Fastfission wrote:
On 2/1/07, Arwel Parry
<arwel(a)cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
There's an interesting article on picture
copyrights in todays'
"Guardian", "A picture paints a thousand invoices"
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html
It might be worth linking to this article when people complain about
non-free images being deleted!
Well, but Wikimedia comes under the DMCA, which has more formalized ways of
providing for requests to remove copyrighted material, as well as a "safe
harbor" provision. So it's not quite as bad as the UK case, it seems.
I fully agree that this gives us more wiggle room, and I believe that we
should be advocating for similar provisions in other countries as well.
(In any case, Corbis includes a number of images in
their archives which are
not under copyright in the United States, but makes no distinction on their
image pages between these and images to which they own the copyright to. So
just because something is in Corbis doesn't mean it is a copyright issue,
necessarily, though it is usually pretty easy to tell which Corbis copyright
claims are bunk, i.e. claims to materials created by the US Government or
created in the 19th century).
True enough, but I think that whether their claim to copyright on a
specific item is valid or pure buncombe is a different issue. For the
purpose of this thread I'm willing to concede that they do have a legal
copyright as claimed. This allows us to separate copyright validity
from unscrupulous methods of enforcing copyrights.
Ec