[WikiEN-l] Would you like one of your videos posted on Wikipedia?

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day UnforgettableID,

> On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
> 
>>There may be rights issues as well. It's not as simple
>>as just uploading a video, unfortunately. Some content
>>I have shot is only available for non-commercial use
>>because it was shot in Royal Parks, so this cannot be
>>released under a free licence so cannot be included
>>in Wikipedia.
> 
> Why would that be? Can a tree, a river, or a building be copyrighted?
> You claim that there "may" be rights issues but you have not cited any
> American law which back up your claim.

American law can go to Hell.

> Recently, a lot of [[Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt]] has been spread
> regarding these issues: Popular Photography magazine discussed them
> recently. In reality, a building, a park, or such _cannot_ be
> trademarked.

It's not a matter of copyright or trademark law[0].  If I wanted to 
restrict the things you could do with photographs you take of the 
interior of my house, I wouldn't claim copyright.  Oh, no!  I would 
simply make it a condition of entry to my house that, if you wish to 
enter and take photographs, you do not use the photographs in a 
commercial manner or release it under a licence that permits others to 
do so.

If you took a photograph of my bedroom (planning to reveal the dead sexy 
secrets within), and released it under the GFDL, I couldn't claim 
copyright on my rose-petal-strewn bed[1] ... but I could say you 
breached our contract.


[0] Rumour has it, in France, it's no longer possible to claim copyright
     over a photograph of the Eiffel Tower at night?

[1] Or, as I like to call it, "the groove-maker".

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse