Mailing List Archive

Nothing can be a complete certain in international law. The government can
do whatever it pleases - after all it is their country. Granted
international law isn't an experimental anarchy, but often governments will
do things they are not supposed to do if it is convenient enough. Even if it
is safe now it can be unsafe tomorrow.

I think this crazy set of what ifs is fundamentally flawed.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is
> > uploaded there.
>
> The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose
> jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've
> never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim
> jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> It can be *very useful* to be the
> 800-pound gorilla of free content.

Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 15/03/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It can be *very useful* to be the
> > 800-pound gorilla of free content.
>
>
> Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...

Since not much money in this case means zero UK assets that isn't the
problem you might expect.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, March 15, 2008 18:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is
>> uploaded there.
>
> The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose
> jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've
> never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim
> jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?

I was asked at a conference I was speaking at yesterday whether we
(WMF/WMUK) had plans to put servers in the UK (ie squids) and I answered
that we were presently disinclined to do so as various bodies, inc
government ones, have mooted that any cached content on ISP servers is the
responsibility of the ISP and hence we (WMF/WMUK) could be held liable for
the content on a squid, albeit that it is ephemeral. The UK has some of
the, um, 'most problematic' libel laws around and I'm not sure we want to
lead anyone into the temptation of trying to sue us (WMF/WMUK)!

Co-coincidently, I'll be at the National Picture Gallery on Tuesday. Might
see what I can and can't do in there re whether it is possible to take a
photo pf something oneself, so bypassing their current argument that any
photograph must be a copy of their own photograph, hence their copyright
...

Alison


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The 800-pound gorilla may not have that much money but when we are to fight
a good cause in court, I am sure that a fighting fund raiser would prove
popular. Obviously, before you end up in court there is a lot that can be
done.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > It can be *very useful* to be the
> > 800-pound gorilla of free content.
>
> Until someone realises you're an 800-pound gorilla without much money...
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thomas,

> The Squid servers hold cached copies of the data. Exactly whose
> jurisdiction things on the web fall under is very complicated and I've
> never understood it - it's possible Amsterdam or Korea could claim
> jurisdiction. Any Dutch or Korean lawyers on the list?

IANAL, but..

So do routers, switches, etc - the data is buffered and kept in
memory for shorter or longer time on nearly every piece of internet
infrastructure.
Squids just speed up data delivery from data store somewhere else.
The major issue in such case would be do we work on squid storages as
standalone media systems (thats like, if you start filtering content
- you're the one who is responsible for it in the end).
Squids are 'data transfer' infrastructure, not 'data storage'
infrastructure, and operating a squid is same as operating a browser
(which also does caching), or operating network backbone.

BR,
--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> IANAL, but..
>
> So do routers, switches, etc - the data is buffered and kept in
> memory for shorter or longer time on nearly every piece of internet
> infrastructure.
> Squids just speed up data delivery from data store somewhere else.
> The major issue in such case would be do we work on squid storages as
> standalone media systems (thats like, if you start filtering content
> - you're the one who is responsible for it in the end).
> Squids are 'data transfer' infrastructure, not 'data storage'
> infrastructure, and operating a squid is same as operating a browser
> (which also does caching), or operating network backbone.

Now, I'm neither a lawyer nor a network expert, but as I understand
it, routers etc. only store the data as long as is necessary for a
particular transfer. The squids cache data from one transfer in case
it's needed for another transfer - I suspect that makes a big
difference.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

OK maybe we need to redefine the Board and add a elected Auditing arm to serve as a Supreme Court.



----- Original Message ----
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:51:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no?

> IANAL, but..
>
> So do routers, switches, etc - the data is buffered and kept in
> memory for shorter or longer time on nearly every piece of internet
> infrastructure.
> Squids just speed up data delivery from data store somewhere else.
> The major issue in such case would be do we work on squid storages as
> standalone media systems (thats like, if you start filtering content
> - you're the one who is responsible for it in the end).
> Squids are 'data transfer' infrastructure, not 'data storage'
> infrastructure, and operating a squid is same as operating a browser
> (which also does caching), or operating network backbone.

Now, I'm neither a lawyer nor a network expert, but as I understand
it, routers etc. only store the data as long as is necessary for a
particular transfer. The squids cache data from one transfer in case
it's needed for another transfer - I suspect that makes a big
difference.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:56 PM, teun spaans <teun.spaans@gmail.com> wrote:

> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden.
> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
>
> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
> botanical garden has some form of ownership?
>
> The Italian law refers to "beni culturali", basically work of arts, so I'd
say there shouldn't be any problem in uploading the images :)

Marco
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

teun spaans wrote:
> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden.
> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
>
> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
> botanical garden has some form of ownership?

