Sounds good, go ahead? On 19 March 2012 12:50, Tom Morris <t...@tommorris.org> wrote: > Today, I briefly flicked through the Intellectual Property Office > consultation. > > http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright > > I didn't know it was running until today. > > I'm thinking of sending in a few answers to a few of the questions > asked, but I'm wondering if there is any interested in rapidly > producing a WMUK response. The closing date is tomorrow, so if there > is any interest, we'd need to act super fast. > > I'd suggest broadly the issues that are probably of direct interest to > Wikimedia are as follows: > > 1. On orphan works, making the case for much older orphan works to go > out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed > commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial reusers like > broadcasters or newspapers: it just means they have to do some due > diligence and they can then use orphan works, safe in the knowledge > that if the owner actually does turn up, they can pay market rate for > it. > > 2. Also on orphan works, pointing out that "non-commercial" exceptions > aren't actually that useful, as the moral intuition they are trying to > tap into doesn't actually fall along the non-commercial vs. commercial > line but along the acting for the common good vs. private profiteering > line, and there are commercial uses that are for the common good (for > instance, the Internet Archive might send out a book van charging 50p > a copy for on-demand printed books. Commercial use, it could > potentially turn a profit, although hardly one that's going to make > Brewster Kahle into Bill Gates.) > > 3. On extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we > should probably make clear what position, say, photographers or > musicians who produce CC works for use in Wikimedia projects are in. > And how Wikimedia works would fit in with a collective licensing > situation: if someone were to take a photo of mine from Commons that's > under CC BY SA, and uses it outside of the terms of the license, > should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing > arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of CC > BY SA and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under > the terms of the license. > > 4. On the exceptions to copyright, it seems there's a pretty > uncontroversial Wikimedian take on most of them. Specifically of > interest I'd say would be the "Use of works for quotation and > reporting current events", which is something that Wikinewsies (and > people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find > useful. And I'd say the public administration thing we should probably > support too: it seems reasonable to think that Wikimedia might want to > host rights-cleared work from the UK government that are under > discussion in there. > > Any thoughts on responding? > > -- > Tom Morris > <http://tommorris.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
