On 8 June 2011 01:03, Vickram Crishna <vvcrishna(a)radiophony.com>
wrote:
>
> My reading is that the Census Authority is very much a part of
> government. A question that I have been thinking about is whether
> census data (in the raw form and not the presentation) is capable of
> being copyrighted.
>
Aside from the supposition that the raw data is not in fact
copyrightable in
the first place, which is probably true, even if
never tested, the law
clearly provides for grant of permission for data to be represented in
another form, such as sound or visual forms. It seems clear that the
provisions of copyright (the sections are too tediously long and
legally
worded to reproduce here) are precisely
applicable only to the form in
which
the information is presented by the author(s).
Moreover, if the
presentation
of census data as published by the CA is in fact
taken to be a design
form
as defined by the Design Act 1911 (but to be
frank I haven't looked at
what
that creature is), then the copyright ceases as
soon as 50 copies are
circulated, which has obviously already happened if the data is online.
I believe that mapped data represents precisely such alternate forms,
especially if it is dynamically presented (but even if it is not).
Making it
dynamic is of course a highly useful form, one
that I do not believe
the
census authority has yet conceived. The census
authority cannot refuse
permission for such presentation. If they do not publish the
information as
is planned by our colleagues, then their
copyright effectively lapses
in any
case, for which proof an advertisement saying
that (ie that no mapped
data
as has been proposed has been published) must be
published in a popular
newspaper (in English newspaper, for English language mapping,
vernacular
for vernacular mapping). Unfortunately, it says
nothing (that I can
find)
about a public announcement on the Net, so maybe
this advertisement
stuff in
newspapers is the only path.
It seems that one must apply in the prescribed form for licensing
permission, but also note that it is not possible to refuse permission
for
such applications, if the end use is scientific
research or
educational, and
also for non-commercial purposes, provided the
end use is in the form
of a
translation. However, this permission is only
automatic after 3 and 7
years
(subject to relevant conditions) from the date of
first publication.
Even
here, I put it that the date of first publication
is the date when the
first
Census was published, and not the current census.
I think that would
take it
back to the early 20th century, and perhaps that
might also mean that
the
government does not (heh, heh) in fact have the
right to exclusive
copyright
of census data (even for the 'upgraded'
60 year copyright).
The relevant clauses are:
1. Specificity: Sec 14
2. Design: Sec 15(2)
3. Government ownership: Sec 17(d) and (dd)
4. Compulsory licensing: Sec 31 (note that the RoC may assign some
copyright
fee payable to the government, but prima facie it
is unlikely they will
do
so in this case)
5. Automatic permission for translations etc: Sec 32 (sec 5(b)
specifically
provides for 'broadcasting')
6. Automatic permission for technical stuff: Sec 32A
7. Right to broadcast: Sec 37 (worth checking!)
8. Automatic visual recording for teaching: Sec 39
9. Possible challenge to government copyright of census data: Sec 44
(register of copyrights: quite possible that the census information has
not
been registered under the Act, and if so makes it
impossible for the
government to take action against any form of infringement - sec 50A
provides for publication of registrations in the Gazette)
10. Fair use: Sec 52 a(i) etc
--
Vickram
Fool On The Hill
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
