G'day UnforgettableID,
On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater
<sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:
There may be rights issues as well. It's not
as simple
as just uploading a video, unfortunately. Some content
I have shot is only available for non-commercial use
because it was shot in Royal Parks, so this cannot be
released under a free licence so cannot be included
in Wikipedia.
Why would that be? Can a tree, a river, or a building be copyrighted?
You claim that there "may" be rights issues but you have not cited any
American law which back up your claim.
American law can go to Hell.
Recently, a lot of [[Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt]]
has been spread
regarding these issues: Popular Photography magazine discussed them
recently. In reality, a building, a park, or such _cannot_ be
trademarked.
It's not a matter of copyright or trademark law[0]. If I wanted to
restrict the things you could do with photographs you take of the
interior of my house, I wouldn't claim copyright. Oh, no! I would
simply make it a condition of entry to my house that, if you wish to
enter and take photographs, you do not use the photographs in a
commercial manner or release it under a licence that permits others to
do so.
If you took a photograph of my bedroom (planning to reveal the dead sexy
secrets within), and released it under the GFDL, I couldn't claim
copyright on my rose-petal-strewn bed[1] ... but I could say you
breached our contract.
[0] Rumour has it, in France, it's no longer possible to claim copyright
over a photograph of the Eiffel Tower at night?
[1] Or, as I like to call it, "the groove-maker".
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse