The WMF loses ruling in German court

[Poetlister]

We aren't talking about playing music, but the sound recording which has a copyright independent of the songwriting, and performance. So with a song you have the songwriter copyright, the performers copyright, and the sound recordists copyright.

There are even more than these. There are separate copyrights for each of the lyrics, melody and arrangement, and for any written or printed representations of them.

Obviously, anyone who has contributed anything that is original and significant to the final product is entitled to copyright on that contribution. If one of the musicians departs from the specified music and does a substantial improvisation, as is very common in jazz, that is entitled to copyright too.

[lilburne]

We aren't talking about playing music, but the sound recording which has a copyright independent of the songwriting, and performance. So with a song you have the songwriter copyright, the performers copyright, and the sound recordists copyright.

There are even more than these. There are separate copyrights for each of the lyrics, melody and arrangement, and for any written or printed representations of them.

Music copyright is a mess.

Nope!

[JapaneseForeigner]

Humanity is in an interesting conundrum because of how much material is now in the public domain but actually quite inaccessible. It's possible that a reevaluation of the sweat of the brow doctrine should be undertaken. For instance, allowing a short copyright-like period for digitizers and hosts of PD material that's slavishly fixed in a new medium (like 5 years). But the current rule, requiring some "creative spark" for a copyright to exist... and not recognizing the substantial outlay of capital required for digitizing efforts.

In principle, I'd support such a thing. But based on things like Copyright_Term_Extension_Act (T-H-L) even if its initially a short term, in reality its likely just to entrench the rights in another layer of protection permanently. (Also, its moot in that based on current trends, nothing new will ever enter the public domain again, so there is a fixed amount of old material that would benefit).

[mendaliv]

Humanity is in an interesting conundrum because of how much material is now in the public domain but actually quite inaccessible. It's possible that a reevaluation of the sweat of the brow doctrine should be undertaken. For instance, allowing a short copyright-like period for digitizers and hosts of PD material that's slavishly fixed in a new medium (like 5 years). But the current rule, requiring some "creative spark" for a copyright to exist... and not recognizing the substantial outlay of capital required for digitizing efforts.

In principle, I'd support such a thing. But based on things like Copyright_Term_Extension_Act (T-H-L) even if its initially a short term, in reality its likely just to entrench the rights in another layer of protection permanently. (Also, its moot in that based on current trends, nothing new will ever enter the public domain again, so there is a fixed amount of old material that would benefit).

Exactly. At the end of the day it'd primarily be used to protect Mickey Mouse. So, sadly, there's little chance of public incentivizing of digitizing except, I suppose, through a public grant or charity mechanism. The problem with that is there's lots of incentive for duplicitous work (ever see how many copies of the exact same work HathiTrust tends to have?), and the digitization of junk. Copyright at least ideally would create a situation where commercially-exploitable works would preferentially get digitized.

[Poetlister]

What constitutes PD is a complex question because international law is so different from US law, and not all countries follow international law exactly. Due to the Internet, stuff can be uploaded anywhere and then viewed from anywhere else. Thus in the US you can see loads of stuff uploaded quite legally in Canada although it's copyright in the US. Just don't download it.

[iii]

What constitutes PD is a complex question because international law is so different from US law, and not all countries follow international law exactly. Due to the Internet, stuff can be uploaded anywhere and then viewed from anywhere else. Thus in the US you can see loads of stuff uploaded quite legally in Canada although it's copyright in the US. Just don't download it.

You know it is impossible to see stuff without downloading it, right? (Well, you can "see" that the file exists, but as soon as you see the contents of the file, it's been downloaded.)

Presumably you mean, "Erase it thoroughly after downloading it."

Something which the vast majority of people don't know how to do.

[ats]

You know it is impossible to see stuff without downloading it, right? (Well, you can "see" that the file exists, but as soon as you see the contents of the file, it's been downloaded.)

Presumably you mean, "Erase it thoroughly after downloading it."

Something which the vast majority of people don't know how to do.

It is also surprisingly hard to do. Even a full degausser routine generally isn't fully effective. It pretty amazing what they can recover these days. For actual high security information drive disposal is a sequence of overwrite, degauss, and full shredding. And then basically melting of the shredded bits. In a pinch Thermite and explosives can be acceptable.

[Zoloft]

You know it is impossible to see stuff without downloading it, right? (Well, you can "see" that the file exists, but as soon as you see the contents of the file, it's been downloaded.)

Presumably you mean, "Erase it thoroughly after downloading it."

Something which the vast majority of people don't know how to do.

It is also surprisingly hard to do. Even a full degausser routine generally isn't fully effective. It pretty amazing what they can recover these days. For actual high security information drive disposal is a sequence of overwrite, degauss, and full shredding. And then basically melting of the shredded bits. In a pinch Thermite and explosives can be acceptable.

For the home user, I advise using a software program (unless you have a defective hard drive) to erase and rewrite sectors, and then send the 'erased' drive to a company like this one to shred it.

[tarantino]

The Federal Court of Justice recently upheld the ruling.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has decided on Thursday, 20.12.2018 that copyright holders may prohibit Wikipedia from publishing photos of works of art in the public domain ( judgment of 20.12.2018, I ZR 104/17 -Museum photos ).

Photos of public domain paintings or other two-dimensional works then regularly enjoy protection of photos according to § 72 of the Copyright Act (UrhG). In making it, the photographer has to make decisions about a number of creative circumstances, including location, distance, viewing angle, exposure, and cropping. As a result, such photographs regularly reached the minimum level of personal intellectual achievement required for protection under § 72 (1) UrhG, including in the event of a dispute. Anyone who scans protected catalog photos and uploads them to the internet infringes this right, which is protected by the Copyright Act.

