We are faced with an issue of convenience versus freedom when we talk about licensing images. Because we are a nonprofit charitable organization with an educational mission, we can easily get non-free licenses to use images.
This is easily done, but doesn't achieve the goal of building a free encyclopedia. There is no help for it; to make a free encyclopedia, one must stick to materials that are free.
Because we are a nonprofit charitable organization with an educational mission, we can make heavy use of the doctrine of "fair use" in the US.
When applicable, this may be a good solution.
Clause 7 of the license permits us to combine independent works, even proprietary works, and this clearly includes aggregating images and articles stored on the same server.
This is permitted in the sense that it won't violate the GFDL. But when the other work is not free, this is not a solution--not if the problem is how to make a better free encyclopedia. Including non-free images, whether done legally or not, results in a non-free encyclopedia.
If that means less images for now, then it means less images for now. It also means that we have a very strong incentive to develop free alternatives.
Hear, hear!
In many cases, people can creatively find ways to take new photos.
Another idea is to criticize the organization that stands in the way of using the image desired. For instance,
The Foobar company stands in the way of our including a picture of this.
This text, with no link and no details about the image, would name and shame the Foobar company, but would not help Foobar sell copies of the image.
Salve Richard,
I fear that we wikipedia people loosing time by only clarify what pictures are possible to use pictures with a "fair use" right, this could be IMHO restricted by the next lawsuit.
I'm realy alarmed what's going on here in Europe (EU) to avoid a parlamental discussion and bring "measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights", as fast as possible, into law. First I thougt it would be a danger for creating software, but now after joining wikipedia, I start to understand, that this new laws are an enemy for creativity, progress, intellect, art, technologie, science and wealth for our societies (Or should I say society in singular - Old Europeans, New Europeans, Americans - there is mutch more connectionals than our Zeitgeist and medias observe).
It is wrong to think that more restrictive EU-laws will not effect US-laws: last hundred years copyright has only been enhanced, and mostly with the argument that other countries do this, too and it would be necessary to change the law for getting justive and fair chances for the national economic (But IMHO only for big firms with own layers). So in this point we all do sit in the same boat, too - not only by all loving to create a free encyclopedia.
To read what the industrie lobby wants, see: "16 February 2004 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights" http://www.ipjustice.org/CODE/021604.html
For example: "(13) It is necessary to define the scope of this Directive as widely as possible in order to encompass all the intellectual property rights covered by Community provisions in this field and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, that requirement does not affect the possibility, on the part of those Member States which so wish, to extend, for internal purposes, the provisions of this Directive to include acts involving unfair competition, including parasitic copies, or similar activities."
What "intellectual property" is, will be defined as weak as posible: it is not defined at all!
This is a modern story of "Sisyphus": during roling the stone of free knowledge, we (most of us) do not see, that the mountain of laws become higher and our way more stony - or our steps is a moving stairway and it is already moving down. ;(
Before thinking about lincense and "fair use" of pictures, we should consider what are the difference between picutes, text and software. There was special reasons for creating another GNU licence, the GNU-FDL, because text and software are not the same.
-How can we ensure, that the information of the picture will stick to the picture and make it more believable that this picture is not manipulated? -How can be one digital signature used for the picture and the information? -Aren`t there reasons for creating a GNU-Free_Picture/Grafic_Licence? -Has there already been discussions about his? -Where can I found archievs of them?
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 14:42 schrieb Richard Stallman:
Because we are a nonprofit charitableencyclopedia organization with an educational mission, we can make heavy use of the doctrine of "fair use" in the US.When applicable, this may be a good solution.
What now hasn`t a lawsuit yet does not mean, it will be a right for "fair use" in the future. There are US-lobbiees like Bob Goodlattee, or I shoud say lobby of international corporations, which urge the EU to bring more rigorous laws for software patents and as weak as possible for "intellectual property rights".
not if the problem is how to make a better free encyclopedia.
*g* When it would be our collective aim a better free encyclopedia, there is a way to document pictures much better than today. For example compare these picture documentations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donald_saddam.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bild:Sable_Island_NASA_300x301_from_EFS_highres_STS059_STS059-216-79.jpg
IMHO a picture is more than a visuable information!
