On 19 March 2016 at 19:30, Benjamin Lees <emufarm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  of course I dont expect
> > people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but
> they
> > do know the principles of it and what they can do
> Are you sure?  In the US, at least, industry groups go to a lot of
> trouble to "remind" people of the things they're not supposed to do.
> :)
>

​outside the US things like copyright isnt  respected, enforced or even
part of a person education especially in third world countries​, there is
no specific mention of digital work provisions in the Angola law


>
> But I'm not sure the provisions you point to are actually so unusual.
>
> >    - Non protected works Article  9 section c -- news of the day
> published
> >    by the press or broadcast
> This is in the Berne Convention (article 2, section 8).
>

​international conventions and agreements dont reach the end users
knowledge even in first world countries I sure very few people in the US
would know the changes being introduced in the TPP
​, I'd guess that alot of the people on this list are living in countries
that didnt even exist when the Berne Convention was signed. We also have
the URAA which even Commons has struggled with swings in interpretation
over the last few years

>
> >    - Chapter IV Uses lawful without Authorisation article 29 section b -
> >    reproduction by photographic process or process analogous to
> photographic
> >    process by <snip> documentation centres <snip> or teaching
> organisations
> >    ..... refers to minimum amount of copies necessary, but wither way
> >    Wikipedia would fall into either of these definitions as permitted to
> >    reproduce
> I don't know if Wikipedia would actually be covered by this: those
> terms are probably pretty narrow (and this is just a translation of
> the law, anyway).  In any event, it's pretty standard for copyright
> laws to make allowances for limited educational use.
>
​
This isnt limited reproduction of parts its the whole of the item can be
reproduced​,



>
> >    - article 30 - is the key here it enables translation into Portuguese
> >    after 3 years without any real restrictions - hence why the pt.wikis
> are
> >    having so much of an issue and by extension commons where they
> encourage
> >    uploading of media
> This appears to implement article 2 of the Berne Convention's "special
> provisions regarding developing countries" (Angola isn't a signatory,
> but it has signed the TRIPS Agreement, which incorporates those
> provisions).  It actually looks quite restrictive (the license has to
> be granted by the "State Secretariat for Culture", you have to try to
> get permission first, there are limitations on export, and you still
> have to pay the copyright holder).
>
> I don't think problematic uploads from mobile are a new or regional
> phenomenon—I seem to recall an earlier "selfiepocalypse".
>

​the problem coincided with Wikipedia Zero introduction, currently
volunteers spend thousands of hours every year dealing with copyright
violations from 1st world countries ​, the issue how do we stop the
inundation when its related to WP Zero activation, one is looking at the
copyright in each region and taking steps to avoid the creation of work for
the current volunteers, we know any two lawyers can read the same law and
come to differing interpretations

What could solve an immediate burden on current volunteers when introducing
WP Zero one possibility  is a read only access period, another is media
upload restrictions, but also incorporating some copyright education to end
users as well as the identifying which of our volunteer communities are
likely to impacted and provide clarity or least a WMF interpretation on
FOP, reuse, fair use , moral rights etc to those communities so they can be
prepared to address the impact. Maube ot be possible toput something like
pending revisions on uploads from the ip range of the country so at least
its not generally available in the initial period.  This has been an on
going issue for Commons and pt.wp for 12 months, its an issue that should
be addressed prior to startup not left to community to stumble around to
resolve leaving good faith editors impacted unfairly because there was no
preparation or support in managing the issue in the first instance. (yes
acknowledging that experience & hindsight are good teachers)

Gn.


> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to