English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Robert Rohde
Short version:

A few countries currently do not participate in international
copyright treaties.  Most such countries have domestic copyright laws;
however, many works originating in these countries are considered to
be in the public domain in the United States due to the lack of a
treaty relationship.  In 2005, Jimbo declared that we would
nonetheless respect the copyright laws of non-treaty countries as best
we can [1].  Since mid-January, English Wikipedia has been having a
well-advertised, but poorly-attended discussion that contemplates
overturning this Jimbo-created rule.

The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin"
(as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be
declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to
be freely used.  The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in
favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for
implementation on this basis [3].

Though all participants agree there no US copyright protection for
works originating in non-treaty nations, this proposal raises a number
of ethical and logistical problems.


Longer version:

As September 2010, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San
Marino and Turkmenistan have no copyright relations with the US. [4]
All works published in these countries by nationals of these countries
are considered to be in the public domain in the US unless they were
also published in a country that has US copyright relations within 30
days of their original appearance.

This means many modern and historical works originating in these
countries may currently be used freely in the US.

Nonetheless, most of these countries have domestic copyright laws
protecting the intellectual property rights of their nationals.

The law here is not in dispute, the question is how Wikipedia should
respond to these works.  Under Jimbo-created policy originating in
2005, we treat works from these countries as if they the countries DID
have copyright relations with the US, even though they do not.  This
means excluding many works from Wikipedia that we would be legally
entitled to.

Personally, I agree with Jimbo that respecting the intellectual
property rights of authors in non-treaty states is ethically the right
thing to do.  Simply appropriating all content published in Iran,
Iraq, etc., as free is disrespectful to the authors involved.  This is
especially true since individual authors in these countries generally
have no influence over whether their government chooses to participate
in international copyright agreements.

Allowing such images to be used on Wikipedia would also create a
number of foreseeable problems for us and for reusers.  Firstly, works
in the public domain due to non-treaty status can be restored to
copyright if the nation at issue chooses to join the relevant
treaties.  At the stroke of a pen, these nations could ensure their
works were no longer usable.  Such a change could create significant
additional work for Wikipedians and numerous hassles for any reusers
that chose to rely on such images.  It is unclear how likely these
countries are to seek treaty status in the future.  However,
membership in international copyright treaties is generally seen as a
prerequisite for full member status in the World Trade Organization.
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Ethopia all have been applying for full
member status in the WTO (the process takes years, and Iran began the
application in 1996).  The desire to join the WTO would appear to make
it significantly more likely that these countries will join
international copyright treaties in the foreseeable future.

Personally, I think Wikipedia ought to focus on truly free content
rather than "public domain" content with a significant chance of being
revoked in the future.

There are also practical problems with determining that a work
originates in a non-treaty state, that the authors are all nationals
of that country, and that the work was not also published in a treaty
state.  (Some US courts have suggested that placing a work on the
internet actually counts as publishing in all countries were it is
available, which would imply that internet works would be frequently
covered by treaty obligations.)


Anyway, I think a change of this magnitude needs a more thorough
vetting by the community.  A "consensus" of 9-3 shouldn't really be
sufficient to change how Wikipedia deals with content from non-treaty
states.  Though this discussion has been presented to RFC and has been
open for quite a while, I suspect that the way the issue was framed
made it hard for most people to participate.

I'm raising the issue here, because I know many people on foundation-l
care about issues surrounding copyright and reuse, and a change like
this could set a precedent for what we ultimately do on the other
projects.

-Robert Rohde


[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Usage_Option_1_Support
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_respect_to_the_copyright_of_countries_with_which_the_US_does_not_have_copyright_relations.3F
[4] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Nathan Awrich
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
question for me - do I want to participate in the political
disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They
have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no
control over whether their government chooses to sign international
treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate
situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no
rights in their own work.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38:
> Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
> question for me - do I want to participate in the political
> disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They
> have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no
> control over whether their government chooses to sign international
> treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate
> situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no
> rights in their own work.

