User talk:Nick-D/Australian War Memorial Email

You are correct in saying that the image is out of copyright however the Memorial still retains the rights to this image if someone wishes to use this image commercially.

I wonder on what legal basis the AWM claims to have rights to control commerial usage? Copyright? Trademark? Patent? Perhaps it is their watermark they are claiming trademark or copyright on as the picture itself is public domain? In that case the AWM's restriction on commercial use conflicts with their request to leave their watermark in the picture. Restricting commecial use is a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License under which wikipedia is released.

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially,...

The Memorial only asks that you please keep the watermark on the image which has the image number attached.

From the GFDL:

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License

and

..., and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.

A requirement to keep the watermark and number is an additional condition, which incompatible with the GFDL. I note that it is phrased as a request not a demand, so the AWM's statement probably is compatible. The user is free to ignore the request by removing the watermark and number, though one is also free to be polite and leave them in.

I suggest that the AWM should drop their attempt to restrict commercial use in order to encourage people to leave their image number intact. Keeping the image number is good in that it is a method of citing a source.

John Dalton 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup...

On their website, as I read it the AWM more or less admit that they have no basis for placing requirements on images in their database:

The copyright law is very complex and constantly evolving.

We're not confident enough with what follows to actually say it is true.

The information in this document is provided as guidance only and does not constitute expert or legal advice.

Let's back away from our words a little more.

If in doubt, always assume that a work is in copyright and seek legal advice before reproducing it.

Despite the fact we have no basis for our position, you better not copy it anyway (ie. we are bluffing)

As a non expert in law, I would think that the AWM might be able to claim a copyright on their database a whole, but not on the individual pictures where copyright has expired. John Dalton 01:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also communicated with AWM and got a similar response. Since, if I understand Australian law correctly, all photos taken before 1955 are public domain documents, that means that any person can alter them any way they want to. You don't have to keep the AWM logo on there. Anyway, the versions of the photos that AWM puts on their website are low quality reproductions, in an attempt to get people to buy the better versions of these public domain documents. Nevertheless, we're using these photos for a project of a non-profit, educational organization, not for commercial reasons. In my opinion, the AWM is treading on thin ice by implying that we have some obligation to follow their rules regarding these images and documents that belong to us, the general public, i.e. "the people." (raises fist in the air). Cla68 01:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking Wikpedia (the encyclopedia) is not a non-commercial, non-profit educational project (sorry for the double negative, but it is incorrect to say that wikipedia is a commercial project). The GFDL does allow commercial, profit driven and non-educational uses. Just look at answers.com. The GFDL also stipulates that a commercial, profit driven and/or non-educational user must grant everyone the right to copy and modify their version of wikipedia (the encyclopedia).

Wikipedia (the website and charity) is non-profit, it is commercial though (takes money from answers.com). Wikipedia (the community) has a non-commercial, non-profit tradition. The main reason Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) is mostly non-commercial is that the business world has yet to see past an accident of the English language (libre=gratis) and get their brain around the fact that something can be free (as in freedom) and make money at the same time! John Dalton 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that Wikipedia takes money from Answers.com. That's good to know before I really stick my foot in my mouth sometime. Also, I guess if someone takes an image from Wikipedia and uses it for a money-making reason (which I guess is allowed under Wikipedia's rules) then I can see where sources of images like AWM would be wary about allowing people to take their photos for Wikipedia articles without any compensation. Still, the pre-1955 images are public domain documents. It's too bad that AWM doesn't make high quality images available for anyone to download for free, but it sounds like AWM needs additional sources of funding for their activities and maintenance. Cla68 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]