Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Anthony]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Nikola Smolenski  wrote:
> On 28/07/12 19:44, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket
>> Holder agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.
>>
>> http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
>
> Haven't we concluded that this can only apply to the person buying the
> ticket, not to other people?

Who concluded that, and on what basis?

___
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

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 28/07/12 19:44, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Platonides  wrote:

On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without
paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.

Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to
prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?


What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?


2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder 
agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.

http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html


Haven't we concluded that this can only apply to the person buying the 
ticket, not to other people?


___
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

[Yann Forget]

2012/7/28 Anthony :
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Platonides  wrote:
>> On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without
>>> paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
>>>
>>> Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to
>>> prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
>>
>> What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
>
> That would be equivalent to sneaking in, since tickets are non-transferable.

There is certainly a possibility to buy a ticket for somebody else.
I suppose there is a difference between the ticket holder and the
cash/credit card handler.
I see 100 cases where this is necessary.

Yann

___
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

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> I suppose that, like any good Wikimedian, we like to balance ourselves on
> the edge cases. We can imagine many. The underlying case would be IOC vs.
> Uploader. These other points about joint authorship and photo editing really
> have more bearing on the identity of the defendant.

I assume that the IOC has been granted some sort of permission by the
various participants in the olympic events.  So if you're
photographing, say, the opening ceremony, then your concern would not
only be with regard to the rights of the IOC directly, but also with
the rights of any opening ceremony participants who granted an
exclusive license to 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

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM,   wrote:
> 2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder 
> agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.
>
> http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html

Well, yeah, but legally that's nonsense.  I can write "by reading this
email you agree to comply with these Terms and Conditions", but
(hopefully?) no court is going to uphold that.

The key to enforcability is that the ticket grants a license.  If you
don't agree to the Terms and Conditions, then you don't have a valid
license to enter the premises.

___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Platonides  wrote:

> On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without
>> paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
>> 
>> Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to
>> prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
> 
> What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?
> 
> 
> 


2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket Holder 
agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.

http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
Birgitte SB
___
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

[Platonides]

On 24/07/12 12:15, Richard Symonds wrote:
> WMUK have asked, and we live in London; some of us next door to the
> stadium. The answer is a resounding 'no' from all corners, even when we
> speak to the government. We've got a volunteer with very good access to the
> games, but even behind the scenes it's difficult to get photographs.
> 
> The IOC are not here to give things away for free, it seems: something
> which is painfully apparent to those who've seen the ticket prices!
> 
> Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK

Did you try to get a compromise offering a delayed publication?
ie. You take photographs but do not make them available under a free
license until after X time (you coould use a more restrictive license
such as CC-BY-NC-SA or not to publish it at all during the "embargo").

As I see it, they want that the media reporting the event is all
acreditated, not republishing third-party images (perhaps to get some
quality level, maybe to make it a selling point for accreditations)

However, all those agencies, TVs and newspapers have no use of those
images after the event.  Much less to scrape others coverage. One month
after the event, it will get buried in the archive.
But our article will be left without a free image for 70 years (plus
author lifetime). It would be suboptimal not being able to publish them
right away, but it is very sad not having a photograph of  gold
medal just because IOC sold draconian tickets.


___
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

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Platonides  wrote:
> On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without
>> paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
>>
>> Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to
>> prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?
>
> What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?

That would be equivalent to sneaking in, since tickets are non-transferable.

___
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

[Platonides]

On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without
> paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
> 
> Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to
> prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?

What if someone else bought the ticket and then gifted it to you?



___
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

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/27/12 7:15 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

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.


I suppose that, like any good Wikimedian, we like to balance ourselves 
on the edge cases. We can imagine many. The underlying case would be IOC 
vs. Uploader. These other points about joint authorship and photo 
editing really have more bearing on the identity of the defendant. They 
could possibly arise, but at this stage they just obscure the main issue.


Ray

___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:12 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> *Assuming the recording was produced with consent of the performers.

I should have noted this only applies to live musical performances!