When the Wikipedia use "fair used" historical pictures to be more believable, than would I like to disagree that the picture itself without additional information would satisfy this.
What, When, Who, Where, Why, How.... all this informations should stick to the picture. An wikipedia-quality-audit can help to declare all this informations - but how can we ensure that every user outside of the wikipedia serve this picture-informations?
And finaly, when we get an email from a museum with the authorisation to use one picture of one work of art to use this with the terms of the GNU-FDL - is this documentation enough? (Like your mail, it could be faked by someone). Or should we aspire to get a signed, stamped paper GNU-FDL from a museum when we can suspect a conflict with picture agencies like Corbi$ (The one which claim the copy right for the "Mona Lisa")?
What action should we (Wikipedia) take in case of the imminent danger "degradation" of the European intellectual property rights (=expanding the right holders power)?
Thank you for your statment to use ony free pictures to build a free encyclopedia, de.wikipedia has already an agreement to do so. ;)
Greetings from Aachen (Europe), rob
PS: Every 141 second is a new wikipedia article, in one of the 30 languages (wikipedias with > 1000 articles), started in the spirit of GNU (ok, in some languages the wikipedia consider the GNU spirit also in the case of pictures *g*).
So a freedom-loving mind, a libertine, does not need an accolade by an anachronous monarchy - great minds get tribute by the growing popularity and power of their ideas. ;)
---- Salve = Latin/Italien: "Be greeted", hi
The questions you are asking are legal technicalities. You need to ask a lawyer--I am not capable of giving advise about such points.
Salve,
Am Sonntag, 22. Februar 2004 23:41 schrieb Richard Stallman:
The questions you are asking are legal technicalities. You need to ask a lawyer--I am not capable of giving advise about such points.
So I can state that there hasn`t been a discussion about a special GNU licence for pictures yet and nobody dissagreed that there is probably a need for one. Richard is right that this for asking a lawyer, but IĀ“m interested in starting points.
As long as the world is software patents free, we have the freedom to create similar softwaretools - also the text for the wikipedia could be written by our-self. But historical pictures like this:
Vietnam Execution (1968) Eddie Adams http://www.edelmangallery.com/killer1.htm
we can`t make our-self. When the photographer is still alive and hasn`t sold his pictures right, that do we have the chance to ask him to support the wikipedia. Jimbo has ask me to go on with my idea of a tutorial ""HowTo ask effective for the use of pictures with the condition of the GNU-FDL" and start to write it. But even when we have equal skills to Casanova, propose something smartfull what will be a pleasure for the contributur and the Wikipedia - Casanova had the advantage to choose willing women. Most of right holders of pictures with the aim of make as much as possible money aren`t like women with unromatic husbands.
In this case we need to make compromises, this could be one like: A - getting one picture for using with GNU FDL B - getting the right to use this picture only on official Wikipedia server/ mirrors, CD-Roms & official Wikipedia books (a special new licence) C - getting the right to use this picture with a redused quality and size D - creating a non public pay per view area inside the wikipedia E - using this picture with "fair use" F - don`t use this picture inside the wikipedia and use an external link G - finding a very rich donator who buy the whole right of one picture and free it H - finding a rich donator to free a picture for B only
Some still open questions: -How can we ensure by a licence, that the information of the picture will sticked together for all future? -How can we make it more believable that this picture is not manipulated? -How can be one digital signature used for the picture and the information? -Aren`t there reasons for creating a GNU-Free_Picture/Grafic_Licence? -Has there already been discussions about his? -Where can I found archievs of them? -Where is the best place to discuss a new picture/media licence? -Should this licence be a GNU or a Wikipedia licence?
-Who is interested in joining such discussion?
The GFDL is IMHO only about text and not about pictures, the GFDL do not mention picture or photo. Beside the question if a GNU Free Picture Lisence would be better - does the GFDL protect that this pictures are maybe allowed to use without GFDL, too? IĀ“m not keen in having just another licence, but especialy the documentation of picture manipulation and sticking the picture information to the picture is need enough to think about a GNU Free Picture Licence, or more better about a Free Media Licence (picture, maps, sheet music, audio, video...)
