Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Sources for the restrictions: > >>> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html > >>> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited > > I really can't figure out the difference between your example about > personality rights and my previous, so I don't see why you're saying > that the above approch could not work, but IANAL. > > As I said above I think this restrinction on commercial use of the > images imposed by IOC is not about copyright but is on a different > level and AFAICT is very similar to the case of personality rights to > some extent. So may you clarify? > There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics
wikim...@inbox.org wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > > I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe > > to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative > > decisions about the photos. > > Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a > photograph just because they clicked the shutter. > > My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket > statements of that type are quite often incorrect. > Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was originally recorded. Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the post-processing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: > > This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. > > The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it > into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated. > The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits alongside the mother-in-law of Sergy Brin (Google), and on which sit other representatives of other internet mega-corporations that derive profit from user uploaded contents much of which is pirated, or who make money from advertising on pirate sites. On the 14th of December Creative Commons was also calling for a blackout/action over SOPA. Whether you realize it or not you were manipulated by mega-corporations to stick it to the musicians, photographers, and authors, so that said corporations could better profit from the theft of their works. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