Birgitte SB

___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM,   wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket
>>> statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
>> 
>> To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to 
>> say that at the point someone clicked the
>> shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright.
> 
> Well, no, I disagree.  It is not at all "safe to say".
> 
> Would you also say that whoever presses "record" on a tape player is
> the sole owner of the copyright of the recording?
> 

The making of a recording is probably less likely than a photograph to create a 
copyright at all, but . . .

*Assuming the recording in question is contemporary.
*Assuming the recording is not itself an infringement. 
*Assuming the recording is not utilitarian.
*Assuming the recording contains a minimal amount of original expression.
*Assuming the recording was produced with consent of the performers.
*Assuming the recorder is not bound by a contract that specifies otherwise.

. . . Then, yes, any person who fixes an original work of authorship by 
pressing "record" on a tape-recorder will be granted the copyrights to the 
expression that they have recorded. This why black-box recordings 
(¡non-utilitarian non-infringing portions thereof!) of airline pilots in the US 
are in the public domain. The Federal Government (FAA) owns copyrights for 
arranging the recordings of these otherwise unfixed performances by the 
consenting pilots.

It can get even crazier than that; see Walter v. Lane.

Birgitte SB

Fair warning to those less familiar with this subject: Copyright is not 
Commonsense! 
___
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

[Anthony]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM,   wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket
>> statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
>
> To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to 
> say that at the point someone clicked the
> shutter they were the sole owner of any copyright.

Well, no, I disagree.  It is not at all "safe to say".

Would you also say that whoever presses "record" on a tape player is
the sole owner of the copyright of the recording?

___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Anthony  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.
> 
> 

To the degree that we can advise people at all on copyright, it is safe to say 
that at the point someone clicked the shutter they were the sole owner of any 
copyright.  Considering just this moment in time, it is far, far more likely 
that there is no copyright created at all than that a joint authorship 
situation is created. However, many things can occur after this point in time 
which will result in a work with joint authorship. 

Birgitte SB


___
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

[Richard Symonds]

Even for the east end of London, I got some odd looks. Video was a but
rubbish, but I tried!

Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
On Jul 27, 2012 8:12 PM, "Stevie Benton" 
wrote:

> Sounds like you're prepared for some flash photography. Ahem.
> On Jul 27, 2012 8:08 PM, "Richard Symonds" <
> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown.
> > Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-)
> >
> > Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
> > On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM,  wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
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

[Stevie Benton]

Sounds like you're prepared for some flash photography. Ahem.
On Jul 27, 2012 8:08 PM, "Richard Symonds" 
wrote:

> I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown.
> Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-)
>
> Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
> On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM,  wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
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

[Richard Symonds]

I'm about to video the flypast, outside on the road in my dressing gown.
Does that count as freedom of panorama? ;-)

Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
On Jul 27, 2012 3:48 PM,  wrote:

> 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
>
___
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

[wiki-list]

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] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Anthony]

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.

___
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

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 6:47 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:




On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:


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.


This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that 
contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the 
contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this 
contract in a commercial manner.  However the IOC cannot possibly extend the 
contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police 
third-parties.  Let's run a few possibilities:

Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook.  It goes viral across the 
Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace.  
IOC wishes to end poster sales.  Your position that this the contract must be 
effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer 
and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the 
contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work.  
If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.

TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the 
photo to Sis to use in advertising.  The IOC does not even have the standing to 
discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the 
creator's copyright.  Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of 
their work.  IOC can do nothing.

TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's 
Olympics. IOC can do nothing.

TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a 
non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. 
The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC 
can do nothing.

The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about the Usain 
Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily tracked down on 
Commons.  This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) has been well hashed over 
in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim on this issue. I have actually dug 
around for the links to  past discussions of "contracts for access used in attempt 
to control copyright", but sadly no luck. (I did however find useful links on three 
other issues sitting at the back of my mind!)

Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the 
actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not 
under copyright, not under contract law.  It can in a very limited way exert 
control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with 
the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other 
individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into 
a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield 
from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their 
work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through 
pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to 
an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when 
the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging 
easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know 
will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep.

Birgitte SB


In general terms I think that a lot of these "contracts" on the back of 
a ticket, Terms of Use, and End User License Agreements may have a very 
limited enforceability. How many people really "read, understand and 
agree to" what they say? How do they know if the often lengthy legalese 
violates rights that they have under the law? In the case of software 
updates where the terms must be agreed to again there is great 
opportunity to quietly and subtly introduce new terms that won't be 
noticed except by careful comparison of the old and new versions.


Ray

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 5:01 PM, FT2 wrote:

but ticket T&C prohibitions include "unauthorised transmissions and/or
recording through mobile telephones or other instruments (video cameras,
tape recorders, etc)"

I saw that in 19.3.2. It seems inconsistent with 19.6.3 where 
restricting publication rights would be meaningless if you can't take 
the photos in the first place.


Ray

___
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

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 27/07/12 03:47, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

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.


This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that 
contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the 
contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this 
contract in a commercial manner.  However the IOC cannot possibly extend the 
contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police 
third-parties.  Let's run a few possibilities:

Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook.  It goes viral across the 
Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace.  
IOC wishes to end poster sales.  Your position that this the contract must be 
effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer 
and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the 
contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work.  
If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.

TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the 
photo to Sis to use in advertising.  The IOC does not even have the standing to 
discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the 
creator's copyright.  Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of 
their work.  IOC can do nothing.

TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's 
Olympics. IOC can do nothing.

TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a 
non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. 
The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC 
can do nothing.


An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without 
paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.


Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to 
prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?


___
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

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 3:51 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
take.

Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
derivative work (extending only to your contributions), or as a work
of joint authorship.  And joint works in the UK are quite different
from joint works in the US.  To grant a license on a UK joint work,
you need the permission of all the joint owners.  (It's also possible
that you don't own the copyright at all in a picture you take, because
you didn't contribute anything copyrightable, but that's unlikely to
be the case in this sort of scenario.

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. From the IOC's perspective the 
presence of a joint owner is marginal.


Ray

___
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

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 9:31 AM, Peter Coombe wrote:

Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from
everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture.

We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to
illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events
that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from
photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air
missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.
;)


It would be a great reflection on the Olympic movement if the only 
pictures in Wikipedia were of security and gridlock, with nothing about 
the athletic events. :-)


Ray

___
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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM,   wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>>> take.
>>
>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
>
> I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the 
> rest. Simply photographing a
> copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative works.

Not necessarily.  Hence the word "might".

___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

And here is the correct second link:

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-works.html

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:13 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
> struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
 Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures 
 you
 take.
>>> 
>>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
>> 
>> I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and 
>> ignoring the rest.
> 
>> Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
>> a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to 
>> really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
>> 
>> This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks 
>> ago in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue 
>> during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the 
>> claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just 
>> came across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links 
>> follow, and don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually 
>> were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial 
>> terms.
>> 
>> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
>> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
>> 
>> Birgitte SB
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.


On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>>> take.
>> 
>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 
> 
> I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring 
> the rest.

> Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is 
> a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really 
> go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
> 
> This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago 
> in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during 
> that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I 
> could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came across 
> the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't 
> forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were it is all 
> explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
> 
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> 
> Birgitte SB
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>> take.
> 
> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), 

I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the 
rest. Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that 
is a derivative works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really 
go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.

This claim of photographs as derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in 
the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during that 
discussion While I felt certain at the time, there was some error in this 
claim. I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came 
across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and 
don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were is explained 
in lay terms instead judicial terms.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html

Birgitte SB
___
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

[Birgitte_sb]

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

> 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.
> 

This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that 
contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the 
contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this 
contract in a commercial manner.  However the IOC cannot possibly extend the 
contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police 
third-parties.  Let's run a few possibilities:

Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook.  It goes viral across the 
Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace.  
IOC wishes to end poster sales.  Your position that this the contract must be 
effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer 
and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the 
contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work.  
If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.

TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the 
photo to Sis to use in advertising.  The IOC does not even have the standing to 
discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the 
creator's copyright.  Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of 
their work.  IOC can do nothing.

TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's 
Olympics. IOC can do nothing.

TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a 
non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. 
The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC 
can do nothing.

