(1) 為批評或評論某一作品或另一作品或批評或評論某一作品的表演而公平處理該某一作品，只要附有足夠的確認聲明，即不屬侵犯該某一作品的任何版權，而就已發表版本而言，亦不屬侵犯其排印編排的版權。
(2) 為報導時事而公平處理某一作品，只要附有足夠的確認聲明(除第(3)款另有規定外)，不屬侵犯該作品的任何版權。
(3) 藉聲音紀錄、影片、廣播或有線傳播節目報導時事，不須附有確認聲明。
[比照 1988 c. 48 s. 30 U.K.]

reporter on 26/10/2006 at 3:59 pm said:

女孩的名字—英文名字相同多不勝數，報館已不落中文名改用識別能力較低的英文名，何以要出假名？

知道是哪間BSP的blog、及該blog的版面又如何？
我不明白為何要不公開？

女孩的樣貌（雖然遮了眼部）

知道是哪間BSP的blog、及該blog的版面又如何？
我不明白為何要不公開？

女孩的樣貌（雖然遮了眼部）

What I mean is that Creative Commons is a “some rights reserved” copyright, usually with terms more relaxed on sharing. At the same time, CC being copyright means that if it is phrased explicitly, then the license is enforceable like other forms of copyright. For example, the CC term “attribution-noncommercial” explicitly prohibits commercial use, and that any possible user must mention the origin of the material.

If the blog we are talking about here had this CC license, then Apple Daily had already violated the license, and is liable to possible lawsuit, since they use the material from the blog for revenue.

Sorry that I had not communicated my thoughts in clearer terms… I had this bad habit of getting excited about things and jump steps so far that people had difficulty understanding me….

記者將事件曝光呢？
社署即時接觸報館(參看翌日蘋果報道)，記者見報當日通知學校，校長和社工即時跟進少女處理，其父親究竟有沒有虐待？少女是否需要社署照顧？都因記者報道後，而有專業人員和機構加以跟進。

總結事件，不知就裡的人可能會有sidekick的擔心，但別想到記者就唯利是圖的惡魔！(如果係咁，不如男的販毒，女的做雞去好了，何必低薪做記者？)

不少記者發現到類此新聞時，都必定力追社署和學校回應及跟進，唯恐少女再受暴力對待，此乃撰寫報道首要出發點。

totem on 26/10/2006 at 11:15 am said:

謝謝你的指教, 已經修正.

[亂想] [引文] 媒體為bloggers打造的文字獄

不客氣！:)

sidekick on 24/10/2006 at 10:50 pm said:

木偶 on 24/10/2006 at 2:31 pm said:

Sidekick,

如果個 blog 到有 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License 的字句, o甘佢地係咪已經犯咗法呀? o甘係咪已經可以告佢?

不關事, 沒有用~
香港的版權有一條類似fair use 的條款, 在新聞報道、評論, 及學術用途之類, 是豁免於版權的~
晚點可能會寫寫~

You know, I would be very excited if someone actually had something on her blog that is CC protected, and then got quoted by newspaper. If she sues, then we can have a good idea whether a properly phased CC license can block such non-consensual use in court.

BTW, remember Adam Curry? He had sued a magazine in Holland for copyright infringement of his family’s photos on Flickr (with CC attribution-non commercial-share alike license) back in March, and the verdict was in favour of CC being an enforceable copyright (details here: http://curry.podshow.com/?p=49). So, while the legal system is different in Holland, there are some sort of legal precedent on CC being uphold.

[亂想] [引文] 媒體為bloggers打造的文字獄

如果有一天﹐有記者將你用筆名寫在網誌上你與家人之間的秘密當作趣聞報導﹐同時從你的陳年網上相簿中找到你的照片﹐將雙眼隱去就登在報章雜誌上。所有親戚朋友看到﹐都認得出是你﹐…

注意！三者都只是說說，並未有實際計劃和行動。網上類似言論不少，令人擔心政府又一張刀已在大家頭上，不過，從來無人能看清楚那張刀是怎樣的。

Kli on 24/10/2006 at 9:55 pm said:

其實亦應該請blogger學會保護自己 – 甚麼事可以公開說，甚麼事不適合公開說，自己應想清楚。

所言甚是, 這是很基本的認知, 雖然很多人都不知……
但, 例如, 我曾寫過自己被非禮的事, 我想跟朋友分享~
如果, 蘋果冇啦啦將我篇文見報, 話明係sidekick, 有埋文章內容, 有埋相(雖然遮眼), 你猜, 我會有甚麼感覺?
然後, 第二日返工, 全公司同事都知道晒我俾人非禮, 屋企又打俾我, 我媽喊晒, 問我做乜唔話俾佢o地知, 我點算?
是否, 我這一刻, 就應該拿拿臨delete o左篇文, delete 晒我所有放過o既相? 甚至, 不如delete o左個blog 算?

ML on 24/10/2006 at 3:44 pm said:

This is my first visit here, nice to meet you.

謝謝你, 你blog很好看~

pig on 24/10/2006 at 3:23 pm said:

今日講法庭影相既Leo又唔知會唔會遲D俾人告。

係呀, 阿leo 做o既o野有證有據, 連張相都俾人登埋, 真係牙煙…
今次蘋果又唔cap 圖? 等人搵到阿leo 個blog 嘛… -___-”

pig on 24/10/2006 at 3:19 pm said:

其實真係唔係咁多人想自已個blog見報。

睇性質罷? 例如星島及成報的每日一blog, 如果他們已問准, 這樣的情形, 就似貼堂~ 應該是高興的!

木偶 on 24/10/2006 at 2:31 pm said:

Sidekick,

如果個 blog 到有 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License 的字句, o甘佢地係咪已經犯咗法呀? o甘係咪已經可以告佢?

不關事, 沒有用~
香港的版權有一條類似fair use 的條款, 在新聞報道、評論, 及學術用途之類, 是豁免於版權的~
晚點可能會寫寫~

chong on 24/10/2006 at 8:25 am said:

節錄及推介了你這篇文章，在獨立媒體．

謝謝~

Chong 說獨媒轉載了我文時, 去了看, 所以有看你的~
我當然知道“很難做到”, 唏! 我自己多年來都在media工作!
但本文旨在指出傳媒(蘋果)的不是, 及喚起blogger對同類事件的關注.
就如“普選”一樣~ 很難, 但依然要講、要提~

http://florencelai.blogspot.com/2006/10/blogger.html#comments

請多多指教。

Florence