Tom - nobody has commented on this one way or another. You should
probably go ahead in your own name.
Quoting Tom Morris <t...@tommorris.org>:
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
--
Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK. 07976 935 986
tweet @jonatreesdavies
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent
non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor
responsibility for its contents.
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