The only reason the IOC was even able to make the empty threats it did about 
the Usain Bolt photo is that the photographer and licensing were all easily 
tracked down on Commons.  This issue (limits of contract law vs. copyright law) 
has been well hashed over in the past. The IOC cannot do what it seems to claim 
on this issue. I have actually dug around for the links to  past discussions of 
"contracts for access used in attempt to control copyright", but sadly no luck. 
(I did however find useful links on three other issues sitting at the back of 
my mind!) 

Really the IOC, whatever it wishes, cannot control the licensing, much less the 
actual usage, of photo taken at the Olympics. It has no right to do so, not 
under copyright, not under contract law.  It can in a very limited way exert 
control over individuals who voluntarily entered into binding contracts *with 
the IOC*. It cannot exert control over the photographs themselves nor any other 
individuals. The IOC has shown a willingness to harass and threaten people into 
a level of compliance that it has no right to demand. We can offer a shield 
from harassment to photographers, if any exist, who would like to offer their 
work to the common cultural landscape without being credited. Through 
pseudo-anonymity we can offer photographers a way to attribute their works to 
an account that cannot be identified today but can be repatriated tomorrow when 
the heat has cooled off. However, we probably should refrain from encouraging 
easily identified Flickr users to relicense their work in a way we now know 
will likely bring the IOC to their doorstep.

Birgitte SB



___
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

[FT2]

Two quick notes

   - Photography from public land is permissible, though security/police
   may try to 
object.
   Cannot be stopped, equipment seized, or photos deleted unless "reasonable"
   suspicion of terrorism or evidence of terrorism. Security guards have
   claimed "you are breaching our security" but have no right in law to act on
   public ground; police and industry bodies have tried to train event
   security staff to be aware of
this.
   The British Security Industry Association has a leaflet which spells out
   the law: *"If an individual is in a public place photographing or
   filming a private building, security guards have no right to prevent the
   individual from taking photographs," ... [adding that filming or taking a
   photograph].. does not in itself indicate hostile reconnaissance or other
   suspicious behaviour*". *[previous link]
*
   - Reports and ticket terms conflict.
   Reports say "Earlier this year, Locog said photographers will not face
   confiscation of camera gear at the gates, but that security staff have a
   right to challenge people whose equipment interferes with the view of other
   spectators once inside. ‘No way are we trying to target camera users,' said
   a Locog spokesman in February. ‘The issue is basically around
size.' 
"
   but ticket T&C prohibitions include "unauthorised transmissions and/or
   recording through mobile telephones or other instruments (video cameras,
   tape recorders, etc)"
___
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

[FT2]

Naive and over reactive. Do that all the time and it's pointless (loses
value). That was the consensus at the time of SOPA  and I don't see
anything that's changed since. Blackouts are the rarest of rare protests,
certainly not for matters that don't threaten us. At worst inability to
freely photo a sports event is no different than inability to freely
photograph inside some country's museums - negotiation and good example
gets further than petulant actions.

Photography in circumstances like the olympics is a very common matter -
the National Portrait Gallery issue wasn't dissimilar in a way, images were
validly able to be distributed without breaching copyright but location
owner had imposed conditions of entry on the person wishing to do so, that
were widely (by those in his camp anyway) felt to be unfair or desirous to
bypass.  Obtainer decided to and obtained images anyway and freely made
them available to others.

This generic situation is quite common, though not often so high profile as
NPG or the olympics.

FT2



On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
>
> This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
___
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

[Anthony]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
> take.

Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
derivative work (extending only to your contributions), or as a work
of joint authorship.  And joint works in the UK are quite different
from joint works in the US.  To grant a license on a UK joint work,
you need the permission of all the joint owners.  (It's also possible
that you don't own the copyright at all in a picture you take, because
you didn't contribute anything copyrightable, but that's unlikely to
be the case in this sort of scenario.

___
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

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/26/12 2:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

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.


Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures 
you take.


Athletes in the performance of their sport are public figures so the 
personality rights are more limited. This may be more of a concern in 
selecting which pictures to publish, and avoiding anything indiscrete.


The enforceability of those lengthy so-called contractual terms may be 
unrealistic. I do understand that there may be some justification in 
section 19.2.3 for a ban on refrigerators.


Ray

___
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

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Peter Coombe
 wrote:
>
> We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to
> illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events
> that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from
> photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air
> missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.

