English Corner
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Want Ads - Grateful Dead Archivist | ||||
| ||||
KlausGraf - am Freitag, 13. November 2009, 21:16 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
KlausGraf - am Freitag, 13. November 2009, 19:11 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
KlausGraf - am Freitag, 13. November 2009, 17:33 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
Quoted by Peter Hirtle at
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/11/gbs-a-legislative-solution.html
The opt-out method has worked well for web sites, and it would work well for books. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs in the Google case think otherwise.
A colleague has pointed out to me that Ken Auletta has an interesting quote on this in his new book, Googled (which I haven't read yet). He reportedly says:
"If [Google] had had a copyright lawyer among their founders, they never would have started the company. The basic business of a search engine is to copy everything. To make your copy, and then search it. The first thing that happens, arguably, is infringement of copyright law. I say 'arguably' because there's never been a case on it. From day one, Google went out and copied the whole Internet. Can you imagine a company starting in the film world and the first thing they did was make a copy of every film in existence? That company couldn't have gotten started. The Web is always about copying, but copyright law is about making copying illegal." (127)
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/11/gbs-a-legislative-solution.html
The opt-out method has worked well for web sites, and it would work well for books. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs in the Google case think otherwise.
A colleague has pointed out to me that Ken Auletta has an interesting quote on this in his new book, Googled (which I haven't read yet). He reportedly says:
"If [Google] had had a copyright lawyer among their founders, they never would have started the company. The basic business of a search engine is to copy everything. To make your copy, and then search it. The first thing that happens, arguably, is infringement of copyright law. I say 'arguably' because there's never been a case on it. From day one, Google went out and copied the whole Internet. Can you imagine a company starting in the film world and the first thing they did was make a copy of every film in existence? That company couldn't have gotten started. The Web is always about copying, but copyright law is about making copying illegal." (127)
KlausGraf - am Montag, 9. November 2009, 22:13 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
KlausGraf - am Sonntag, 8. November 2009, 16:57 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
KlausGraf - am Samstag, 7. November 2009, 17:59 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
KlausGraf - am Freitag, 6. November 2009, 23:21 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
http://www.mastatelibrary.blogspot.com/
At a press conference on Thursday, October 29, the Governor's Office announced that Governor Patrick is considering closing the State Library of Massachusetts as a cost-saving measure. This closure will have a monumental impact on the cultural heritage of the Commonwealth.
At a press conference on Thursday, October 29, the Governor's Office announced that Governor Patrick is considering closing the State Library of Massachusetts as a cost-saving measure. This closure will have a monumental impact on the cultural heritage of the Commonwealth.
KlausGraf - am Donnerstag, 5. November 2009, 03:13 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
From: Caroline Ford
Date: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Subject: [ORG-discuss] "no copyright restrictions" - LSE Library & flickr
To: Open Rights Group open discussion list
I apologise if this belongs on the "abolish all copyright!!" list but
I don't subscribe.
With some fanfare the LSE library have added some images from their
collection to flickr commons. As per the rules of flickr commons these
are listed as "no copyright restrictions". If you click on the LSE's
interpretation of "no copyright restrictions" they link to a very
non-free, personal, non-commercial licence.
Flickr's understanding of no copyright restrictions:
http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/
BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING
INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT
PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO
USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE
COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF
APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE.
The LSE Library's understanding of no copyright restrictions:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/flickr_rights_statement.aspx
"The images published on our Flickr Commons photostream are all marked
as having ‘no known copyright restrictions’ attached to them. This
means that we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions for
displaying this selection of photographs from our collection within
the Flickr website, either because LSE owns the copyright, or the term
of copyright has expired, or because no evidence has been found that
copyright restrictions apply.
The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal,
educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital
copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction
of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's
Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to
charge licensing fees for commercial use. "
I've complained here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3274389894/
The LSE replied:
Just to clarify on the copyright point. Copyright in ‘No known
copyright restrictions’ refers to the rights of the photographer. In
the case of all the images we have put on Flickr as far as we have
been able to establish copyright has either expired or belongs to LSE.
Licensing is different, this applies to permission to reproduce
images. We have placed these images under a ‘non-commercial licence’
which means that they can be used freely for personal and academic
use. Charges only apply if someone wanted to use the images for
commercial publications when we would have to supply higher resolution
images. This is standard practice for commercial publications. Flickr
Commons has a code of practice dictating what can be displayed on the
site and LSE adheres to this in all respects.
Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?
Caroline
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/
Clearly, LSE Library is wrong. "No known copyright restrictions" is the same like licensing.
Date: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Subject: [ORG-discuss] "no copyright restrictions" - LSE Library & flickr
To: Open Rights Group open discussion list
I apologise if this belongs on the "abolish all copyright!!" list but
I don't subscribe.
With some fanfare the LSE library have added some images from their
collection to flickr commons. As per the rules of flickr commons these
are listed as "no copyright restrictions". If you click on the LSE's
interpretation of "no copyright restrictions" they link to a very
non-free, personal, non-commercial licence.
Flickr's understanding of no copyright restrictions:
http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/
BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING
INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT
PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO
USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE
COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF
APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE.
The LSE Library's understanding of no copyright restrictions:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/flickr_rights_statement.aspx
"The images published on our Flickr Commons photostream are all marked
as having ‘no known copyright restrictions’ attached to them. This
means that we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions for
displaying this selection of photographs from our collection within
the Flickr website, either because LSE owns the copyright, or the term
of copyright has expired, or because no evidence has been found that
copyright restrictions apply.
The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal,
educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital
copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction
of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's
Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to
charge licensing fees for commercial use. "
I've complained here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3274389894/
The LSE replied:
Just to clarify on the copyright point. Copyright in ‘No known
copyright restrictions’ refers to the rights of the photographer. In
the case of all the images we have put on Flickr as far as we have
been able to establish copyright has either expired or belongs to LSE.
Licensing is different, this applies to permission to reproduce
images. We have placed these images under a ‘non-commercial licence’
which means that they can be used freely for personal and academic
use. Charges only apply if someone wanted to use the images for
commercial publications when we would have to supply higher resolution
images. This is standard practice for commercial publications. Flickr
Commons has a code of practice dictating what can be displayed on the
site and LSE adheres to this in all respects.
Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?
Caroline
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/
Clearly, LSE Library is wrong. "No known copyright restrictions" is the same like licensing.
KlausGraf - am Donnerstag, 5. November 2009, 01:30 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
KlausGraf - am Sonntag, 1. November 2009, 19:29 - Rubrik: English Corner
noch kein Kommentar - Kommentar verfassen