Could you please define "take advantage"? Or, how such taking advantage
could harm them (it's not clear to me). I thought it was more a way to
"keep Wikipedia legal" also in such countries, to facilitate
participation from there.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Nathan Awrich
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38:
>
>  Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
>> question for me - do I want to participate in the political
>> disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They
>> have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no
>> control over whether their government chooses to sign international
>> treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate
>> situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no
>> rights in their own work.
>>
>
> Could you please define "take advantage"? Or, how such taking advantage
> could harm them (it's not clear to me). I thought it was more a way to
> "keep Wikipedia legal" also in such countries, to facilitate participation
> from there.
>
> Nemo


I'm not sure how to explain that more clearly without describing concepts
you are undoubtedly already familiar with, so bear with me for a moment.
Copyright provides authors with a right of ownership and control over their
work for a generally fixed period; the idea is to give them exclusivity for
their own benefit for that period, after which the public has more or less
unlimited rights to their work. We can agree that the domestic and
international copyright regime is grounded in principles that are economic,
legal and moral. There are a small number of nations that refuse to join
this regime, and they share some traits - they are often failed states, or
states with limited or no meaningful rights of citizen political
participation. As a result, while Iranian artists may desire to benefit
from their work internationally, they may not be able to - and they have no
real recourse in their political system.

In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a country
where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor
treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors
were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they
would have full rights to control and benefit from their work
internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which
they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to
afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually
everyone else in the world?

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Marcin Cieslak-3
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
> The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin"
> (as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be
> declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to
> be freely used.  The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in
> favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for
> implementation on this basis [3].

If U.S. law (or rather lack thereof) is to prevail because the projects
are hosted in the U.S. I have two questions:

1) How would re-use of Wikipedia content look like to users
in the respective countries? Wouldn't they be limited in
re-using some content if it was obtained from sources under
some kind of protection in their countries, but considered
public domain in the U.S.?

2) What about projects like Farsi Wikipedia, where we can
assume significant amount of editors comes from Iran
- are they legally able to license that content to
the rest of the world?

//Marcin


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Nathan Awrich
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Marcin Cieslak <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin"
> > (as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be
> > declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to
> > be freely used.  The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in
> > favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for
> > implementation on this basis [3].
>
> If U.S. law (or rather lack thereof) is to prevail because the projects
> are hosted in the U.S. I have two questions:
>
> 1) How would re-use of Wikipedia content look like to users
> in the respective countries? Wouldn't they be limited in
> re-using some content if it was obtained from sources under
> some kind of protection in their countries, but considered
> public domain in the U.S.?
>
> 2) What about projects like Farsi Wikipedia, where we can
> assume significant amount of editors comes from Iran
> - are they legally able to license that content to
> the rest of the world?
>
> //Marcin
>
>
You raise a more general issue that has always been a problem for some
reusers. In various disclaimers, the projects make it clear that downstream
reuse is at the risk of the reuser, and that compliance with legal
requirements (U.S. or otherwise) isn't guaranteed. We mitigate this risk by
having a more-strict-than-the-law-requires approach to the fair use
doctrine (which is not universal outside the U.S.), and we also advise
editors that actions they take which are legal in the U.S. may not be legal
in their home jurisdiction.

What sets this apart is that we are actively taking advantage of political
disarray in some nations to withhold rights that creators would otherwise
almost universally enjoy. While U.S. law allows us to do that, it doesn't
require us to, and I believe we should choose not to.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27:
> In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a country
> where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor
> treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors
> were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they
> would have full rights to control and benefit from their work
> internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which
> they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to
> afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually
> everyone else in the world?