Well, you may not run into trouble *with the IOC* for taking pictures
of all the security, but you may very well get into trouble with the
police / army / private security, and I'm not sure that's preferable
:)

(speaking as someone who once covered a G8 summit where security was,
well, what you'd expect around a meeting between heads of state and
their delegations).

-- 
Guillaume Paumier

___
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

[Peter Coombe]

Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from
everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture.

We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to
illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events
that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from
photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air
missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.
;)

Pete / the wub

On 26 July 2012 13:53, Anthony  wrote:
> It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
>
> This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:
>> Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
>> Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
>> that would be worth the trouble...
>>
>> Lodewijk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
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

[Anthony]

It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.

This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
> Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
> that would be worth the trouble...
>
> Lodewijk

___
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

[wiki-list]

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

[Cristian Consonni]

2012/7/24 Tomasz Ganicz :
> 2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni :
>> 2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
>>> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
>>> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
>>>
>>> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
>>> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
>>> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
>>> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
>>> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
>>>
>>> This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
>>> write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
>>> interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
>>> I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
>>>
>>> Sources for the restrictions:
>>> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
>>> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
>>
>> I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with
>> CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for
>> commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But
>> there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the
>> free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think
>> that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit
>> permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if
>> the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed.
>> That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar
>> way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a
>> template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial
>> purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or
>> individuals depicted in the photo".
>> The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest
>> possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its
>> copyright with others,  but if one wants to use the photo for
>> commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author)
>> through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
>>
>> Could it work?
>>
>
> No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is
> also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra
> restrictions which are not compatible with the licence.  However,
> CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz
> are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale
> commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of
> personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...

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?

Thanks,
Cristian

___
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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/7/25 Thomas Souza-Buckup :
> Lodewijk
>
> I agree with you. It makes a lot of sense to start now a negotiation with
> the IOC in order to prepare for the next Olympic Games taking place in
> Brazil in 2016.

The winter games in Sochi 2014 are supposed to be quite interesting, too.

> It may take a long time for us to see the first results and
> thereafter we should start asap a "more thorough long term lobby on this
> issue". Who else would like to join this task force?

Myself, because I care about free culture. (And for the sake of
fairness, since I started the thread :) )

But more people are needed - particularly people who know something
about sports, about commercial media and about lobbying.

--
Amir

___
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

[Thomas Souza-Buckup]

Lodewijk

I agree with you. It makes a lot of sense to start now a negotiation with
the IOC in order to prepare for the next Olympic Games taking place in
Brazil in 2016. It may take a long time for us to see the first results and
thereafter we should start asap a "more thorough long term lobby on this
issue". Who else would like to join this task force?

Thomas
TSB



On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Lodewijk wrote:

> Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
> Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
> that would be worth the trouble...
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2012/7/24 Tomasz Ganicz 
>
> > 2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni :
> > > 2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni :
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
> > >> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
> > >> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
> > >>
> > >> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
> > >> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
> > >> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
> > >> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
> > >> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
> > >>
> > >> This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
> > >> write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
> > >> interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
> > >> I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
> > >>
> > >> Sources for the restrictions:
> > >> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
> > >> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
> > >
> > > I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with
> > > CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for
> > > commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But
> > > there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the
> > > free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think
> > > that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit
> > > permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if
> > > the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed.
> > > That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar
> > > way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a
> > > template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial
> > > purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or
> > > individuals depicted in the photo".
> > > The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest
> > > possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its
> > > copyright with others,  but if one wants to use the photo for
> > > commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author)
> > > through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
> > >
> > > Could it work?
> > >
> >
> > No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is
> > also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra
> > restrictions which are not compatible with the licence.  However,
> > CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz
> > are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale
> > commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of
> > personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

~ Keegan
Sent mobile
On Jul 24, 2012 2:50 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" 
wrote:
>
> Most of all, I'm still curious about the reasons that the IOC (or
> whoever is in charge) provided for the refusals.
>
>

In the immortal words of Steve Martin in The Jerk, "It's a profit deal!
That really takes the pressure off."

