[Foundation-l] Help requested on Commons copyright woes

Tue Jul 25 01:29:26 UTC 2006

Brianna Laugher wrote:

>On 22/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>>Why?  None of these are cut and dry.  If we limit ourselves to only
>>>the images that are zero risk we would have a LOT less content... and
>>>we'd have to reject a lot which will be free for all meaningful
>>>purposes.     When it comes down to it, most of these things can only
>>>be decided in a court, and courts rule in strage ways.    An official
>>>statement by the foundation would be risky and without much gain...
>>>after all, what would a statement really accomplish that we couldn't?
>>>      
>>>
>>Individual responsibility!  Otherwise there are problems at both ends of
>>the scale.
>>    
>>
>The cases I have mentioned are not about uploaders who don't care
>about copyright. They're about good uploaders who don't happen to be
>aware of every nook and cranny of copyright of every country whose
>laws might apply to their images. They are being as responsible as
>they know how. Who would've thought a statue in the public might not
>be allowed to be photographed? 
>
This depends on the country where the statue is located.  In Canada this 
is specifically permitted in subsection 32.2(1) of the Copyright Act for 
statues on permanent exhibit.

>Who would've thought a PHOTO of a
>pokemon toy (not the toy itself) would be copyrighted? Who would've
>thought a Flickr user whose photo says CC-BY didn't really mean it, as
>it turns out? etc. 
>
The issue here is whether a grant of a license is revocable.

>So IMO this doesn't have a lot to do with uploaders.
>
Infringement is an act.  It has to do with uploaders because they are 
the ones who know the circumstances about the origin of what they upload.

Ec