[Foundation-l] Help requested on Commons copyright woes

Thu Jul 20 12:00:27 UTC 2006

Hello,

I originally posted this to the commons-l list (
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000277.html )
to little response. So let's see if I can do any better with a wider
audience.

Here are some recent issues that I would like resolved:
* To what extent are we bound by local laws and to what extent are we
bound by Florida's laws (as the home of our servers). Country
copyrights vary considerably with regards to duration of copyright,
"freedom of panorama" (Panoramafreiheit) /whether public objects such
as statues and even buildings can be freely photographed and there is
a lot of confusion about this. Should we respect local law always or
interpret in terms of US law?
(Big discussion about a photo of the interior of a
German railway station:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image:Berlin_Hauptbahnhof_pano_06.jpg
)

* There was recently a discussion about the "Against DRM" license (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:ADRM &
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM  ).

* Logos. This has still not been sufficiently resolved, in that there
is not a clear enough solution that everyone is aware of. Do we
consider copyright independently of trademark status? Is that even
possible? (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image:CSU-Logo_1998.jpg
)

* "Agencia Brasil" license  (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Ag%C3%AAncia_Brasil ) also
has been debated several times. Related to the wider issue of, "if a
website says "these images can be used freely, can we interpret that
as allowing commercial use and derivative works, and thus
Commons-compliant? Or do we need to check each time whether they
intend to allow these specific rights?"

* Photographs of commercial products such as: Pokemon/Star
Wars/Simpsons toys, box of Pringles, also people in dress-up outfits
of characters such as Lara Croft/Chewbacca. Eloquence has raised this
before ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives10#Various_Star_Wars_pictures
) but I doubt even he would think this has been satisfactorily
resolved.

* US presidential portraits (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Portraits_with_unclear_copyright_status_from_the_U.S._Federal_Government
 kind of got split up and was carried over from a debate on en.wp
anyway).

* Photographs of art - if the artwork itself is old enough to be PD,
is it true that any photograph of the art itself is also PD, but any
photograph of the art in its frame or on a wall  is not? (Because it
is 3-D, not 2-D anymore)

* Personality rights. What permission is required of people
photographed, if any? (eg "Can I take your picture"/"Can I publish
your picture on a public database that allows commercial use?") Is
this a copyright concern or a "other law" concern that we don't need
to worry about? What if the people aren't recognisable (and how can
you decide that anyway?)? (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Kind_in_Nord.C3.A4thiopien.jpg
is a current one, also some of the "visible thong" pictures on
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/G-string have been nominated before)

* Stock xchange images (current:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SXC villy also wrote
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu_%282%29 but it
seems to have stalled). What should be done with the existing images
(which are intentionally not categorised in any way as such, so they
might be hard to find), what do we have to do (if anything) in order
to use current images?

* Flickr allows users to change the licenses on their images with no
external notice. So CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images uploaded to Commons might
later appear to be CC-BY-NC-ND or even "all rights reserved". This is
an increasing problem. Obviously Flickr needs a "history" tab, but
until then...? (current discussion at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_allows_license_changes
)

* Flag copyright - originality - again which laws to apply? (eg.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-June/000385.html ,
is it true?)

I really feel distaste at the idea that the Foundation would avoid
involving itself in such questions in order to avoid legal
culpability.

Help, please?

Brianna
commons, meta, en.wp:User:pfctdayelise