--
~Keegan
___
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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/7/24 Lodewijk :
> Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
> Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
> that would be worth the trouble...

Generally, I think that it would be a good idea. I'm just not very
comfortable with the fact that I'm not so good myself at political and
commercial strategies and that I expect other people to actually do
the lobbying, but as far as ideological campaigns go, it seems that
this one is quite right for Wikimedia.

Maybe it doesn't even have to be confrontational ("the IOC is evil")
or preachy ("all information must be free"). Maybe somebody who is an
experienced researcher in social and commercial media can simply
convince the IOC that releasing some photos or giving Wikimedians a
permission to take photos and to publish them under a free license is
beneficial to the IOC itself. Maybe I'm just fantasizing.

Most of all, I'm still curious about the reasons that the IOC (or
whoever is in charge) provided for the refusals.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

___
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

[Lodewijk]

Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
that would be worth the trouble...

Lodewijk

2012/7/24 Tomasz Ganicz 

> 2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni :
> > 2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
> >> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
> >> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
> >>
> >> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
> >> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
> >> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
> >> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
> >> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
> >>
> >> This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
> >> write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
> >> interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
> >> I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
> >>
> >> Sources for the restrictions:
> >> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
> >> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
> >
> > I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with
> > CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for
> > commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But
> > there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the
> > free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think
> > that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit
> > permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if
> > the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed.
> > That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar
> > way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a
> > template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial
> > purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or
> > individuals depicted in the photo".
> > The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest
> > possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its
> > copyright with others,  but if one wants to use the photo for
> > commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author)
> > through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
> >
> > Could it work?
> >
>
> No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is
> also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra
> restrictions which are not compatible with the licence.  However,
> CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz
> are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale
> commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of
> personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
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

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2012/7/24 Cristian Consonni :
> 2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni :
>> Hi,
>>
>> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
>> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
>> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
>>
>> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
>> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
>> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
>> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
>> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
>>
>> This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
>> write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
>> interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
>> I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
>>
>> Sources for the restrictions:
>> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
>> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
>
> I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with
> CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for
> commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But
> there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the
> free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think
> that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit
> permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if
> the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed.
> That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar
> way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a
> template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial
> purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or
> individuals depicted in the photo".
> The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest
> possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its
> copyright with others,  but if one wants to use the photo for
> commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author)
> through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.
>
> Could it work?
>

No. CC-BY-SA clearly allows for commercial use of works, and there is
also clause that the licence cannot be accompanied by extra
restrictions which are not compatible with the licence.  However,
CC-BY-SA is only copyrights licence, so all other legal restrictionz
are still in power. For example: using someone's face in big-scale
commercial or political campaign may be treated as a infringement of
personal rights, even if the face is taken from CC-BY-SA picture...



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

___
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

[Matthew Roth]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Frederic Schutz  wrote:

> Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
>

This conversation came up about a month ago on the Communications Committee
list and Jimmy mentioned that he had made requests through his channels and
had also been told no.

-Matthew

-- 

Matthew Roth
Global Communications
Wikimedia Foundation
+1.415.839.6885 ext 6635
www.wikimediafoundation.org
*https://donate.wikimedia.org*
___
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

[Cristian Consonni]

2012/7/24 Amir E. Aharoni :
> Hi,
>
> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
>
> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
>
> This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
> write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
> interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
> I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
>
> Sources for the restrictions:
> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited

I think this another layer of problems besides copyright, with
CC-BY-SA the author grants permission to reuse the photo also for
commercial purposes without requesting permission to the author. But
there are many other layers of rights which could interfere with the
free (or better the "anarchic") reuse of a photo. For example I think
that using an image of Usain Bolt to promote a book without explicit
permission from the athlete (or his agent) is anyhow unlawful even if
the photo was taken, for example, in the street and freely licensed.
That said I think with can treat photo from the Olympics in a similar
way as we do for photos with "personality rights", we could put a
template saying "Olympics photo warning: to reuse for commercial
purposes this photo you should obtain permission from IOC and/or
individuals depicted in the photo".
The point is that the author of the photo allows for it the widest
possible reuse permitted by CC-BY-SA, thus sharing part of its
copyright with others,  but if one wants to use the photo for
commercial purposes that he should go (himself, not the author)
through the hassle of obtaining permission from the relevant subjects.

