[Imc-web] Re: [Imc-tech] intellectual property rights and our site

[Mike Lehman]

One thing that could be done would be to put some sort of asterisk on 
the copyright mark that explains the exemptions for fair use. Although 
I'm certainly no lawyer, this seems to work for folks like Commondreams 
and Buzzflash.

While I agree with Paul's perfect world argument, the reality is that 
open publishing is always going to attract a certain percentage of 
reposts of copyright material, unless we make some sort of blanket rule 
against it. There are two issues which seem to indicate having a 
copyright option is a reasonable compromise.

First, I never heard anymore after Sascha's email when he was in Ireland 
that seemed to raise concerns about copyright issues on IMC. I suppose 
that having the copyright option (especially when linked with a fair use 
disclamier) might provide some sort of protection against such a 
problem. Again, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to be a viable option, based 
on its invication elsewhere. Maybe Sascha can tell us more about what 
prompted the initial, rather avgue email, that might be relevant to 
Paul's concerns?

Second, Indymedia supplies an option for readers that doesn't occur in 
other media where copyright material appears without any chance for them 
to supply their own feedback directly attached to the article, which 
Indymedia does via the Comments option. Such stories can spark 
interesting discussions and analysis here that don't get a chance to 
happen in other venues. I think that is a legitimate use of Indymedia in 
such circumstances.

One last point is that people look to Indymedia as a portal to other 
news of interest that doesn't get covered in local media. Often times, 
this may be something that appears in dominant media elsewhere, but 
which will never appear in the News-Gazette, for instance. While those 
of us who are media activists are very familiar with these alternative 
and locally-unheard sources, first time readers and those who are just 
learning about a different way of looking at the media via Indymedia are 
greatly benefited by getting links to alternative sources of 
information, mainstream or otherwise, to supplement what they find at 
Indymedia when they are wanting to break out of the local media 
straightjacket. This is a variety of outreach that is implicit in our 
mission, but often underestimated in its importance.
Mike Lehman

Paul Bengt Riismandel wrote:

> I just now noticed that posts to the site under the new dada have 
> intellectual property rights as part of their metadata.
> 
>  
> 
> I’d like to point out that the original philosophy behind Indymedia was 
> open publishing, which also meant, open reuse for non-profit purposes. 
> While this is an option under the new intellectual property rights 
> schema, it is not the only one.
> 
>  
> 
> What concerns me is that the change happened without discussion. My 
> assumption is that it’s simply a feature of the new code and nobody 
> thought to turn it off, which is fine. But, then, I do think it deserves 
> some discussion now.
> 
>  
> 
> I’m most uncomfortable with the option to express full copyright, all 
> rights reserved, simply because that is the antithesis of open 
> publishing. I know I may be in the minority here, but I think very 
> strongly that if you want to reserve all rights to your stuff, then you 
> shouldn’t be posting it to Indymedia.
> 
>  
> 
> I have fewer problems with reserving some rights, like only for 
> non-profit use, etc.
> 
>  
> 
> I realize that my position poses problems for all the copyrighted stuff 
> that gets reposted… but, then, I’ve NEVER liked all the stuff that gets 
> reposted and have for a long time advocated for people to write 
> summaries and critiques with links back to original stories, rather than 
> post the stories themselves.
> 
>  
> 
> In my perfect world, UCIMC would take a stand against having 
> all-rights-reserved copyrighted material on our site altogether… but 
> that may be a dream.
> 
>  
> 
> (PS, I’ll note here that Press Releases are typically released as public 
> domain, or some rights reserved…)
> 
>  
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>  
> 
> --Paul
>