[Foundation-l] Re: Commons copyright violation and OTRS

[Robert Scott Horning]

Michael Snow wrote:

> Delirium wrote:
>
>> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>
>>> What needs to be done here is to research exactly who may be 
>>> correct. Many WWII photographs are likely to still be under 
>>> copyright (the life+75 rule has not gone into effect yet, or the 100 
>>> year rule... depending on what copyright laws you are using, and was 
>>> published after 1924 when prior copyright had entered into public 
>>> domain) and my gut feeling is that it is likely to be a copyright 
>>> violation.
>>
>>
>> A significant portion of WW2-era photographs were taken by U.S. 
>> government personnel during the course of their official duties, and 
>> are therefore in the public domain.
>
>
> Perhaps so, but without some indication of how we know that Photograph 
> X was taken by US government personnel, we don't know that the 
> photograph is in the public domain. In which case, given my 
> understanding of what the Commons' policies were supposed to be, it's 
> not eligible for inclusion there. We need to *know* that it's public 
> domain because we have facts to support this, not because we're 
> engaging in wishful guesswork. Otherwise, it reminds me of those 
> people who mistakenly believe that every picture on a federal 
> government website is public domain.

A significant portion of WWII-era photographs were also taken by UPI and 
AP photographers (including the "famous" Iwo Jima photo of the U.S. 
Marines raising the U.S. flag).... and these are completely covered by 
copyright, as are photos for magazines like Time and Newsweek and LIFE 
(which sent several photographers into the front lines).  Given a photo 
of a WWII battle scene, it is unlikely to trace its copyright status 
unless you know the exact archive it came from.  Many commonly seen 
WWII-era photos are from the Corbis archives, again where many people 
feel they can copy to their heart's content (including images of Nazi 
Germany) but are still covered under copyright.  This makes them 
ineligible for inclusion in Wikicommons, and depending on usage illegal 
to use on Wikipedia as well (fair-use doesn't go that far).

-- 
Robert Scott Horning