Hi Ish,
At 08:24 13-09-2015, Ish Sookun wrote:
>Yes, the image was published [1] under a CC
>license, not share-alike though. You can search
>for images on the web that are labelled for
>re-use. The author can claim it and ask for removal if he/she wishes.
The above explains why you reused the image. The
image was probably created by Ed Brubaker or Sean
Phillips. It is unlikely that the author
released it under a Creative Commons license. A
person will read your blog and assume that you
were authorized to license the image under a Creative Commons license.
>The ICT Authority is a regulator not law
>enforcer. I quoted ICTA in the article [2] since
>the extract from defimedia.info mentioned that a
>person from ICTA said usually they do not
>receive a reply. I assumed from that it was ICTA
>who contacted the organization for subscriber information.
If it is the ICTA, that might be part of the
reasons why Google did not agree to the request
which it received from Mauritius.
There was a comment by Ashok Radhakissoon [1][2]:
"Je veux attirer l’attention, surtout qu’on parle ici de sanction et de loi,
sur un jugement de la Cour suprême en Inde prononcé cette année. En Inde,
il y a aussi l’Information Technology Act de 2000, amendée en 2008, dont
l’article 66A est identique à notre article 46.
La Cour suprême indienne a déclaré cet article anticonstitutionnel.
C’est-à-dire, en Inde on n’a plus le droit d’utiliser les dispositions de
l’article 66A, qui sont identiques à celles que nous avons à l’île Maurice
selon l’article 46, pour traîner les gens en justice et les condamner."
"Oui entièrement d’accord. D’ailleurs, je compte bientôt soulever ce point
de droit devant la Cour suprême."
It would be interesting to read the opinion of
the (local) Supreme Court about Section 46.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://soundcloud.com/radioplus-3/120915-au-coeur-de-linfo
2. Skip to 40 minutes
Received on Sun Sep 13 2015 - 17:18:57 PST