I am sorry that my simple query did not include my reasoning. The purpose of going to court is not to enforce rights per se for a particular photograph, but to send a signal to the government that a right enjoyed by all cannot be arbitrarily abstracted by the government, and that it amounts to intellectual theft, aside from a signal failure of the government to protect the Constitution, which assigns this right.
In fact, we (persons who have a point of view about IPR that is somewhat at odds with the reasoning that has gone behind the enactment of amendments and/or rules to the Copyright Act in accordance with certain provisions under TRIPS etc, and of course we believe that this category should include all persons in favour of Wikipedia) actually want the opposite, we want the government to assign public rights by default over all intellectual content created at public cost, save only that (and it should be specifically described with a logical, transparent and clear methodology and process, not some peon lagaaoing a rubber stamp marked 'Secret' with gay abandon, only because the officer concerned is too lazy or uneducated to do her homework) content that pertains clearly and unequivocally to national security for which provision has been made in the Constitution, and of course, information pertaining to the personal privacy rights of individuals, which by definition cannot be acquired by the government in the first place (although it may in the interest of good governance, document or tabulate such information for specifically defines purposes, and for such purposes only). Wow! That's some sentence - it is an example of how legal writing sometime needs to be nitpickingly precise, even at the cost of obvious clarity. I am not insisting that WMF or the Chapter take the lead in this matter - there are plenty of NGOs and brave individuals out there fighting for the preservation of our fundamental rights. But in this case, it is precisely WMF (or if you please, the Chapter, although I don't really see the connection, unless the Chapter charter includes a specific assignment of rights from the Foundation for such purposes) that is the aggrieved party, having posted information (or, to be legally specific, enabled the posting) in the public domain for the common weal, that has been sought to be stolen arbitrarily and without any form of legal sanction. My query was only to establish whether Wikimedia in general is playing an active role in the courts in such matters, in India as well as abroad. On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan < rsrikant...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gautam, I meant Prasar Bharathi. The parent company of Doordarshan. It > is a Central Government entity. > Re,+ > SR, CBE. > > On 29/09/2011, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <rsrikant...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Gautam, PB is a CG body, you might want to draft a letter in Hindi or > > for that matter, in all 22 languages enjoying official status. > > I think our course of action, now is not to draft letters or go to > > court, but since we now know that media from the Commons is being used > > in education, bring more awareness about the Commons and get more > > contributors. > > > > On 29/09/2011, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <rsrikant...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Arun, when has any Indian government ever credited us when flicking > >> our images? Even Doordarshan has aired photographs from the Commons > >> and put a Copyright 2009, Prasar Bharti notice on it. > >> -Re, > >> Srikanth. > >> > >> On 29/09/2011, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <rsrikant...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Thanks for the heads up Srikanth and Bala. The website is a bit buggy > >>> on my system. Since I have physical access to the Samacheer textbooks, > >>> I shall have a look and post a full page *review* of it. I'll keep you > >>> both and Sundar updated on the matter. I believe there is a lot of > >>> scope for improvement, which we can suggest. As for the who reads > >>> Further Reading matter, I do. The textbook has always been my mortal > >>> enemy, hence I always stuck to the further reading sections. > >>> --Re, Srikanth R, Coimbatore. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sent from my mobile device > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> ME. > >>> Wear a Lungi, Support the Movement > >>> My infrastructure invasion... plus other images > >>> too.. on Wikimedia Commons. http://bit.ly/d50SIq > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from my mobile device > >> > >> Regards, > >> ME. > >> Wear a Lungi, Support the Movement > >> My infrastructure invasion... plus other images > >> too.. on Wikimedia Commons. http://bit.ly/d50SIq > >> > > > > -- > > Sent from my mobile device > > > > Regards, > > ME. > > Wear a Lungi, Support the Movement > > My infrastructure invasion... plus other images > > too.. on Wikimedia Commons. http://bit.ly/d50SIq > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Regards, > ME. > Wear a Lungi, Support the Movement > My infrastructure invasion... plus other images > too.. on Wikimedia Commons. http://bit.ly/d50SIq > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaindia-l mailing list > Wikimediaindiafirstname.lastname@example.org > To unsubscribe / mailing option visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l > -- Vickram Fool On The Hill <http://communicall.wordpress.com>
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindiaemail@example.com To unsubscribe / mailing option visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l