I can understand this reasoning from a "moral" perspective, but from a
practical point of view (or is it just economical?) I doubt this makes
much sense. As they already don't have any way to claim their rights
outside their country, by redistributing their works without
compensation we're not making them lose anything, unless we "compete"
also with distribution and ruin their market in their home country.
Moreover, given the embargo in Iran, does someone know if a publisher
would even be /allowed/ to give them a compensation?
And speaking of embargo, let me express some more concerns (might be
wild speculations): I consider it a very controversial political action,
I don't know if it's considered obvious and uncontroversial in the USA.
I think we shouldn't do anything to reinforce (nor evade) the embargo,
because it would be a political choice (or an illegal one, but that's
out of question) – we shouldn't discuss it on this list either, I hope
this is not going to open an off-topic flame –. If neither agreed nor
non-agreed publishing is possible, wouldn't "respecting" the country's
original copyright just be a way to worsen the situation of those
authors, from a practical point of view?
Also, I think this situation might have some precedent in some early
20th or 19th century copyright regulations clashes across European
countries, which made life very hard for some authors. (This is a very
vague thought: Emilio Salgari disappointed with English translations of
his works?)

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Nathan Awrich
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27:
>
>  In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a
>> country
>> where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor
>> treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors
>> were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they
>> would have full rights to control and benefit from their work
>> internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which
>> they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to
>> afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually
>> everyone else in the world?
>>
>
> I can understand this reasoning from a "moral" perspective, but from a
> practical point of view (or is it just economical?) I doubt this makes much
> sense. As they already don't have any way to claim their rights outside
> their country, by redistributing their works without compensation we're not
> making them lose anything, unless we "compete" also with distribution and
> ruin their market in their home country.
> Moreover, given the embargo in Iran, does someone know if a publisher
> would even be /allowed/ to give them a compensation?
> And speaking of embargo, let me express some more concerns (might be wild
> speculations): I consider it a very controversial political action, I don't
> know if it's considered obvious and uncontroversial in the USA. I think we
> shouldn't do anything to reinforce (nor evade) the embargo, because it
> would be a political choice (or an illegal one, but that's out of question)
> – we shouldn't discuss it on this list either, I hope this is not going to
> open an off-topic flame –. If neither agreed nor non-agreed publishing is
> possible, wouldn't "respecting" the country's original copyright just be a
> way to worsen the situation of those authors, from a practical point of
> view?
> Also, I think this situation might have some precedent in some early 20th
> or 19th century copyright regulations clashes across European countries,
> which made life very hard for some authors. (This is a very vague thought:
> Emilio Salgari disappointed with English translations of his works?)
>
>
> Nemo
>
>
Don't forget - while I used Iran as an example, it isn't the only country
affected.

~Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Nathan, 23/02/2012 01:33:
> Don't forget - while I used Iran as an example, it isn't the only country
> affected.

Of course, but Iran is the case which worries more, I think; and the
first paragraph of my set of questions still applies. ;-)

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ..
>
> As September 2010, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San
> Marino and Turkmenistan have no copyright relations with the US. [4]
> All works published in these countries by nationals of these countries
> are considered to be in the public domain in the US unless they were
> also published in a country that has US copyright relations within 30
> days of their original appearance.

On English Wikisource, we consider these to be public domain.
We tag them that as public domain and explain why.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Ethiopia
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iran
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iraq

Afghanistan is different.  They dont have any laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_and_copyright_issues

Commons also treats their works as public domain.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Afghanistan

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Robert Rohde
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:52 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On English Wikisource, we consider these to be public domain.
> We tag them that as public domain and explain why.
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Ethiopia
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iran
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:PD-Iraq

I didn't know Wikisource did this.  This would seem to imply that
Wikisource is willing to import virtually any text at all from these
countries, which seems like an ethically bad idea to me, for much the
same reason that importing all possible images on Wikipedia seems like
a bad idea.

However, setting aside the ethical issues for the moment, it is
important to note that these templates are frankly very incomplete,
which makes their conclusions potentially erroneous.

Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention),
establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of
treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those
templates only address the most obvious one.  These requirements are:

1) The work was first published in a country that has no copyright
relations with the US.
2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that
does have copyright relations with the US.
3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work
was never also published in any other state that does have copyright
relations with the US.