Could it work?

Cristian

___
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

[Ilario Valdelli]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz  wrote:
> > Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
> >
> > If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland,
> > actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic,
> but
> > it may be worth a try.
>
> Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics,
> but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Paralympic_Games
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk


I think that it is connected with the kind of the category of accreditation.

There are some restrictive categories.

There would be no sense to block this possibility to a professional
photoreporter if a newspaper could release the same photo under free
license afterwards.


Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/7/24 Richard Symonds :
> WMUK have asked, and we live in London; some of us next door to the
> stadium. The answer is a resounding 'no' from all corners, even when we
> speak to the government. We've got a volunteer with very good access to the
> games, but even behind the scenes it's difficult to get photographs.

Thank you very much for this answer. I'm very glad to hear that you tried.

Did they explain the resounding 'no'? Do they consider WM-UK to be not
worthy of accreditation in general? Or do they refuse to give a
permission to release photos under Free Wikimedia-compatible licences?

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

___
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

[Richard Symonds]

WMUK have asked, and we live in London; some of us next door to the
stadium. The answer is a resounding 'no' from all corners, even when we
speak to the government. We've got a volunteer with very good access to the
games, but even behind the scenes it's difficult to get photographs.

The IOC are not here to give things away for free, it seems: something
which is painfully apparent to those who've seen the ticket prices!

Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
On Jul 24, 2012 10:59 AM, "Amir E. Aharoni" 
wrote:

> 2012/7/24 Andrew Gray :
> > On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz  wrote:
> >> Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this
> matter?
> >>
> >> If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in
> Switzerland,
> >> actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic,
> but
> >> it may be worth a try.
> >
> > Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics,
> > but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:
> >
> > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Paralympic_Games
>
> Aha! Now this starts to be a problem that justifies a campaign for
> allowing Wikmedia-compatible licensing. At the very least, a post
> about this issue in the Foundation blog or in one of the chapters'
> blogs.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/7/24 Andrew Gray :
> On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz  wrote:
>> Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
>>
>> If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland,
>> actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but
>> it may be worth a try.
>
> Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics,
> but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Paralympic_Games

Aha! Now this starts to be a problem that justifies a campaign for
allowing Wikmedia-compatible licensing. At the very least, a post
about this issue in the Foundation blog or in one of the chapters'
blogs.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

___
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

[Andrew Gray]

On 24 July 2012 10:21, Frederic Schutz  wrote:
> Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
>
> If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland,
> actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but
> it may be worth a try.

Wikimedia Australia have two accredited reporters for the Paralympics,
but this explicitly does not provide for freely licensed photography:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Paralympic_Games

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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

[Frederic Schutz]

On 24/07/12 11:43, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:


Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?

If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland,
actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but
it may be worth a try.



According to what is written there:

http://www.london2012.com/media-centre/

It is actually too late to apply for press/photo accreditation :-(


Of course; I was thinking more in terms of discussing their policies, 
and trying a avoid a big fuss when (not if) another picture is posted 
under a license that allows commercial use (e.g. on commons).


Frédéric

___
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

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2012/7/24 Frederic Schutz :
> Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?
>
> If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in Switzerland,
> actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly optimistic, but
> it may be worth a try.
>

According to what is written there:

http://www.london2012.com/media-centre/

It is actually too late to apply for press/photo accreditation :-(


-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

___
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

[Ilario Valdelli]

I assume that a photographer with an accreditation may take photos also for
commercial use.

I suppose that the IOC connects the right to take this kind of photos with
the accreditation and to pay a contingent grant as soon this accreditation
is assigned.

The use of limited photo equipments for the no accredited persons assures
that the photos will be low qualitative.

In my opinion the position of IOC is correct. If someone would take
professional photos, he may request an accreditation.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> This issue is not merely theoretical.
> Many will recall the controversy surrounding the free-licensed photo of
> Usain Bolt, on Commons, taken during the Beijing Olympics:
> -
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-10-12/In_the_news
> -
>
> http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-heading-for-collision/
>
> -Liam
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
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

[Frederic Schutz]

Has anyone from the Wikimedia community contacted the IOC on this matter?