Gruss rob
PS: I would use the wappon "blaming the right owner" to do not support wikipedia very carfully and very singular - only with good reasons and maybe only for govermental organisation like ESA: "We are very disapointed to do not be able to serve you pictures to this article, but the ESA deny us the support and the right to use pictures which was made by 100% tax paid science. We do not have any appreciative for this mindset, because the NASA is serving free pictures and make it possible to complete more than 500 articles with the help of NASA pictures. Please sign this petition adressed to ESA to reconsider their mindset". But maybe the ESA will be friendly when we do ask them or institutes which have made the science research. ;) But even in this case will be a more diplomatic strategie more successfull. When we increase the number of "friends of the wikipedia" and some wikipedianer has spoken with a minister for science and education, and this minister is liking the wikipedia, he can please the minister to request ESA to support wikipedia. The price for such an hight level intercessor could be that we care about one wish of the minister like creating articles of one field e.g. genetic engineering and print readers will a collection of this articles for schools. When we have fulfilled one of his wish, we can raise our next one. And a good contact to our minister would help to lobby against more restrictive patent and copyright laws.
Beside of writing good articles, try to win new friends for the wikipedia!
Robert Michel wrote:
Salve,
Am Sonntag, 22. Februar 2004 23:41 schrieb Richard Stallman:
The questions you are asking are legal technicalities. You need to ask a lawyer--I am not capable of giving advise about such points.
So I can state that there hasn`t been a discussion about a special GNU licence for pictures yet and nobody dissagreed that there is probably a need for one. Richard is right that this for asking a lawyer, but IĀ“m interested in starting points.
As long as the world is software patents free, we have the freedom to create similar softwaretools - also the text for the wikipedia could be written by our-self. But historical pictures like this:
Vietnam Execution (1968) Eddie Adams http://www.edelmangallery.com/killer1.htm
we can`t make our-self. When the photographer is still alive and hasn`t sold his pictures right, that do we have the chance to ask him to support the wikipedia. Jimbo has ask me to go on with my idea of a tutorial ""HowTo ask effective for the use of pictures with the condition of the GNU-FDL" and start to write it. But even when we have equal skills to Casanova, propose something smartfull what will be a pleasure for the contributur and the Wikipedia - Casanova had the advantage to choose willing women. Most of right holders of pictures with the aim of make as much as possible money aren`t like women with unromatic husbands.
In this case we need to make compromises, this could be one like: A - getting one picture for using with GNU FDL B - getting the right to use this picture only on official Wikipedia server/ mirrors, CD-Roms & official Wikipedia books (a special new licence) C - getting the right to use this picture with a redused quality and size D - creating a non public pay per view area inside the wikipedia E - using this picture with "fair use" F - don`t use this picture inside the wikipedia and use an external link G - finding a very rich donator who buy the whole right of one picture and free it H - finding a rich donator to free a picture for B only
Some still open questions: -How can we ensure by a licence, that the information of the picture will sticked together for all future? -How can we make it more believable that this picture is not manipulated? -How can be one digital signature used for the picture and the information? -Aren`t there reasons for creating a GNU-Free_Picture/Grafic_Licence? -Has there already been discussions about his? -Where can I found archievs of them? -Where is the best place to discuss a new picture/media licence? -Should this licence be a GNU or a Wikipedia licence?
-Who is interested in joining such discussion?
The GFDL is IMHO only about text and not about pictures, the GFDL do not mention picture or photo. Beside the question if a GNU Free Picture Lisence would be better - does the GFDL protect that this pictures are maybe allowed to use without GFDL, too? IĀ“m not keen in having just another licence, but especialy the documentation of picture manipulation and sticking the picture information to the picture is need enough to think about a GNU Free Picture Licence, or more better about a Free Media Licence (picture, maps, sheet music, audio, video...)
Gruss rob
PS: I would use the wappon "blaming the right owner" to do not support wikipedia very carfully and very singular - only with good reasons and maybe only for govermental organisation like ESA: "We are very disapointed to do not be able to serve you pictures to this article, but the ESA deny us the support and the right to use pictures which was made by 100% tax paid science. We do not have any appreciative for this mindset, because the NASA is serving free pictures and make it possible to complete more than 500 articles with the help of NASA pictures. Please sign this petition adressed to ESA to reconsider their mindset". But maybe the ESA will be friendly when we do ask them or institutes which have made the science research. ;) But even in this case will be a more diplomatic strategie more successfull. When we increase the number of "friends of the wikipedia" and some wikipedianer has spoken with a minister for science and education, and this minister is liking the wikipedia, he can please the minister to request ESA to support wikipedia. The price for such an hight level intercessor could be that we care about one wish of the minister like creating articles of one field e.g. genetic engineering and print readers will a collection of this articles for schools. When we have fulfilled one of his wish, we can raise our next one. And a good contact to our minister would help to lobby against more restrictive patent and copyright laws.
