User talk:Master grand
Specifically, files should be uploaded when they are necessary for the pages of the wiki. Otherwise, the wiki should not be used as a file repository, to host files, or to share content. On page Publish you can find details of several sites that do host content of different types for the purpose of sharing it, and allow you to easily license your content with a CC license as well. -- Hamilton Abreu 02:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "create a wiki project here", so please share your plans with someone before investing time on it. -- Hamilton Abreu 19:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, the first file was out of scope and was deleted. The files uploaded today are out of scope and I will have to delete them. Please don't upload any more files that are not used in CC wiki. The wiki is for documenting the Creative Commons licenses and their use, only. I don't know how to make this any clearer. If still in doubt, please read Is Creative Commons building a database of licensed content?. -- Hamilton Abreu 04:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The page ART OF THE BEATLES IN THE GLOBAL LIBRARY is fine. It is an entry listed in Content_Directories, just like all of these. Its purpose is to let people know that they can find CC licensed content on site http://beatles1.ru/. And ALL CONTENT should be in that site, not here in the wiki. So please put the files on the site. -- Hamilton Abreu 04:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I will take care of it, don't worry. -- Hamilton Abreu 04:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Okey, i understand. They are already there. For attribution of the works of art. For example: http://beatles1.ru/with_the_beatles_album_1963/
Well, I'm not sure about what you're trying to do. Are you trying to do the attribution for the Beatles albums? -- Hamilton Abreu 12:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. Using what kind of license? The site claims that "The collection is created in strict accordance with the doctrine of "fair use" under the U.S. copyright law.". So, the Beatle's works are not being used under any license whatsoever and certainly not under a license that requires attribution.
But that is probably irrelevant, because what the site does is probably not "fair use" in the first place. Besides, I very much doubt that a site probably hosted in Russia, can appeal to a law from the US, in order to use a work probably published in Britain. -- Hamilton Abreu 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if any of that was legal it probably wouldn't need "2 ways for insurance". You keep referring to fair use as licensing: it is not. "Fair use" under the U.S. copyright law, is only valid under U.S. law, not in Russia or elsewhere. And as far as I can see, the site does not make "fair use" of anything. It's just pirating. The site's author should read up on copyright at Commons:Licensing very carefully, including the section on copyright law in Great Britain. -- Hamilton Abreu 03:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The Creative Commons licences can only be used by the holders of copyright over the licenced works, and no one else. The Beatles heritage belongs to whoever holds the copyright over the Beatles works, until either the copyright expires or the copyright holder releases the works on different terms. Until then, everyone wishing to enjoy the copyrighted works should acquire them. Nothing else would be fair, if it goes against the coyright holder's wishes. Of course I like the Beatles. -- Hamilton Abreu 05:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're a lawyer by training then I have to assume you know what you're doing. -- Hamilton Abreu 09:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to alert you to possible issues that I see in the site and in what you were doing. But I haven't looked in detail at the site, or at what works you're attributing and where they come from, and so on. Since you're a lawyer, I will stop trying to alert you to those issues. -- Hamilton Abreu 10:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about the "pirating" thing. To be precise, instead of "It's just pirating" I should have said "It's just infringement of copyright". By the way, can you please send me links to the things at YouTube and Viemo, that you are referring to? -- Hamilton Abreu 20:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's see is we agree on this. To evaluate the legal use of an artwork, you must be able to follow the track of legal attributions until you reach, in the end, a licenced original version of the artwork, WHOSE LICENCE WAS ISSUED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. At all steps in the attribution track, the next step in the track MUST RESPECT its licence terms AND the copyright legislation of the countries involved.
If, for each artwork, you are able to demonstrate the attribution track as described above, then that use of the artwork is legal. Otherwise, it's and infringement of copyright.
As a user of the artwork, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that you do have a complete attribution track. In other words, if I upload to the wiki a song of the Beatles, and licence it CC-BY-SA 3.0, and swear by my mother's grave that I am entitled to licence songs of the Beatles, you still cannot use it, because you'll be infringing copyright.
This is why I asked for links to the YouTube and Vimeo licences you keep referring to. Can you provide me links to those? I'd like to evaluate what you're saying. -- Hamilton Abreu 02:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Master, a couple of comments. First, I do not represent CC, nor do my opinions reflect those of CC, nor do I work for CC, nor do I have any other relation to CC whatever, beyond simply volunteering to help to administer CC wiki. The opinion I expressed is my own, only, as a web user looking at these issues. Let's make sure that this is absolutely clear.