Currently, those templates only mention the first point.  However, the
Berne Convention extends copyright protection to all citizens of the
treaty states regardless of where they publish (point #2), so it is
also important to consider the nationality of the authors involved.

The third point is actually the most difficult in practice, since it
requires proving a negative.  The Berne Convention and US Copyright
Law consider any publications occurring during the first thirty days
to be effectively simultaneous, and authors will enjoy full protection
under the treaty if their work was published in any country where the
copyright treaty would apply.  It is often very difficult to determine
with certainty that a work was never published internationally during
that first 30 day window.  This is especially true as technology has
made it easier for works to be widely distributed across international
borders.  In Kernal Records OY v. Moseley (US District Court, 2011),
the court held that putting a sound file online for download amounted
to simultaneous publication in all countries where the internet was
available.  Following that logic, no work first published on the
internet could be considered as public domain due to non-treaty
status.  However, the US case law also contains a largely
contradictory ruling in Moberg v. Leygues (US District Court, 2009),
involving images appearing on a German website.  So the issue of
determining national origin in the internet age would seem to be
somewhat unsettled in the US.

However, the one thing that is clear though is that any claim to
public domain status due to the lack of copyright relations needs to
address all three factors raised above.  John, can you raise these
concerns at Wikisource?

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Michael Snow-5
On 2/23/2012 9:37 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:

> Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention),
> establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of
> treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those
> templates only address the most obvious one.  These requirements are:
>
> 1) The work was first published in a country that has no copyright
> relations with the US.
> 2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that
> does have copyright relations with the US.
> 3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work
> was never also published in any other state that does have copyright
> relations with the US.
Regarding the second point, the coverage is actually even broader than
citizenship, it includes residency. So if one of the authors is an
Iranian exile living in Turkey, the work may be subject to copyright
protection in the US even if it was published only in Iran.

I think it's interesting to note that although the approach under
discussion may seem like a mechanical application of law and entirely
neutral on its face, the scenario I've indicated suggests that its
structural effects could be far from neutral, with significant political
consequences. Basically, it means that when a country that does not
participate in international copyright agreements, to the extent that it
may be a repressive and often censorious regime whose opponents are
commonly forced into expatriate life, we could be indiscriminately
republishing works acceptable to the regime while taking a much more
restrictive approach to works from a dissident perspective.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:00:50 -0800, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> Short version:
>
...
> I'm raising the issue here, because I know many people on foundation-l
> care about issues surrounding copyright and reuse, and a change like
> this could set a precedent for what we ultimately do on the other
> projects.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
>
> [1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html
> [2]
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Usage_Option_1_Support
> [3]
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_respect_to_the_copyright_of_countries_with_which_the_US_does_not_have_copyright_relations.3F
> [4] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
>

Is anybody aware of the situation on Commons with these countries? Should
I alert Commons on this discussion?

An obvious argument against treating works from these countries as PD
would be that soon or later the countries will sign the treaties and the
works would have to be removed from WM projects. At the same time, having
them temporarily as PD would obscure usual work on getting free media such
as stimulating taking photos of free buildings, contacting authors for
permissions etc.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-5
I have updated

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Afghanistan

in an attempt to be compliant with US law and started a discussion
about this at:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#PD-Afghanistan


The prior template, and the way it appeared to be used in some cases,
seemed to suggest that any image taken inside Afghanistan was PD.
This is of course not the case.  Hopefully my updates at least address
the minimum legal issues.

I'm not at all convinced that having PD-Afghanistan (or any comparable
PD templates on other projects) is a good thing, but at the very least
such templates need to be consistent with Berne / US laws regarding
the treatment of content from non-treaty states.  In my opinion, the
larger ethical issues still deserve further consideration though.

