On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
of course I dont expect people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they do know the principles of it and what they can do
Are you sure? In the US, at least, industry groups go to a lot of trouble to "remind" people of the things they're not supposed to do. :)
But I'm not sure the provisions you point to are actually so unusual.
- Non protected works Article 9 section c -- news of the day published
by the press or broadcast
This is in the Berne Convention (article 2, section 8).
- Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to photographic process by <snip> documentation centres <snip> or teaching organisations ..... refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to reproduce
I don't know if Wikipedia would actually be covered by this: those terms are probably pretty narrow (and this is just a translation of the law, anyway). In any event, it's pretty standard for copyright laws to make allowances for limited educational use.
- article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis are having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they encourage uploading of media
This appears to implement article 2 of the Berne Convention's "special provisions regarding developing countries" (Angola isn't a signatory, but it has signed the TRIPS Agreement, which incorporates those provisions). It actually looks quite restrictive (the license has to be granted by the "State Secretariat for Culture", you have to try to get permission first, there are limitations on export, and you still have to pay the copyright holder).
I don't think problematic uploads from mobile are a new or regional phenomenon—I seem to recall an earlier "selfiepocalypse".