The idea here is to seek copyright holders to voluntarily release content with a free license, just like how we regularly try this through OTRS etc. No one here suggests ignoring copyright, at least not me. I however believe our regular method of seeking this may be inadequate this time as we will be dealing with possibly for profit commercial entities that may need a bit more effort to convince.
- In the interest of public interest given the very nature of the report, there is in my view a strong argument that copyright restrictions restrict/limit access to the supplementary files to the report. - We seek free licenses to these files to safeguard their existence on the internet since it is not clear for how long the "Iraq Inquiry" website will stay where it is, will it be there in five years? Five decades? The public interest could only be secured if we are able to make copies of the supplementary documents without copyright restrictions. - Our work with the files (wikification) will make the documents more searchable and digestible, easing public access to the report and its supplementary media.
These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to persuade BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number of files. We can debate the rationale further. I feel success of this is more likely if the problem is highlighted (possibly by using our devised criteria) by an MP or several MPs prior to our attempts which could create some informal high level discussion that would ease this process. I do not expect a bill to be introduced or something like that.
We ought to also identify who owns the copyright of all the media on the site in question, perhaps a list of files page where we can identify the filename and copyright in order to manage this. The archive is massive and that is why this is needed.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 13 July 2016 at 01:27, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection laws in the UK usually trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court case to prove otherwise.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 23:51 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you want me to find you an academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would I do this?
The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc. regarding copyright at this point.
Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their rights] on the basis of public interest
If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk