Mailing List Archive

Klaus Graf wrote:
> There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list
> ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
> two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
> reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
> purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
> adressed on a Wikisource case)

There are some existing guidelines at this page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag

The short answer is that it depends on the country. Bridgeman-like rules
hold in the United States, Germany, Poland, Japan, and Switzerland,
among other countries, but do not hold in all countries.

-Mark

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

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Klaus Graf ha scritto:
> > There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list
> > ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
> > two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
> > reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
> > purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
> > adressed on a Wikisource case)
> >
> > See
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs._Corel
> >
> > We should not accept such nonsense.
> >
> > Klaus Graf
> >
> Bridgeman vs. Corel only applies to reproductions made in the US of 2D
> works. For example, if someone takes a photograph in a State Museum in
> Italy, the copyright on that photograph belong to the photographer and
> to the museum (that's an Italian peculiarity) and by no means it can be
> uploaded as PD-art.
> Cruccone
>

Strictly speaking it is not a question of where the photograph was made, but
where is the photograph is being published. Anyone who takes a photograph
of a public domain work, whether in an Italian Museum or anywhere else, and
publishes that image in the US would still be subject to Bridgeman v. Corel
within the US. Similarly, someone who creates a photograph in the US, but
publishes that photo in Italy would still be able to assert copyright under
Italian law.

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

Klaus Graf wrote:
> There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list
> ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
> two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
> reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
> purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
> adressed on a Wikisource case)
>
> See
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs._Corel
>
I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying issue, but if I
follow the discussion correctly it shows absolutely no reason to think
Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything. The statement from Mike that is
being pointed to is about a different question entirely.

--Michael Snow

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

Michael Snow wrote:
> Klaus Graf wrote:
>
>> There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list
>> ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
>> two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
>> reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
>> purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
>> adressed on a Wikisource case)
>>
>> See
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs._Corel
>>
>>
> I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying issue, but if I
> follow the discussion correctly it shows absolutely no reason to think
> Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything. The statement from Mike that is
> being pointed to is about a different question entirely.
What's concerning about this is that we are referring to a statement by
Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were providing legal advice to
the entire community would it not be more appropriate on a page
addressed to a more general population. Anybody can read anybody else's
talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue between any two
persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private quality to personal
talk pages. That someone should derive a legal position based on
eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem at all the best way
to go about this sort of thing.

Ec

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

Hello,

Klaus Graf wrote:
> There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list
> ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
> two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
> reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
> purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
> adressed on a Wikisource case)
>
> See
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs._Corel
>
> We should not accept such nonsense.
>
> Klaus Graf

Actually, this whole discussion resumes to a very short question: Which
law do we apply on Wikimedia projects? No problem to apply US law
because WMF is based in USA, but the "source country" has no definitive
meaning, so we get into absurb situations:

1. What is the "source country" for an image scanned in France from a
book bought in India by a British publisher (real case scenario)?
Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on
Wikimedia servers.

Then we have the opposite situation:

1. What about a French book published in France in 1935 from an author
who died in 1936? If we consider that US law doesn't apply the rule of
shorter term, this book is not in the public domain in USA, although it
is in the public domain in France, and was never published in USA.

Why not to apply just common sense?

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

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

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
> > Klaus Graf wrote:
> >
> >> There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's
> statement in this list
> >> ("[W]e've consistently held that faithful
> reproductions of
> >> two-dimensional public domain works which are
> nothing more than
> >> reproductions should be considered public domain
> for licensing
> >> purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's
> statement (which was
> >> adressed on a Wikisource case)
> >>
> >> See
> >>
>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs._Corel
> >>
> >>
> > I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying
> issue, but if I
> > follow the discussion correctly it shows
> absolutely no reason to think
> > Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything. The
> statement from Mike that is
> > being pointed to is about a different question
> entirely.
> What's concerning about this is that we are
> referring to a statement by
> Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were
> providing legal advice to
> the entire community would it not be more
> appropriate on a page
> addressed to a more general population. Anybody can
> read anybody else's
> talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue
> between any two
> persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private
> quality to personal
> talk pages. That someone should derive a legal
> position based on
> eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem
> at all the best way
> to go about this sort of thing.
>
> Ec


Come on Ec! Admit that you dislike Mike's conclusion
when giving reasons to not use it. ;)


More on-topic, I cannot see any discrepancy between
Erik's and Mike's opinion, even though they are
responses to different questions. Erik basically
supports the conclusion of Bridgeman v. Corel and Mike
says we must follow US law. Since Bridgeman v. Corel
*is* US law, I cannot understand what the issue is.

Birgitte SB



____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

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

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net> wrote:
> Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on
> Wikimedia servers.
It's even more complicated than that. Wikimedia servers are located in
Florida, Amsterdam and Korea, so depending on where you're coming from
(Europeans will probably be served from Amsterdam, Americans from
Florida, etc.) the data might even come from a place that is not under
US law.

-- Hay / Husky

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

On Saturday 15 March 2008 12:55:49 Yann Forget wrote:
> 1. What is the "source country" for an image scanned in France from a
> book bought in India by a British publisher (real case scenario)?
> Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on
> Wikimedia servers.
>
> Why not to apply just common sense?

My common sense tells me to run away and hide.

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

Birgitte SB wrote:
> --- Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> What's concerning about this is that we are
>> referring to a statement by
>> Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were
>> providing legal advice to
>> the entire community would it not be more
>> appropriate on a page
>> addressed to a more general population. Anybody can
>> read anybody else's
>> talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue
>> between any two
>> persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private
>> quality to personal
>> talk pages. That someone should derive a legal
>> position based on
>> eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem
>> at all the best way
>> to go about this sort of thing.
>>
>> Ec
>>
> Come on Ec! Admit that you dislike Mike's conclusion
> when giving reasons to not use it. ;)
>
> More on-topic, I cannot see any discrepancy between
> Erik's and Mike's opinion, even though they are
> responses to different questions. Erik basically
> supports the conclusion of Bridgeman v. Corel and Mike
> says we must follow US law. Since Bridgeman v. Corel
> *is* US law, I cannot understand what the issue is.
>
> Birgitte SB
The simple fact that Mike is a lawyer doesn't make his opinion superior
to anyone else's, but my point was how such issues are presented.
Suddenly we have an interpretation out of the context of a personal talk
page being taken as an ex-cathedra pronouncement that affects us all.
It's especially inappropriate to be extrapolating from a vague statement
about the need to follow US law to a disavowal of Bridgeman vs. Corel.
In that regard we do not differ.

The Canadian banknote in question is more than 50 years old and is in
the public domain. So is any photograph of it.

Ec



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

I can offer a nuclear bunker to hide in. :)

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu> wrote:

> On Saturday 15 March 2008 12:55:49 Yann Forget wrote:
> > 1. What is the "source country" for an image scanned in France from a
> > book bought in India by a British publisher (real case scenario)?
> > Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on
> > Wikimedia servers.
> >
> > Why not to apply just common sense?
>
> My common sense tells me to run away and hide.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Husky wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net> wrote:
>> Ultimately, we publish things in USA when we upload images and texts on
>> Wikimedia servers.
> It's even more complicated than that. Wikimedia servers are located in
> Florida, Amsterdam and Korea, so depending on where you're coming from
> (Europeans will probably be served from Amsterdam, Americans from
> Florida, etc.) the data might even come from a place that is not under
> US law.

Actually, no. Amsterdam and Korea only host Squid systems, so no data is
uploaded there.

> -- Hay / Husky

Regards,

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

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

> 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

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> The short answer is that it depends on the country. Bridgeman-like rules
> hold in the United States, Germany, Poland, Japan, and Switzerland,
> among other countries, but do not hold in all countries.

On this subject, can please someone site good law from outside of the
US (case law, as applicable, based on the jourisdiction) that clearly
contradicts the ruling in Bridgeman v. Corel?

Thanks.

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

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?
Before they can claim jurisdiction someone will have to start a case in
their courts. Until that happens it's all hypothetical.

Ec

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

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
>
>> The short answer is that it depends on the country. Bridgeman-like rules
>> hold in the United States, Germany, Poland, Japan, and Switzerland,
>> among other countries, but do not hold in all countries.
>>
>
> On this subject, can please someone site good law from outside of the
> US (case law, as applicable, based on the jourisdiction) that clearly
> contradicts the ruling in Bridgeman v. Corel?
>

According to this summary (in French, sorry), cases in France have gone
both ways:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Jastrow/PD-art

There also seems to be near-unanimous agreement among experts that a
case in the UK would be decided the opposite of Bridgeman v. Corel, but
it doesn't seem to have actually come up. Maybe everone's so sure of it
that nobody bothers to try to challenge it.

