[WikiEN-l] "Permission required" on copyright expired images...

[Jay Litwyn]

"Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b8ceeef70909172048yc896bagb11452fdc30452bb at mail.gmail.com...
> Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
> http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
>
> It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
> (ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say "Any other use
> requires permission from the State Library of South Australia."
>
> 1) On what basis can they demand that users ask permission?
> 2) In what circumstances can Commons or Wikipedia ignore such a
> demand, and assert that the image is public domain or copyright
> expired?
> 3) What is the status of an image which is probably copyright, but no
> one knows who owns the copyright?
>
> I realise that this case might be a bit borderline, so if you prefer,
> imagine that the image was old enough that we could reasonably assume
> the photographer has been dead more than 70 years.

I do not know, man. I was reading information from one lawyer saying, 
effectively, that I could use a Sherman Brothers' lyric with my own tune--
It would not even be a derivative work in legal terms. Then, I hear on
the radio that Coldplay settled out of court because they used someone
else's tune for their lyrics. Could be they would've won in the States and
lost in Canada.

In a similar vein, the wikipedia decision on whether patents on MP3
encoders and players hav expired is either out of date or not 
internationally applicable. (Last year I saw was 2007). A lot more MP3 
hardware is out there
than there is of OGG.
_______
Create a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Mathematicians do it in fields.
Words you do not want to hear from your driver: "Watch This!".
Where in the war does Micro$oft want to take me today?