Beside of writing good articles, try to win new friends for the wikipedia!
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The GNU web site suggests creative commons.
"We believe that published software and documentation should be free software and free documentation <licenses.html#Intro>. We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also, using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License <licenses.html#FDL> (GNU FDL)."
"For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/."
Caroline / Secretlondon
--- Caroline Ford caroline@secretlondon.me.uk >
"For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/."
Caroline / Secretlondon
I like the idea of Creative Commons.
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Salve Caroline,
Am Montag, 23. Februar 2004 22:43 schrieb Caroline Ford:
"For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/."
This is an interesting startin point, and with creativecommons I found an similar initative:
http://www.uvm.nrw.de/kunden/uvm/ www.nsf/0/0F0DB203B9B03CBAC1256E35003BB72D?OpenDocument&K0101
But both does not care the originalty of one picture as much as I like to see.
And I haven`t understud the reason for a German/European creativecommons licence and the intercompatibility of them. I fear after the agreemet of Bern about international copy right there is a need for an international agreement for free use licences.
Thank you very much for this link, rob
Caroline Ford wrote:
The GNU web site suggests creative commons.
"We believe that published software and documentation should be free software and free documentation <licenses.html#Intro>. We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also, using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License <licenses.html#FDL> (GNU FDL)."
"For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/."
What this suggests is that we follow a variety of strategies that address our principles. Sticking to one particular licence can put us into a legalistic box that may restrict the application of those principles.
Ec
So I can state that there hasn`t been a discussion about a special GNU licence for pictures yet and nobody dissagreed that there is probably a need for one.
I don't think that the question of a "license for images" is a well-posed question. The ethical requirements depend more on the purpose of the work (entertainment or education, say) than on the medium (image or text, say). Images in textbooks should be free, including the freedom to publish modified versions, and the GFDL is a good license to use.
Images meant for entertainment are a different issue, and I would probably recommend using one of the Creative Commons licenses for them.
There is no difficulty in including images in a GFDL-covered work. It isn't necessary to mention images specifically in the license because the same conditions apply to text, images, and whatever else the work may contain.
Salve,
Am Dienstag, 24. Februar 2004 18:52 schrieb Richard Stallman:
I don't think that the question of a "license for images" is a well-posed question.
Maybe - frankly - I just hoped someone would reply: "not again Rob, see http://.... we have discussed it hardly and came to this good conclusion...." ;)
The ethical requirements depend more on the purpose of the work (entertainment or education, say) than on the medium (image or text, say). Images in textbooks should be free, including the freedom to publish modified versions, and the GFDL is a good license to use.
Agree: The is very good for texts, this is out of the question. Disagree: But IMHO the GFDL give not proper instructions how a user of a picture with GFDL must store the information about this picture. E.g. I have seen many printed books with a list of picture sources at the end, but without the information which of these pictures came from which source - that would be not in the spirit of GNU.
Images meant for entertainment are a different issue, and I would probably recommend using one of the Creative Commons licenses for them.
This view entertainment/education (black/white) is a bit naive. There are also economic interrests of some (big) player in the field of education. One of the manipulator in the discussion in Europe about "intellectual property rights" are publishing companies like Bertelsmann. They expect that the education market will be one or that market with the strongest economic growth next years - worldwide.
So for some people is science and education just a trading goods like others. Some manipulators tries to get new laws pefect to maximise the profit with the goods science/education. This is the reason why IĀ“m against (still) "fair use" material inside of the wikipedia.
I would prefer license like GFDL for everythink, but for pictures where a right owner (e.g. institutes) has a higher commercial interrest Creative Commons licenses without the right for commercial use could be a working compromise for both interrests.
