Intellectual Property Office Consultation: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(tweak)
m (Reverted edits by Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) to last revision by Mike Peel)
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page contains what we're thinking of submitting to the 2012 Intellectual Property Office Consultation
{{Historical}}
 
This page was used to draft the WMUK response to the 2012 Intellectual Property Office Consultation on "proposals to change the UK's copyright system", as described at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright . The response that was submitted is given below.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright


See also: [[Copyright consultation]] from 2009
See also: [[Copyright consultation]] from 2009


Suggestions from Tom Morris:
==Submitted response==
 
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:
 
 
# 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.


Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia movement covering the United Kingdom. We exist to help collect, develop and distribute freely licensed knowledge (and other educational, cultural and historic material) - in particular, doing so via the the Wikimedia projects, which includes Wikipedia.


# Also on orphan works, pointing out that "non-commercial" exceptions
We achieve our Object by bringing the Wikimedia community in the UK together, and by building links with UK-based cultural institutions, universities, charities and other bodies. We also represent UK-based Wikimedians to the Wikimedia Foundation and in the global Wikimedia movement.
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.)


We do not wish to respond in detail to the 114 questions but offer these thoughts that we would like to be taken as an overall commentary on the area under discussion:


# On extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we
# On orphan works, we believe there is a case for much older orphan works going out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial re-users 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. For projects like Wikipedia, such reuse is incompatible with our policies and fundamental values.
should probably make clear what position, say, photographers or
# We would also like to point out that on orphan works "non-commercial" exceptions turn out to be less useful in practice, 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. 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, which could count as commercial use since it could potentially turn a profit, but it is not the sort of commercial reuse that is envisioned by the consultation document). Wikipedia does not use images that are available only under a non-commercial license, because we wish to enable reusers to have a wide variety of ways to reuse content including both commercial and non-commercial uses.
musicians who produce CC works for use in Wikimedia projects are in.
# On the matter of extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we would like to comment on the perhaps confusing position of content creators (e.g. photographers or musicians) who produce Creative Commons works for use in Wikimedia projects. It is confusing how online services and organisations like Wikimedia fit in to a collective licensing system. For instance, if someone were to take a photo from our media file repository, Wikimedia Commons, and use it outside of the terms of the Creative Commons license, should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of Creative Commons and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under the terms of the license.
And how Wikimedia works would fit in with a collective licensing
# On the exceptions to copyright, we are clear. Wikimedia UK believes the "use of works for quotation and reporting current events" is something that Wikinews contributors (and people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find useful. We also broadly support the extension. We would broadly welcome other aspects of the proposal that further our mission of. Wikimedia UK believes in general that extension of fair dealing and fair use-style rights are important to ensure that the copyright system is balanced and equitable between creators, consumers and re-users.
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.


Wikimedia UK would welcome the opportunity to discuss our views in more depth.


# On the exceptions to copyright, it seems there's a pretty
[[Category:Responses to Consultations]]
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.

Latest revision as of 00:43, 16 January 2013

Historical
This page is kept as an archival reference.
If you want to raise a point about it, please start a discussion thread on the community forum.

This page was used to draft the WMUK response to the 2012 Intellectual Property Office Consultation on "proposals to change the UK's copyright system", as described at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright . The response that was submitted is given below.

See also: Copyright consultation from 2009

Submitted response

Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia movement covering the United Kingdom. We exist to help collect, develop and distribute freely licensed knowledge (and other educational, cultural and historic material) - in particular, doing so via the the Wikimedia projects, which includes Wikipedia.

We achieve our Object by bringing the Wikimedia community in the UK together, and by building links with UK-based cultural institutions, universities, charities and other bodies. We also represent UK-based Wikimedians to the Wikimedia Foundation and in the global Wikimedia movement.

We do not wish to respond in detail to the 114 questions but offer these thoughts that we would like to be taken as an overall commentary on the area under discussion:

  1. On orphan works, we believe there is a case for much older orphan works going out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial re-users 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. For projects like Wikipedia, such reuse is incompatible with our policies and fundamental values.
  2. We would also like to point out that on orphan works "non-commercial" exceptions turn out to be less useful in practice, 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. 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, which could count as commercial use since it could potentially turn a profit, but it is not the sort of commercial reuse that is envisioned by the consultation document). Wikipedia does not use images that are available only under a non-commercial license, because we wish to enable reusers to have a wide variety of ways to reuse content including both commercial and non-commercial uses.
  3. On the matter of extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we would like to comment on the perhaps confusing position of content creators (e.g. photographers or musicians) who produce Creative Commons works for use in Wikimedia projects. It is confusing how online services and organisations like Wikimedia fit in to a collective licensing system. For instance, if someone were to take a photo from our media file repository, Wikimedia Commons, and use it outside of the terms of the Creative Commons license, should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of Creative Commons and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under the terms of the license.
  4. On the exceptions to copyright, we are clear. Wikimedia UK believes the "use of works for quotation and reporting current events" is something that Wikinews contributors (and people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find useful. We also broadly support the extension. We would broadly welcome other aspects of the proposal that further our mission of. Wikimedia UK believes in general that extension of fair dealing and fair use-style rights are important to ensure that the copyright system is balanced and equitable between creators, consumers and re-users.

Wikimedia UK would welcome the opportunity to discuss our views in more depth.