In addition, museums may continue to prohibit visitors to take photographs of the artworks exhibited by means of the General Terms and Conditions of Business. Also in the concrete case the regulation in the user order and aushängende pictograms with a crossed-out camera as AGB were effectively included in the inspection contract with. Anyone who still photographs and then puts the pictures on the net is liable to the museum for damages for breach of contract. In this case, the museum may demand that Wikipedia refrain from placing the images freely accessible on the internet.

[Poetlister]

How will the German government enforce this ruling?

[Dysklyver]

Well Germany did block Project Gutenberg.

[Jim]

Well Germany did block Project Gutenberg.

No it didn't. Project Gutenberg blocked Germany. A German court ordered Gutenberg to remove 18 books , or make them inaccessible to German users, and pay damages - and in response Gutenberg made its whole collection inaccessible to German users.

https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/

Q: Why block PG's entire collection, rather than just those 18 books?
A: PGLAF's legal advisors disagree with all claims that there must be any blocking, or removal, or anything associated - censorship, fines/fees, disclaimers, etc. - for items that are in the public domain in the US. Period.

Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books, there is every reason to think that this will keep happening. There are thousands of eBooks in the Project Gutenberg collection that could be subject to similar over-reaching and illigitimate actions.

PGLAF is a small volunteer organization, with no income (it doesn't sell anything) other than donations. There is every reason to fear that this huge corporation, with the backing of the German Court, will continue to take legal action. In fact, at least one other similar complaint arrived in 2017 about different books in the Project Gutenberg collection, from another company in Germany.

Project Gutenberg's focus is to make as much of the world's literature available as possible, to as many people as possible. But it is, and always has been, entirely US-based, and entirely operating within the copyright laws of the US. Blocking Germany, in an effort to forestall further legal actions, seems the best way to protect the organization and retain focus on its mission.

Of course, for users of German IP addresses all this might be "a difference which makes no difference" to the extent that all they might generally know is that they no longer have access to Gutenberg, which may displease them, but maybe not enough to investigate precisely why, or kick up a stink if they disagree with the reasons. Some of them may think the outcome is a good thing in that it removes content locally deemed 'illegal' to download for free. As providers of a free service Gutenberg certainly have the 'right' to decide to whom they feel they can provide it, and which battles they can afford to/are prepared to fight. Their Q&A page does indicate they intend to appeal the '18 books' decision.

[Dysklyver]

According to a random Germans interpretation of what may have been the court documents for that case, the court held a complete block by Germany's internet regulator as an option if they hadn't complied with the court order. And there was at that time a number of very similar lawsuits waiting to start which were defused by Gutenberg leaving the German market. But would the WMF behave any differently?

[Jim]

According to a random Germans interpretation of what may have been the court documents for that case, the court held a complete block by Germany's internet regulator as an option if they hadn't complied with the court order.

There are always options. We may never know what would have happened in that situation. Anyway, I don't think they have paid damages, so to that extent they probably haven't 'complied'. Perhaps your random German thinks that might still be enough for the 'option' to be exercised, and for Germany to actually block Gutenberg, since as matters stand Gutenberg could re-allow access at any time they wished to (though I doubt that would include the '18 books').

But would the WMF behave any differently?

I don't know, and I have no access to random German opinion on the matter. If asked to speculate my guess is that, yes, they would behave differently. They have an actual German presence, unlike Gutenberg, and they would undoubtedly 'care' more. Different projects already have different copyright rules, although en.wp as by far the biggest is obviously accessed a lot even in places with 'local.wp'. I'd be surprised if whatever the WMF reaction was it did not contain large dollops of stupid, though...

[Kumioko]

Honestly I have no sympathy for the WMF at all. The WMF uses the volunteers as a shield to protect themselves from negligent and complacent behavior that would have long ago had sever consequences to almost any other company. It's about time someone slapped their hand.

[Vigilant]

How will the German government enforce this ruling?

Summon WMF directors to appear in court.

I'd use an Interpol Red warrant, but that's jut me.

Anybody remember Jimbo grinning like a fucking ghoul while helping to steal a professional photographer's work?

Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute (T-H-L)

[C&B]

That fucking monarchist.

[Poetlister]

The problem is that we now live in an interconnected world, where a website in any country can generally be seen in every other country. That's bound to be a nightmare for copyright. US copyright law is of course weird and in particular it seems to be the only country in the world where you have to renew copyright. I recently found online a book published in 1949; the author died in 1988. The book is copyright just about everywhere except the US because the publisher had gone out of business and so the copyright was not renewed.

[collect]

The problem is that we now live in an interconnected world, where a website in any country can generally be seen in every other country. That's bound to be a nightmare for copyright. US copyright law is of course weird and in particular it seems to be the only country in the world where you have to renew copyright. I recently found online a book published in 1949; the author died in 1988. The book is copyright just about everywhere except the US because the publisher had gone out of business and so the copyright was not renewed.

Copyright renewal stopped in 1992, AFAICT, in the US. Some countries do not respect copyright at all, however, or only in some circumstances.

[Anroth]

How will the German government enforce this ruling?

Summon WMF directors to appear in court.

I'd use an Interpol Red warrant, but that's jut me.

Anybody remember Jimbo grinning like a fucking ghoul while helping to steal a professional photographer's work?

Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute (T-H-L)

Well it will have to happen within a limited time-frame, Brexit and all...

[Poetlister]

Some countries do not respect copyright at all, however, or only in some circumstances.

Of course, there are always rogue states. One might, however, hope that the USA would try to behave as responsibly as the better countries.