Frankly, IĀ“m not happy with the Creative Commons licenses - I fear non commercial use could make pictures unusable for schools/universities if not the teacher work honorary. Is this fear reasonable?
-What exactly is the restriction of non-commercial? -When would a commercial use begin? -Is it sure that the devinition of non-commercial/commercial is not too weak and will be changed it`s wight by changed circumstance and law, especially introducing "intellectual property rights"?
There is no difficulty in including images in a GFDL-covered work. It isn't necessary to mention images specifically in the license because the same conditions apply to text, images, and whatever else the work may contain.
Full agree, the Wikipedia should go on to use GFDL for pictures, too. My discussion is not for immediately changes, it is focused on a long term - I hold this mail 6 days in my in my draft folder and IĀ“m sorry that I haven`t found much more clarity on this topic.
Because I have doubts about the Creative Commons licenses we should go on with Richards idea of "free use for educational purpose" - for a more restrictive license for the case that we can`t motivate a right owner to publish a picture with GFDL. But isn`t education too weak that even a "Wheel of Fortune" TV-show would claim this show would be an educational one?
rob
PS: Does somebody have thoughts about the EUs "intellectual property rights" directives and ideas to raise a statement in the name of the Wikipedia foundation against it?
I would prefer license like GFDL for everythink, but for pictures where a right owner (e.g. institutes) has a higher commercial interrest Creative Commons licenses without the right for commercial use could be a working compromise for both interrests.
I think you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is supposed to be a free encyclopedia. This is not a loosely formulated "interest", it is a specific mission with a commitment to specific ethical criteria.
Because I have doubts about the Creative Commons licenses we should go on with Richards idea of "free use for educational purpose"
No such idea came from me! On the contrary, I explained why this would be a bad mistake. If Wikipedia did this, it would not be a free encyclopedia any more.
I am sure you mean well with these proposals, but proposing for Wikipedia to throw away its mission and its commitments is not the way to be helpful.
B - getting the right to use this picture only on official Wikipedia server/ mirrors, CD-Roms & official Wikipedia books (a special new licence) C - getting the right to use this picture with a redused quality and size D - creating a non public pay per view area inside the wikipedia
If Wikipedia did any of these things, it would no longer be free. We would need to start another project to be the free encyclopedia. It makes no sense to put completeness above freedom. Wikipedia should do as good a job as it can do while remaining free.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Richard Stallman wrote:
B - getting the right to use this picture only on official Wikipedia server/ mirrors, CD-Roms & official Wikipedia books (a special new licence) C - getting the right to use this picture with a redused quality and size D - creating a non public pay per view area inside the wikipediaIf Wikipedia did any of these things, it would no longer be free. We would need to start another project to be the free encyclopedia. It makes no sense to put completeness above freedom. Wikipedia should do as good a job as it can do while remaining free.
I would assume that what Jimbo meant with point C here is that we got the copyright owners to put a version of the image of reduced quality and size under the GFDL (or a compatible license).
Scaling down an image is a lossy operation, so the owner needn't worry that we we (or someone using Wikipedia material) scaled that image back up - the quality wouldn't improve, and certainly not match the requirements of the customers professional photographers usually pander to.
But it would still be very useful to us, certainly better than nothing, and Free / Libre.
I see it is quite likely that photographers would agree to something like this. With proper attribution, it might even turn out to be profitable for them.
Or am I missing something?
-- Daniel
I would assume that what Jimbo meant with point C here is that we got the copyright owners to put a version of the image of reduced quality and size under the GFDL (or a compatible license).
It look slike I misunderstood that option. If the reduced quality image is free, then yes it could be used.
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
Scaling down an image is a lossy operation, so the owner needn't worry that we we (or someone using Wikipedia material) scaled that image back up - the
Isn't that just like distributing object code? The more detailed image could (in some respect) be considered the source code.
Are there any "GNU" image projects that have dealt with this already?
Isn't that just like distributing object code? The more detailed image could (in some respect) be considered the source code.
Source code and object code are qualitatively dissimilar, and it is nearly impossible to understand or change object code. By contrast, a larger image and a smaller version are qualitatively similar: a person can directly see both, and can edit both with the same tools. So the analogy is not a good one. The smaller image is not as desirable as the larger one, but it can be entirely free.
