I may have an unpopular view here, but when an author has been murdered, especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well still be alive today, and presumably her work would still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright on faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for freedom of panorama in countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK. I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms." Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an example of us taking copyright seriously. But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her relatives? Regards Jonathan/WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