-Mark


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

On 15/03/2008, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:

> There also seems to be near-unanimous agreement among experts that a
> case in the UK would be decided the opposite of Bridgeman v. Corel, but
> it doesn't seem to have actually come up. Maybe everone's so sure of it
> that nobody bothers to try to challenge it.


The last actual precedent was in 1851. There is widely held opinion
that mere sweat of the brow may earn you a copyright even without a
whole lot of creativity ... but no-one at all seems very keen to test
it.

FWIW, the National Portrait Gallery hasn't bugged Wikimedia about
images of pictures they own (which they claim copyright on, and which
we have marked "public domain due to age") since Jimbo told them to
sue and be damned, a few years ago. It can be *very useful* to be the
800-pound gorilla of free content.


- d.

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

David Gerard ha scritto:
> FWIW, the National Portrait Gallery hasn't bugged Wikimedia about
> images of pictures they own (which they claim copyright on, and which
> we have marked "public domain due to age") since Jimbo told them to
> sue and be damned, a few years ago. It can be *very useful* to be the
> 800-pound gorilla of free content.
>
>
Interesting. In Italy we managed to go on the press when the Museums of
Florence forced us to take down all the images of works owned by them.
As a result a law introducing some kind of fair use has been passed by
the Parliament, and now it may be possible to publish one's own
photographs of PD work of arts owned by State museums with a
noncommercial licence (if they're owned by private museums they're
completely PD). Of course we are in the situation where we cannot put on
the Italian Wikipedia images that are on commons; this is very far from
Bridgeman vs Corel...

Cruccone

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

Thomas Dalton 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...
>
That doesn't exactly support any incentive to sue. Poverty has its
advantages.

Ec

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

On 16/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton 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...

> That doesn't exactly support any incentive to sue. Poverty has its
> advantages.


Our 800-pound weight is our very many friends. Wikipedia is *nice*, you know.

We're simultaneously an organisation of less than ten employees and an
organisation of tens of thousands of hard-working volunteers. As long
as we remember the right one of these to be for any given situation
...

In disputes like this - free content and freedom of information - we
can speak softly and ask nicely, because we carry the big stick of a
tsunami of pissed-off geeks. Should anyone *really* threaten us. This
behooves us to stay nice so people will in fact like us. Do well by
doing good.


- d.

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

David Gerard wrote:
> On 16/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Thomas Dalton 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...
>>
>> That doesn't exactly support any incentive to sue. Poverty has its
>> advantages.
>>
> Our 800-pound weight is our very many friends. Wikipedia is *nice*, you know.
>
> We're simultaneously an organisation of less than ten employees and an
> organisation of tens of thousands of hard-working volunteers. As long
> as we remember the right one of these to be for any given situation
> ...
>
> In disputes like this - free content and freedom of information - we
> can speak softly and ask nicely, because we carry the big stick of a
> tsunami of pissed-off geeks. Should anyone *really* threaten us. This
> behooves us to stay nice so people will in fact like us. Do well by
> doing good.
King Kong and Mighty Joe Young were really very gentle until they had to
start interacting with humans.

Ec

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

On 16/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > In disputes like this - free content and freedom of information - we
> > can speak softly and ask nicely, because we carry the big stick of a
> > tsunami of pissed-off geeks. Should anyone *really* threaten us. This
> > behooves us to stay nice so people will in fact like us. Do well by
> > doing good.

> King Kong and Mighty Joe Young were really very gentle until they had to
> start interacting with humans.


See, interacting with humans is an area we're still finding our way on ...


- d .

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

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?



On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@gmail.com>wrote:

> David Gerard ha scritto:
> > FWIW, the National Portrait Gallery hasn't bugged Wikimedia about
> > images of pictures they own (which they claim copyright on, and which
> > we have marked "public domain due to age") since Jimbo told them to
> > sue and be damned, a few years ago. It can be *very useful* to be the
> > 800-pound gorilla of free content.
> >
> >
> Interesting. In Italy we managed to go on the press when the Museums of
> Florence forced us to take down all the images of works owned by them.
> As a result a law introducing some kind of fair use has been passed by
> the Parliament, and now it may be possible to publish one's own
> photographs of PD work of arts owned by State museums with a
> noncommercial licence (if they're owned by private museums they're
> completely PD). Of course we are in the situation where we cannot put on
> the Italian Wikipedia images that are on commons; this is very far from
> Bridgeman vs Corel...
>
> Cruccone
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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