Salve,
probably my list was not complete: Am Dienstag, 24. Februar 2004 18:52 schrieb Richard Stallman:
B - getting the right to use this picture only on official Wikipedia server/ mirrors, CD-Roms & official Wikipedia books (a special new licence) C - getting the right to use this picture with a redused quality and size D - creating a non public pay per view area inside the wikipedia
If Wikipedia did any of these things, it would no longer be free. We would need to start another project to be the free encyclopedia.
*g* My intention was not to start B,C or D, only to try to list all possibilities - I agree that this wouldn`t belongs to a free project.
It makes no sense to put completeness above freedom. Wikipedia should do as good a job as it can do while remaining free.
Wouldn`t be this aim also would match for
E - using this picture with "fair use"
?
So instead of B or E we could please the right owner to support us with the use: Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Because these licenses will - make shure that wikipeadia could use it still in future - let us use it internationaly, too - be an advantage for the right owner, becouse it would be more restrictive than "fair use".
I would be really happier, when Wikipedianer would ask for a license, instead of beeing too lazy and argue only with "fair use". rob
So instead of B or E we could please the right owner to support us with the use: Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0
If Wikipedia is to remain free, it must not give in to the temptation to accept material under these licenses. These licenses are not free. So please don't think of them as a compromise; think of them as defeat.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:42:02AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
The Foobar company stands in the way of our including a picture of this.
This text, with no link and no details about the image, would name and shame the Foobar company, but would not help Foobar sell copies of the image.
Bad idea. Maybe if they try to sue use for no good reason or violate the license, but any other offence is not in the free spirits I have.
BTW: What is your opinion on who manages the copyrights of IP-users? Whe had an discussion on de: where I argued that Wikimedia Foundation manages the rights.
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
BTW: What is your opinion on who manages the copyrights of IP-users? Whe had an discussion on de: where I argued that Wikimedia Foundation manages the rights.
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I don't think you're going to get a clear consensus on this. It's a very tricky issue: there's arguments for and against the Wikimedia Foundation having rights to manage the submitters' copyrights. The Free Software Foundation, for its part, avoids the issue by requiring that all submitters of modifications to its software assign their copyright to the FSF, in which case the FSF has an unquestionable right to manage the copyrights, since they own them.
-Mark
> This text, with no link and no details about the image, would name and > shame the Foobar company, but would not help Foobar sell copies of the > image.
Bad idea. Maybe if they try to sue use for no good reason or violate the license, but any other offence is not in the free spirits I have.
It appears you disagree with me on something. I can't tell what the issue is, though.
BTW: What is your opinion on who manages the copyrights of IP-users?
I cannot understand this either. What are "IP-users"? If I guess that "IP" stands for "intellectual property", I still can't understand what the question means; but please don't *ever* use the term "intellectual property". It spreads bias and confusion.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:41:29PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
BTW: What is your opinion on who manages the copyrights of IP-users?I cannot understand this either. What are "IP-users"? If I guess that "IP" stands for "intellectual property", I still can't understand what the question means; but please don't *ever* use the term "intellectual property". It spreads bias and confusion.
If you don't log in when you edit the Wikipedia your IP will be shown, therefore -> IP-user or anonymous user (although you are more anonymous ifff you log in)
Dear Mr. Stallman,
In my understanding by IP-users he meant the anonymous users who post in Wikipedia without having a registered user account (user name and password). When someone posts without username and password, his or her IP (Internet Protocol) address is shown.
My opinion is that an anonymous user (IP user) still owns the copyright of his or her works he or she uploads. I don't think it matters he or she has no user account in Wikipedia: he or she still owns the copyright for his or her original work and he or she chooses to submit his or her work under the terms of GFDL. So, in short, the "IP user" manages the copyright of his or her edits or contributions (which he or she chose to distribute under the terms of GFDL after he or she pressed the Save button in Wikipedia). (IANAL - I am not a lawyer).
By the way: Happy to see you posting on Wikipedia mailing list. I would like to Thank you for your "GNU" project and Wish you Happiness in your life and Peace Profound.
--Optim
--- Richard Stallman rms@gnu.org wrote: ...
BTW: What is your opinion on who managesthe copyrights of IP-users?
