Salve Mark,
Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2004 23:44 schrieb Delirium:
Robert Michel wrote:
Why so much bureaucracy? When the director of one
museum give us verbally
the rigth to use this a photo of one modern work of art - what is when
his successor do not like us to use this photo with GNU-FDL and he would
prefer to make money with picture agency like Corbi$?
I don't think that's entirely necessary. With the increasing use of
email, emails are not entirely inadmissable in court these days.
think an unambiguous email from, say, the copyright office of a museum
saying that a work is licensed under the GFDL would be sufficient to
defend us against a copyright-infringement lawsuit.
I only talk about pictures with an hight financial interest, like Mona Lisa or
others. Even when the court accept emails - how can we trust that one
anonymous is not faking the email from this museum?
For the wikipedia seems paper licences in special cases like more work, but in
the end, it could be less work to know that 500 very famos pictures has an
waterproof licence. Some people could missuse wikipedia with such pictures.
We don't, after all, require contributors such as
myself to mail paper
contracts to Wikipedia authorizing our article contributions to be
GFDL'd, so I don't see why image-licensing should be much different.
Maybe it is more easy to find Copy&pasted text. Even when three sentences are
copied word by word (I hope we will avoid this too) from one book, three
sentences are only a few comparing with 300 pages. Whith a photo is this
different.
When people do not make money with their esprit or hands, they go to court to
get someones money. The wikipedia does not make money, but could reduse the
win of others. So especialy for en.wikipdia I fear the first lawsuit
inbetween the next 12 month.
The main owner of the picture agence Corbi$ is Bill Gate$.
Do you want to know how far the expansion for the rightholders is already "at
work" take a look to the EU, the media lobbiest want to skip the discussion
of the parlament and to get this into law:
http://www.ipjustice.org/CODE/021604.html
" (13) It is necessary to define the scope of this Directive as widely as
possible in order to encompass all the intellectual property rights covered
by Community provisions in this field and/or by the national law of the
Member State concerned. Nevertheless, that requirement does not affect the
possibility, on the part of those Member States which so wish, to extend, for
internal purposes, the provisions of this Directive to include acts involving
unfair competition, including parasitic copies, or similar activities."
UNFAIR COMPETITION, PARASITIC COPIES OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.
And your are still discussion "Fair use" - the Wikipedia has a finantial
dimension, it reduse the win of rightholders = Parasitisc.
Der Ko-Autor des Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Bob Goodlattee, hat
seine EU-Kollegen bei einem Treffen der European Internet Foundation in der
vergangenen Woche in einem harten Kurs gerade auch gegen die privaten
Filesharer bestätigt. Goodlattee stellte dabei die Verhältnisse in den USA,
wo den Rechteinhaber selbst eine Art polizeirechtlicher Status zugebilligt
werde, als beispielhaft dar.
The co-author of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Bob Goodlatte
was last week in Europe and he motivated members of the European parlament to
go a tough course against people who share files. Goodlatte sees the
situation in the USA, where right holders has police-like rights is
exemplary.
When we do not lobby to save the status quo,
and do not take care, that all pictures has waterproof licences,
we go into deep truble in very close future.
Paper licences could be a way, and some of you should start to think about
them, and start to use them, as good exampel.
Greetings form Aachen, Europe
rob