Remember the fiasco with the monkey selfie? It's still on-going.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/13/1723 ... iss-denied
Monkey Selfie Lawsuit Continues
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Re: Monkey Selfie Lawsuit Continues
The monkey lawsuit shows us the system error of the CC mouvement. Now I start to talk about Europe situation, but this is where it went wrong.
A CC licence is a dream island. It's like we founded the ignore red traffic lights mouvement, it has not any legal bases. It is not approved by any government, or international convention, it doesn't give any protection, it doesn't replace copyright. There is in a legal way no difference between a advice to everyone in the world to ignore red traffic lights, and a CC licence.
What I understand till now, despite all the huge conferences and the free source mouvement is a CC licence only safe if someone who's identity is known give the licence for his one work. Otherwise the re-user is not protected and will be responsible, because copyright does't disappear. Something what is protected by for instance copyright in Holland will always remain that copyright, copyright doesn't disappear.
In Holland something is only free for re-use if something is public domain, or if the owner of the rights of the content gives his permision. So, the permision has to be given bij the owner of the content, and not by the brave Wikipedians. And if there is no permision of the owner, something is not free. We don't have fair use in Holland, and our citaatrecht is extreem limited and usable for re-use in almost every cases. And America copyright protection stopes at the borders of America.
It's wrong in the base people without any legal knowledge start to to declare what is free content or not. And they declare the content not only free in America, but also in the rest of the world. This is very, very wrong, because I have explained many times something can be copyright in one country, and in a other country not. Even in the different European country's, because every country has it's one copyright law. As long there is not one copyright for all the world, the CC construction most times has not any legal base. Doesn't matter how amazing the idea is.
So, for instance the "education program" of Wikimedia-NL where they ask students to translate articles from other wiki's what are not checked if the articles don't contain copyright under the Dutch copyright law is complete irresponsible. Because it brings and the student at risk, and the re-user.
And beside this, it has nothing to do with education, but everything with the laziness of the Dutch Wikipedians who don't write there one articles. And IF Wikimedia-NL thinks this posting is a good reason to go to court for slander, be my guest. Neither the student nor the re-user is protected for copyright claims is what I am here claiming, what is correct.
And I don't keep my mouth to tell what I found out, how many lied blocks and bans the wiki mouvement produces. If you want to change thinks you have to do that in a democratic way, and not in a revolutionary one, and they should be the first revolutionairs mouvement in history who went to court!
Really, I am looking forwards for the headlines if they do so.
And don't forget, this is discussed with Dutch (media) lawyers who have confirmed it's right what I am claiming. Both by me on a informal base and by Whaledad in his function as a Arb. Till now the only answer I have had is a Global ban of mister Alexander, and Whaledad is not re-elected as a Arb from what you should call the wiki mouvement. O, and of course this email from a ORTS member. But he is still one of the trusted decision makers, two other members even asked Edo to vote for them!
A CC licence is a dream island. It's like we founded the ignore red traffic lights mouvement, it has not any legal bases. It is not approved by any government, or international convention, it doesn't give any protection, it doesn't replace copyright. There is in a legal way no difference between a advice to everyone in the world to ignore red traffic lights, and a CC licence.
What I understand till now, despite all the huge conferences and the free source mouvement is a CC licence only safe if someone who's identity is known give the licence for his one work. Otherwise the re-user is not protected and will be responsible, because copyright does't disappear. Something what is protected by for instance copyright in Holland will always remain that copyright, copyright doesn't disappear.
In Holland something is only free for re-use if something is public domain, or if the owner of the rights of the content gives his permision. So, the permision has to be given bij the owner of the content, and not by the brave Wikipedians. And if there is no permision of the owner, something is not free. We don't have fair use in Holland, and our citaatrecht is extreem limited and usable for re-use in almost every cases. And America copyright protection stopes at the borders of America.
It's wrong in the base people without any legal knowledge start to to declare what is free content or not. And they declare the content not only free in America, but also in the rest of the world. This is very, very wrong, because I have explained many times something can be copyright in one country, and in a other country not. Even in the different European country's, because every country has it's one copyright law. As long there is not one copyright for all the world, the CC construction most times has not any legal base. Doesn't matter how amazing the idea is.
So, for instance the "education program" of Wikimedia-NL where they ask students to translate articles from other wiki's what are not checked if the articles don't contain copyright under the Dutch copyright law is complete irresponsible. Because it brings and the student at risk, and the re-user.
And beside this, it has nothing to do with education, but everything with the laziness of the Dutch Wikipedians who don't write there one articles. And IF Wikimedia-NL thinks this posting is a good reason to go to court for slander, be my guest. Neither the student nor the re-user is protected for copyright claims is what I am here claiming, what is correct.
And I don't keep my mouth to tell what I found out, how many lied blocks and bans the wiki mouvement produces. If you want to change thinks you have to do that in a democratic way, and not in a revolutionary one, and they should be the first revolutionairs mouvement in history who went to court!
Really, I am looking forwards for the headlines if they do so.
And don't forget, this is discussed with Dutch (media) lawyers who have confirmed it's right what I am claiming. Both by me on a informal base and by Whaledad in his function as a Arb. Till now the only answer I have had is a Global ban of mister Alexander, and Whaledad is not re-elected as a Arb from what you should call the wiki mouvement. O, and of course this email from a ORTS member. But he is still one of the trusted decision makers, two other members even asked Edo to vote for them!
