[Clipart] clipart Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29

[Greg Bulmash]

Perhaps Wikimedia Commons already has a set of procedures in place
that can be copied or used as reference. If not, then I think that a
lawyer needs to be consulted about OCAL's responsibilities to respond
to third party reports of infringement. What level of proof does the
report need to reach, and once it reaches that level, what does OCAL
need to do? IMO, if OCAL follows a procedure set out by an attorney,
it can be the difference between getting a suit dismissed or letting
it go to trial.

- Greg

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Jon Phillips <jon at rejon.org> wrote:
> Well, I would favor that we need to see specific proof of something
> being a violation either via a url or an original copyright holder
> making a claim and/or providing an example of the copywritten
> material. This is also why we need a flagging system
>
> Jon
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:13 AM, John Olsen <johnny_automatic at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:29 AM, clipart-request at lists.freedesktop.org wrote:
>>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:29:14 -0700
>>> From: Greg Bulmash <oneminuteinspirations at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Clipart] Can some one answer these queries please?
>>> To: Gerald Ganson <Gerald.Ganson at rdc.ab.ca>
>>> Cc: clipart <clipart at lists.freedesktop.org>
>>> Message-ID:
>>>       <g2tdbc6f7271004130829g52853d1bp9bf16700f44f41f0 at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>> If true, I wonder if ArtFavor is deliberately trying to poison the
>>> collection or if ArtFavor is just clueless.
>>>
>>
>> Well this gets into the whole sticky situation of trusting our community of volunteers.  The main concern would be what liability is OCAL under?  Did we do what was necessary to not be the violator here? Is the onus on ArtFavor? In my neck of the woods ignorance of the law is no excuse.  So if they are under copyright then it seems that ArtFavor is the violator here unless he can point to a place where he got them and it was stated to be in the PD.  If ArtFavor says they are PD and some else says they are copyright, shouldn't we have some specific examples of violations and proof of copyright?  Is it the copyright holder's job to defend his copyright?  If it is Corel, would we need a cease and desist from them?  Obviously we can't keep stuff under copyright on here.  I also wonder if Corel's copyright claim is for the collection, not the art itself.  This is the fine line that Dover books always claimed.  They had no claim to all their old PD graphics.  They merely claimed co
>>  pyright on the layout and collection of them in their books.
>>
>>
>> John Olsen
>> _______________________________________________
>> clipart mailing list
>> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jon Phillips
> http://rejon.org/
> http://fabricatorz.com/
> http://status.net/
> http://rejon.status.net + skype: kidproto
> +1.415.830.3884 (sf/global)
> +86.134.3957.2035 (china)
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
>