If not, WM CH could give it a try (their headquarters are in 
Switzerland, actually less than 2km away from my place). I'm not overly 
optimistic, but it may be worth a try.


Frédéric

On 24/07/12 11:05, Liam Wyatt wrote:


This issue is not merely theoretical.
Many will recall the controversy surrounding the free-licensed photo of
Usain Bolt, on Commons, taken during the Beijing Olympics:
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-10-12/In_the_news
-
http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-heading-for-collision/

-Liam

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love&  metadata
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
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

[Petr Kadlec]

On 24 July 2012 10:35, Amir E. Aharoni  wrote:
> 2012/7/24 ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) :
>> May be we should take such anomalies to public forums!
>
> I'm not actually sure that it's an anomaly. As I said, I don't follow
> sports and I only noticed such a thing now for the first time, but I
> don't find it extremely surprising.

Exactly. Actually, there are much greater “anomalies” around Olympics…
See e.g. 
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2012/07/21/london-olympics-lord-coe-s-astonishing-sponsors-outburst-86908-23910798/

It is probably interesting to point out we have
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:NCR stating basically we ignore
such “house rules” (or, in other words: if anyone without an
accreditation dares to upload his photos under a free license, we will
happily keep the images on Commons, whatever was written on the
tickets, with any possible risks on the uploader, of course).

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

___
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

[Liam Wyatt]

This issue is not merely theoretical.
Many will recall the controversy surrounding the free-licensed photo of
Usain Bolt, on Commons, taken during the Beijing Olympics:
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-10-12/In_the_news
-
http://ragesoss.com/blog/2009/10/09/wikipedia-and-olympics-committee-heading-for-collision/

-Liam

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
___
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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/7/24 ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) :
> May be we should take such anomalies to public forums!

I'm not actually sure that it's an anomaly. As I said, I don't follow
sports and I only noticed such a thing now for the first time, but I
don't find it extremely surprising.

I can even understand the restrictions somewhat - it's possible that
it's not just a matter of greed, but also of privacy, press ethics,
etc. Some screening of participation in a major public event is not
entirely unreasonable. The main question is - is there a reasonable
way in which a Free-Culture-friendly photographer could pass such
screening.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

___
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

[വിശ്വപ്രഭ]

May be we should take such anomalies to public forums!

Slash dot? Free knowledge forums? Press? Media?

Olympics is not just a money spinning sponsored affair. Information about
the happenings there is the right of every universal citizen!

The 'long' camera may have something to do with security. But
accreditations?

My 2 cents of thoughts.
-Viswam



On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
>
> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
>
> This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
> write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
> interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
> I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.
>
> Sources for the restrictions:
> * http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
> * PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
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

[Ilario Valdelli]

Wikimedia Ch gives usually accreditations and we did it in the past also
for sport's events.

Naturally we gives accreditation only to people who send as formal request
and are identified (no unknown people).

In general we contact the press office of the event and inform them that a
defined number of photographers will participate, as soon we receive the
notification, these persons are accredited.

Naturally these persons will operate as Wikimedia Ch personel and may be
protected with an insurance (at least within Switzerland).

Anyway we have received no requests of accreditation for Olympics 2012.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
> cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
> and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.
>
> Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
> should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
> are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
> and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
> know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?
>
>

-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

The Olympic games are beginning soon. Apparently, ticket holders
cannot use photo equipment longer than 30cm and cannot use the photos
and videos for commercial purposes without accreditation.

Practically everything that happens at the Olympics is notable and
should be on Wikipedia, Commons, etc. Does anybody know whether there
are professional accredited photographers who are Wikimedia-friendly
and plan to upload their photos? If there aren't any, does anybody
know whether a Wikipedian can obtain such accreditation?

This doesn't concern me directly, but there are many, many people who
write Wikipedia articles about sports in all languages and it may be
interesting to them. Also, it may be a frequent issue in sports and
I'm just not aware of it because I rarely follow sports.

Sources for the restrictions:
* http://www.tickets.london2012.com/purchaseterms.html
* PDF: http://j.mp/london2012prohibited

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l