Talk:Reform of copyright and copyright-related protections
Add topicTitle change
[edit]The new title is weird. How are things like database rights included in it? --Nemo 12:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, database rights fall under the category of Intellectual Property Rights. Calling it IPR Reform seems weirder, though. We have a few examples in our long list (database rights and data protection) which are not strictly copyright, but I nevertheless suggest to keep it simple for the general public and leave the title. In our priorities list database rights will most probably not even be mentioned, as they're a EU-only issue. --Dimi z (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Our priorities" being what? Is this some USA-only thing? Database rights seem among the most important problems around. --Nemo 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Priorities
[edit]I will make the first pitch and suggest the following list, based on everything I have read so far:
Fundamental goals
- Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms
- Raising treshhold for required added creativity
- Standardised limitations and exceptions
- Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
Issue-oriented goals
- Government Works (We need to discuss the relationship between government works/publicly funded works and what we want to go for.)
- Freedom of Panorama
- Orphan Works
- Open Access/Open Educational Resources (in OA we want freely licensed content, therefore I am grouping these two together)
As we're talking about a possible policy statement calling for a copyright reform, I am strictly excluding all issues like censorship and FoI (important, but not copyright). --Dimi z (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Great Summary!! I'd rather say: Fundamental goal- Strengthen the public domain and for that we need the above mentioned goals (first four). And I would like to add something related to Orphan works. Opt-insystem if good for that, but we also need a clear policy for them. I am paraphrasing Bea's commont from the mailing list
For the continued discussion please go to Talk:Advocacy
Google and EU booklet disinformation
[edit]Google is distributing a rather questionable handbook [1], where I originally wanted to check whether it says anything about participating into free cultural works/Wikimedia projects (answer: no, of course, though it mentions CC licenses: "participation" even has a Google Maps icon, not OSM).
- Curious, ad hoc (or rather, twisted) logic: «47% of users cannot confidently identify whether the online content they download, stream or share is legal or not – highlighting the importance of increased efforts to and educate inform consumers.» [2]
- Anti-Bern convention statements? «Copyrighting your work. Have you ever copyrighted your own work? How do you do it? Where can you find further information?»