Second, please don't create new forms. In CC Wiki, there is already an existing standard and structure for listing repositories of CC licenced content. You must follow that standard. It's the format used to create entries that are displayed in Content Directories. So, it must be followed for all new entries pointing to CC licenced content anywhere. No deviations.
But, in this case, there already exists an entry in Content Directories for Flickr. And there exists another for ART OF THE BEATLES IN THE GLOBAL LIBRARY. So obviously there is no need to create further links. The stuff you've put in THE BEATLES IMAGES ON FLICKR would perhaps better go on your site, I don't know. But we don't need further links and references in CC Wiki to existing links and references in CC Wiki.
Ok? So, please understand that I will now be forced to delete:
THE BEATLES IMAGES ON FLICKR
- Category:The Beatles Art For Free Use
File:Flickr.PNG File:THE BEATLES IN GOLD.JPG Form:FREE Form:PAGE FOR ONE Template:LIST
and that's not helpful. Please don't create here further content about the Beatles. -- Hamilton Abreu 12:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Hamilton Abreu 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "authoritative source". YouTube and Vimeo are not authoritative sources for anything, because any user can upload any file and licence the file without any verification whatsoever. So, if you find anything on either of the two sites with a licence, you CANNOT use it legally unless you verify the attribution track step by step, until you reach the original publisher of the work.
For example, I can record a Beatles video from TV, upload it to YouTube, and give it the CC-BY-SA licence. Yet, I will be in breach of copyright because I do not own the copyright of the vídeo (there may be more copyrights involved). If you find the video that I uploaded, and use it, based on the fact that you found it with a CC-BY-SA licence, YOU will also be in breach of copyright. This is why many videos are no longer available in YouTube: once the copyright owner complains, they are removed by YouTube and become unavailable.
I know that, in Wikimedia Commons, the licences and breaches of copyright are checked by many users, but still, when reusing something you must follow the attribution track and ensure that the last in the chain is the copyright owner.
I would suggest you change the phrasing to:
Category dedicated to CC licensed resources about the Beatles, listed under Content Directories.
Hamilton Abreu 22:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding international norms for copyright, you should really sit down and read carefully the link I gave you the other day: Commons:Licensing. The link states the Wikimedia Commons policy for licencing. But it contains much more, and very useful, information. For example, the international norm for copyright is the Berne Convention, that almost all countries in the world are signatories. Read the section "International law". But for a person to place a file on a server and make it available to others, you must consider the copyright laws of: the country where the server resides, the country where the person placing the file resides, and the country where the work was published. Read the section "Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law" -- Hamilton Abreu 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, regarding the interests of others as negligible, is not a valid justification. A breach of copyright is a breach of copyright, independently of who the copyright belongs to and of what the copyrighted work is or represents. -- Hamilton Abreu 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In Europe, Article 5, point 1 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council specifically allows caching as an exception to copyright. This is covered in Commons:Licensing#International law. But I believe that you'd have to review the Copyright Law of the countries involved (i.e. the country where the server is located, the country of whoever puts the file on the site, and the country of origin of the contents that are being cached). -- Hamilton Abreu 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
A copyright deposit print is a legal deposit of a copy of a copyrighted work (usually books). In some countries, the Copyright Law requires that a copy be sent to the National Library of the country. This does in no way affect copyright, it's a simple requirement so that the National Library of the country has a copy of every book published. It exists, for example, in the US. You can read more about it in Legal deposit. -- Hamilton Abreu 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The copyright terms are defined in http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html under section "About Copyright and the Collections".
Fair use does not allow a distribution of the entire work just because the distributor thinks the distribution is fair. You need to read carefully Fair use, especially the section "Common misunderstandings". In general, fair use means that you are allowed under US law to copy a small part, an excerpt, a sample, of the entire work. When copying an entire work, e.g. a picture, the copy must generally be of very low resolution. Anything beyond this is generally pushing it.
Let me give you an example: the english wikipedia allows fair use. You can place content in it, under the US fair use legislation. You can read their policy here. Now, if science and culture are two elements of your site, they certainly are two elements of wikipedia. If you place the contents of your site on the english wikipedia, under a fair use justification, will it be allowed? Hamilton Abreu 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Authors have the right of financial gain from their original creations. And so they should. And that right is rightly protected. Otherwise, creativity would always be dependent on benefactors, and bodies of work such as that of the Beatles might not even exist. Hamilton Abreu 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The only comment I have is that the DMCA is a U.S. law, applicable to locations under United States jurisdiction. An .ru URL is probably on a server located in Russia and under Russian jurisdiction. Wouldn't the applicable law be Russia's implementation of the corresponding WIPO treaties, if one exists? Hamilton Abreu 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)