Let's face it, international laws vary. I can assert my copyright, and
have it apply to the EU, and very likely wouldn't get it in America.
Photographers can assert their copyright, and get America and the EU,
but lose out on, say, Somalia (where copyright, and any sort of
government, don't exist). That there are limitations doesn't mean you
have the right to remove my rights from where it does apply, and,
through your copyfraud, encourage UK companies to violate my
copyright.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Adam Cuerden <cuerden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The fact is, it
isn't that important that Wikimedia Commons gets
convinced that it's new copyright. A US-based company could ignore the
CC-BY tag and happily reuse it violating the license, and you would have
to assert your copyright (in order to enforce the license) in the court.
While that's a fair point, it's irrelevant. I realise there are
limitations to how far the CC-by license will apply. However, I don't
see how on earth that means I should have to give up my rights to it,
or are all the photographers on this list going to give up their CC
licenses because companies in countries where copyright is poorly
enforced - China, say - could ignore the CC license and happily reuse
it, violating the license, and they would have to assert their
copyright (in order to enforce the license) in the court?
No, people are smart enough to recognise that making their things
available means that their licenses might get violated, and that, in
some cases, they may not be able to enforce the licenses. That doesn't
mean that we say that Commons should only accept releases into the
public domain.
-Adam Cuerden.