[WikiEN-l] Images that are PD in their country of origin

[George Herbert]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:28 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 February 2010 00:16, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that the Wikipedia doesn't really have any risk
>> under the law.
>> Provided the strictures of the DMCA are followed, any uploaded
>> copyrighted material simply has to be removed promptly if they receive
>> a copyright violation notice. If the strictures of the DMCA aren't
>> followed then the Wikipedia/media could be in big trouble.
>
>
> The problem for Commons is also reusability - Wikimedia could get away
> with just about anything, but reusers may not.

The reality of the situation for reusers is that they are unlikely to
be held liable for significant damages if they have plausible reason
to believe they were using the image legally, and react appropriately
if the owner informs them differently.

It is practically impossible to in the legal sense prove the
provenance of images you didn't produce yourself, as a reuser.
Everyone assumes the bundled provenance is accurate, or at least not
fraudulent.  The systems in the US and elsewhere protect those who
rely on provenance they have available.

That does not mean we shouldn't pay attention to the problem.  But we
shouldn't let it cripple us.

Wikipedia's policy of generally being stricter (in policy, and
enforcement) than legal requirements in the US should help protect us
and our downstreams.  We should not get lazy and rely on that, but we
also should not be too defensive or paranoid.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com