-Robert Rohde

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/23/2012 9:37 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>>
>> Under US copyright law (and more generally the Berne Convention),
>> establishing that a work is in the public domain due to a lack of
>> treaty status requires meeting several requirements, and those
>> templates only address the most obvious one.  These requirements are:
>>
>> 1) The work was first published in a country that has no copyright
>> relations with the US.
>> 2) None of the authors of the work are citizens of any country that
>> does have copyright relations with the US.
>> 3) Within thirty days of publication in the non-treaty state, the work
>> was never also published in any other state that does have copyright
>> relations with the US.
>
> Regarding the second point, the coverage is actually even broader than
> citizenship, it includes residency. So if one of the authors is an Iranian
> exile living in Turkey, the work may be subject to copyright protection in
> the US even if it was published only in Iran.
>
> I think it's interesting to note that although the approach under discussion
> may seem like a mechanical application of law and entirely neutral on its
> face, the scenario I've indicated suggests that its structural effects could
> be far from neutral, with significant political consequences. Basically, it
> means that when a country that does not participate in international
> copyright agreements, to the extent that it may be a repressive and often
> censorious regime whose opponents are commonly forced into expatriate life,
> we could be indiscriminately republishing works acceptable to the regime
> while taking a much more restrictive approach to works from a dissident
> perspective.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Is anybody aware of the situation on Commons with these countries? Should
> I alert Commons on this discussion?
<snip>

Commons requires that all images be free of copyright in both the US
and their country of origin.  Since most of the non-treaty countries
do have domestic copyright laws, the restrictions originating from
such laws continue to be enforced on Commons.

The notable exception is Afghanistan which apparently has no domestic
copyright laws at all.

The case of PD-Afghanistan on Commons is mentioned in prior emails on
this thread.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty
regime?

Newyorkbrad



On 2/23/12, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Is anybody aware of the situation on Commons with these countries? Should
>> I alert Commons on this discussion?
> <snip>
>
> Commons requires that all images be free of copyright in both the US
> and their country of origin.  Since most of the non-treaty countries
> do have domestic copyright laws, the restrictions originating from
> such laws continue to be enforced on Commons.
>
> The notable exception is Afghanistan which apparently has no domestic
> copyright laws at all.
>
> The case of PD-Afghanistan on Commons is mentioned in prior emails on
> this thread.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Nathan Awrich
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Newyorkbrad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
> one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
> deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
> than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty
> regime?
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
>
>
Based on the discussion, I don't think we could assume anything that
reasonable would happen in such a case.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

???
In reply to this post by Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
On 23/02/2012 19:14, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
> one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
> deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
> than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty
> regime?
>

Any one want to explain what the implications of this are in respect to
any Iranian work that is published on the internet?

http://www.copyhype.com/2011/09/does-posting-on-the-internet-trigger-us-copyright-registration-requirement/

In particular, just how much copyright would the work be invested in?
Just how wilful would a decision to treat such works as PD be? And would
the liabilities be in the Tennenbaum region?


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Newyorkbrad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
> one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
> deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
> than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty
> regime?

One of the most vocal commenters at w:Talk:Copyrights, would almost
certainly say no.

For example:

"... [T]hey have the opportunity to obtain copyrights elsewhere and
chose not to do so. That is their responsibility."

"The rights of copyright for the individuals end at the border of Iran, period."

At least some of the Wikipedia commenters seem prepared to draw a hard
line on this issue with no exceptions.

Personally, I'd like to believe that we as a community are more
reasonable than that.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations

Russavia
In reply to this post by ???
Dunno about the implications for Iranian works, but I will say that
these photographers:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_photographers_from_Iran

would be none to happy to find their works being uploaded to English
Wikipedia as being in the public domain.

Russavia....


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:41 AM, ??? <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23/02/2012 19:14, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>>
>> Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
>> one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
>> deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
>> than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty
>> regime?
>>
>
> Any one want to explain what the implications of this are in respect to any
> Iranian work that is published on the internet?
>
> http://www.copyhype.com/2011/09/does-posting-on-the-internet-trigger-us-copyright-registration-requirement/
>
> In particular, just how much copyright would the work be invested in? Just
> how wilful would a decision to treat such works as PD be? And would the
> liabilities be in the Tennenbaum region?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12