I cannot understand this either. What are "IP-users"? If I guess that "IP" stands for "intellectual property", I still can't understand what the question means; but please don't *ever* use the term "intellectual property". It spreads bias and confusion.
See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
My opinion is that an anonymous user (IP user) still owns the copyright of his or her works he or she uploads.
Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no effect on these issues. The writer holds the copyright unless it is a work made for hire.
Wikipedia really should ask a lawyer about this.
Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no effect on these issues. The writer holds the copyright unless it is a work made for hire.
Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you can't sell, can't buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means exactly: "John Smith has made this". It's just to state the fact.
Regards, Talthen
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no effect on these issues. The writer holds the copyright unless it is a work made for hire.
Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you can't sell, can't buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means exactly: "John Smith has made this". It's just to state the fact.
Depends. In the US, you can, in Germany, you can't. __ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .
Till Westermayer till@tillwe.de writes:
Depends. In the US, you can, in Germany, you can't.
I guess you meant the "urheberrecht" in Germany - it is conceptionally different from the US copyright. The one who creates a work owns the "urheberrecht" and he or she can grant the right to make use of the work to somebody else. That's it roughly.
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 06:27, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Till Westermayer till@tillwe.de writes:
Depends. In the US, you can, in Germany, you can't.
I guess you meant the "urheberrecht" in Germany - it is conceptionally different from the US copyright. The one who creates a work owns the "urheberrecht" and he or she can grant the right to make use of the work to somebody else. That's it roughly.
That's called the 'moral right' in English. It means effectively squat.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
Till Westermayer till@tillwe.de writes:
Depends. In the US, you can, in Germany, you can't.
I guess you meant the "urheberrecht" in Germany - it is conceptionally different from the US copyright. The one who creates a work owns the "urheberrecht" and he or she can grant the right to make use of the work to somebody else. That's it roughly.
Yeah. And if a person in Germany creates a work, s/he will own the urheberrecht and the copyright. Even if s/he seels the copyright, s/he will still own the urheberrecht. As far as I know, this situation doesn't exist in the USA, and I think some of the confusion about this topic is related to that non-universal distinction.
__ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .
Till Westermayer wrote:
Till Westermayer till@tillwe.de writes:
Depends. In the US, you can, in Germany, you can't.
I guess you meant the "urheberrecht" in Germany - it is conceptionally different from the US copyright. The one who creates a work owns the "urheberrecht" and he or she can grant the right to make use of the work to somebody else. That's it roughly.
Yeah. And if a person in Germany creates a work, s/he will own the urheberrecht and the copyright. Even if s/he seels the copyright, s/he will still own the urheberrecht. As far as I know, this situation doesn't exist in the USA, and I think some of the confusion about this topic is related to that non-universal distinction.
Canada recognizes separate moral rights, but the implication of that is unclear.
The sale of copyrights creates a contractual obligation, and may provide for the buyer to have an exclusive right to publish.
What was interesting about the former US law that provided for renewals after 28 years is that the right to renew was exclusively that of the author. Thus, if he had received a bad deal when he sold the rights in the first place that original deal expired, and he was free to negotiate a better deal elsewhere. The company that had first bought the rights did not have the right to renew.
Ec
At 08:21 PM 2/23/04 +0100, Talthen wrote:
Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no effect on these issues. The writer holds the copyright unless it is a work made for hire.
Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you can't sell, can't buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means exactly: "John Smith has made this". It's just to state the fact.
I am not a lawyer, but I think you're confusing moral rights--specifically, the right to be identified as the author/artist/creator--with copyright, which is the right to *control who makes copies of a document*.
Under US law, anything made by someone as an agent of the US government-- that is, as part of their jobs, not, say, a poem or novel written on their own time--is in the public domain. British law makes equivalent work done for the British government under copyright by the government. I don't know what Polish law is.
For the most part, copyright is treated like other property, which means it can be sold, given away, or inherited. The Beatles couldn't stop Nike from using their song "Revolution" in a commercial because they had sold the rights to the song--but they could prevent the use of their recording, because they hadn't sold those rights.
Also, in theory most copyrights expire. (I say "in theory" because Congress and Parliament keep extending the dates, so the expirations aren't actually being reached. And most because there's a specific exception in UK law for "Peter Pan", which belongs to Great Ormond Street Hospital in perpetuity.) No royalty payments depend on the arguments over whether Shakespeare really wrote Hamlet.