Plants are not covered by copyright, as they are not "works" created by
human originality. You can upload them without any problems.

Ciao Henning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Grazie!

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Henning Schlottmann
<h.schlottmann@gmx.net>wrote:

> teun spaans wrote:
> > While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical
> garden.
> > There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
> >
> > Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
> > botanical garden has some form of ownership?
>
> Plants are not covered by copyright, as they are not "works" created by
> human originality. You can upload them without any problems.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This poses an interesting question on what happens when we are
genetically engineering :) Because then in fact it *is* a work made by
humans (or at least adapted, just like a cut wooden tree, a carved
stone tablet etc), and in some cases even artictic somehow (think of
the glowing fish). Anyway, not that it is very relevant, but an
intriguing mindgame :)

-- Lodewijk

2008/8/21 Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann@gmx.net>:
> teun spaans wrote:
>> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden.
>> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
>>
>> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
>> botanical garden has some form of ownership?
>
> Plants are not covered by copyright, as they are not "works" created by
> human originality. You can upload them without any problems.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- On Fri, 8/22/08, teun spaans <teun.spaans@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: teun spaans <teun.spaans@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 4:48 AM
> I just photographed individual plants, so layout does not
> come into
> question.
>
> There was no sign with a copyright claim or remark about
> photographs at the
> entrance - in fact it was hard to find an entrance at all.
> The only sign we
> found was a wooden sign "botanical garden" - that
> direction.
>
> In hindsight, there may have been a text or direction on
> the walls of the
> refugio (mountain hut), some 100 meters away, but we were
> glad to have
> located the botanical garden at all, and didnt think of it.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Nikola Smolenski
> <smolensk@eunet.yu> wrote:
>
> > Cary Bass wrote:
> > > teun spaans wrote:
> > >> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of
> plants in a botanical
> > garden.
> > >> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly
> accessible.
> > >>
> > >> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took
> there, or does the owner of
> > the
> > >> botanical garden has some form of ownership?
> > >
> > > This is not to say that the botanical garden
> doesn't claim restriction
> > > on the use of images taken within its walls (in
> my experience,
> > > non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact,
> such restrictions are
> > > quite commonplace for botanical gardens,
> zoological parks, and many
> > > other facilities. This should not be mistaken
> for a claim of copyright;
> > > and at most they might do is deny you access to
> their property in the
> > > future.
> >
> > Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim
> copyright on plant
> > layout or somesuch. I'm not aware that this has
> ever happened, however,
> > and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a
> problem when
> > photographing individual plants, unless they are
> [[living sculpture]]s.
> >


Concerns about restrictions placed on images by way of admittance, although a real issue, is not a copyright issue. These are instead a contract issue and while this is binding on the photographer, is does not apply to the image like copyright does. For example a photographer pays to atttend a museum exhibit and the ticket states attendees may use images only for non-comercial purposes. That photagrapher could be sued for a breach of contract if they sold an image they took at the exhibit. But if they upload an image to Commons. They have not used the image commercially (they provided it free of charge to a non-profit) and have not violated the contract. Everyone else in the world that did not purchase a ticket to this exhibit is not bound by any contract and may do whatever is allowed by the copyright.

Birgitte SB

Some discussion on this topic at:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-piracy-scam-canada-insulted-again.html




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Concerns about restrictions placed on images by way of admittance, although a real issue, is not a copyright issue. These are instead a contract issue and while this is binding on the photographer, is does not apply to the image like copyright does. For example a photographer pays to atttend a museum exhibit and the ticket states attendees may use images only for non-comercial purposes. That photagrapher could be sued for a breach of contract if they sold an image they took at the exhibit. But if they upload an image to Commons. They have not used the image commercially (they provided it free of charge to a non-profit) and have not violated the contract. Everyone else in the world that did not purchase a ticket to this exhibit is not bound by any contract and may do whatever is allowed by the copyright.
>
> Birgitte SB
>

That's a correct statement of US law, as I understand it, but I'm far
less sure that this issue resolves itself the same way in all
jurisdictions. I seem to recall reading about jurisdictions where
that law swung the other way and people who were "harmed" by the
illicit photography/distribution had rights (even beyond copyright) to
squash further distribution. The analogy being drawn more along the
lines of distributing stolen property (which isn't okay in the US
either), rather than a copyright issue in the traditional sense.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the context in which I read this, so
I'm not sure about where it applies.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l