[Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Tue Jun 8 20:27:30 UTC 2010
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>>> And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you
>>>>>> have to declare that a work is free to use commercially?
>>> Whether a work is orphaned will vary from one work to another. Do you
>>> have a specific work in mind? I was just providing a plausible
>>> circumstance where this might apply.
>> That's why I asked how you are going to go about reliably ascertaining
>> that a work is orphaned. Just because a work hasn't be republished over
>> a period of time is no guarantee that not a reliable guide to it being
>> orphaned. The creator may not want it to be republished during his or
>> her lifetime. The creators estate may similarly not want it republished,
>> or they may not even want it republished in digital form.
> There is no single technique that will allow this to be determined
> ...That is why I asked you about what specific work you had in mind.
> The purpose of copyright is to protect the economic interests of the
> creator. Using copyright to completely prevent the republication of a
> work is an abuse of copyright.
The economic interests of the creator may well be NOT to republish. Or
to only republish in limited editions, and as this is concerning French
works the creators have a moral rights as to how and when they're works
> No one has suggested that time alone
> will render a work orphaned; you are confusing my premises with their
> consequences, and fighting ghosts.
One one? Really?
[As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United
States more than seventy years ago.]
Because no one can ascertain whether a work is orphaned or not, the
subsequent proposals to allow commercial reuse of works declared
'orphaned' will always get vehemently opposed by content creators. Now
most of the opposition to Orphan Work legislation disappears once the
prospect of commercial exploitation is removed.
Once you start uploading stuff to wikisource you are adding a commercial
license which is NOT yours to give.
If I have uploaded a bunch of videos to youtube, just because I haven't
logged into the account for some time, or even if I never log into it
again it does not mean that I have abandoned any economic interest in me
to get permission to use the videos, does not give you the legal right
to declare it free to use commercially.
>>> I said nothing about commercial use
>> By adding the work to wikisources you are unilaterally adding a license
>> declaring that it is free to use commercially. Which is regardless of
>> the actually wishes of the actual copyright owner as you simply do not
>> know what the copyright owner wants.
> There is no question adding a licence when the usage is one already
> permitted by law, as would be the case with the library and archives
> exemptions. It is only in the minds of the chronically doctrinaire that
> your proposed licence makes any sense.
If the usage is permitted by law then the work is not Orphaned it is
either in the public domain or the use is covered by fair-use, you don't
have to invoke the concept of Orphaned.
>>> I have no idea what you mean by "JuJU".
>> I mean what supernatural power are you in possession of that enables you
>> to strip copyright from work and declare it free to use?
> Just because you support the use of primitive fetishes or Yoruba dances
> to determine copyright status does not warrant your tendentious and
> libelous accusation that I have engaged in the same witchcraft.
More information about the wikimedia-l