Vicki
From a legal standpoint, it doesn't really make all that much difference if you were a logged in user or not. Sure, maybe you've signed up for an account, but that doesn't mean you are who you claim to be, and it certainly doesn't mean that the text you submit is owned by you. Even if Wikipedia confirms your email address, it's going to take an awful lot of work to track that email address down to a real person. What matters is 1) can you show enough evidence to convince a court that you created that text and 2) can Wikipedia show enough evidence that the copyright holder allowed them to use the text under some sort of license. And none of that even matters as long as Wikipedia is online, because they are protected by the DMCA safe harbors.
At least if you're logged in and have confirmed an email address Wikipedia might have a slightly easier time tracking you down to verify who you are for real. But in essence you're already anonymous.
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I think you're confusing moral rights--specifically, the right to be identified as the author/artist/creator--with copyright, which is the right to *control who makes copies of a document*.
...
Vicki
In the past I had this dicsussion:
Someone told me: - "Wow, your new classical music CDs are very nice."
I said: - "Yeap.."
He said: - "Classical music is old. so there is no copyright and I can copy and play this music as I like. Nobody can sue me."
I said: - "No, you cannot do whatever you want. Beethoven has no copyright rights over this work, but the ORCHESTRA which played the work, the COMPANY which recorded and published the work, ETC, have rights over their work. You will be sued because you copied Beethoven's music, but because you copied this particular orchestra/music company's version of the music"
IANAL - I am not a lawyer
Am I right?
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
You will be sued NOT because you copied Beethoven's music,
but
because you copied this particular orchestra/music company's version of the music"
I forgot the "NOT".
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
talthen@wp.pl wrote:
Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no effect on these issues. The writer holds the copyright unless it is a work made for hire.
Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you can't sell, can't buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means exactly: "John Smith has made this". It's just to state the fact.
Look, I appreciate people chiming in with information, but if you don't know what you're talking about, please don't chime in as if you are speaking authoritatively. This is an unmoderated list, so you're welcome to post, but really, I think a bit of restraint is in good taste.
For the record, the stuff that talthen@wp.pl wrote is all completely wrong, and has absolutely no applicability to anything we're discussing.
And a lot of stuff that other people are writing, though I prefer not to name names, is equally speculative and wrong.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Look, I appreciate people chiming in with information, but if you don't know what you're talking about, please don't chime in as if you are speaking authoritatively. This is an unmoderated list, so you're welcome to post, but really, I think a bit of restraint is in good taste.
For the record, the stuff that talthen@wp.pl wrote is all completely wrong, and has absolutely no applicability to anything we're discussing.
And a lot of stuff that other people are writing, though I prefer not to name names, is equally speculative and wrong.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________
Which is all fair enough and demonstrates the fact that we need proper advice on this subject.
With advice we can then make a proper policy, rather than going round in circles.
I think one problem here is that some contributors seem to presume that US law is the same as law in the rest of the world. This causes non US contributors to state the law in their country as they see it.
We need advice on not only what US law allows us to do (ie fair use etc) but what effect this would have on publishing the works in a country outside the US.
Caroline /Secretlondon
Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for hire, you still owns the copyright.
In the US, the copyright on a work made for hire belongs to the employer. The employer is the copyright holder, from the very start, and the employer is considered the author.
I believe this is also true in the EU, but my memory is less certain as regards the EU. If you want to be certain, please ask an EU lawyer.
"O" == Optim optim81@yahoo.co.uk writes:
O> My opinion is that an anonymous user (IP user) still owns the O> copyright of his or her works he or she uploads.
IANAL, TINLA. I think that should be pretty darn clear. Using a pseudonym or no name at all shouldn't strip you of your copyright.
However, I do seem to remember some talk about how a publisher can manage and enforce copyright on behalf of an anonymous author, until or unless that anonymous author steps forward to enforce and manage it him or herself. I don't remember if this is Anglo-American tradition, European, or both.
I think it might be hard for, say, Wikimedia to try to claim this role of publisher w/r/t unidentified users on Wikipedia or other projects. The publisher of an anonymous work is usually aware of the real identity of the anonymous creator. Wikimedia does not know the identity of IP-identified users.
~ESP
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org