2014-06-22 14:29 GMT+02:00 Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Craig, et al
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Russavia,
I'm a bit confused though about the parody/satire angle, my understanding is that a CC licence does not extinguish things such as moral rights that are not related to copyright.
Sorry, I should make myself more clear -- sometimes it's easy to forget that people may not be thinking on the same level as oneself.
If an image is out of copyright in Israel, but still has copyright protection in the US due to URA, lets say one was to parody/satirise that work in the US, and let's say they sell that work for profit.
Whilst parody and satire are covered under the 1st amendment in the US, the Israeli government could invoke the copyright protection in the US of that work to stop its distribution. And it's an argument that would work.[1]
Please, tell me why do we care about such a very unprobable, theoretical scenario, when we do not care about much more probable scenario of re-using hundreds of thousands of pictures about which use can be a life threat to many people in many countries? This is what a I am calling a result of group dogma on Commons, which tells that we must be totally unpractical strict with copyright issues and totally ignore all other legal treats. I mean for example that we do not care about sexually explicit pictures which is crime to even watch in Saudi Arabia and several other countries, and in US they cannot be legally exposed to children? You can also be senteced to death if you use a picture of Xi Jinping in offending way in China and even in Poland when you use a picture of Bronisław Komorowski (our president) which was released by his office under CC-BY-SA in offendig way, you can be sentenced to 2 years in prision... And these are quite probable scenarios, not like Israeli case which is in fact very theoretical one with probability to happen less than 0.00001 % IMHO...