I would argue "in practice" is all that matters. No matter what you do if someone with enough power wants to fuck you up legally - he will. As true in USA as in Germany, Poland, Russia or North Korea. Only the probability is different. It's sad, but it's the reality we live in.
I prefer a system with obvious loopholes and low "getting fucked probability" (GFP) to a system with no loopholes and high GFP.
Government of my country in last 5 years broke constitution dozens of times, including unlawfully changing the election date, changing how judges are chooosen (making them dependant on the politicians), restricting many kinds of personal liberties like freedom of assembly without going through the proper process and many others. And nobody can do anything because they have political support because they gave away a big portion of yearly GDP to poor people.
Constutitional Tribunal said the government is breaking the law. Government ignored it and changed the judges (breaking the law again). Some people protested, most people ignored it. Now a PM that admited "our law breaks the constitution but I will vote for it" became the chairman of that Tribunal as a big "fuck you" to the opposition.
So what that our system of checks and balances was pretty good (I'd argue better than the one in Germany and USA) if the government just decides to ignore it and people don't care?
So I much prefer practice to theory. Good system doesn't work if people don't care. Bad system still works if people care enough.
> So if a Polish resident contributes an original photograph to a Wikipedia article under CC-BY-SA-3.0, and I (or a Polish entity) use that photograph under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 in a way that "harms" the copyright holder, he can sue me (or the Polish entity in question) under Polish law? This seems absolutely insane to me, and surely can't be the case!
and it mentions "autorskie prawa osobowe" (personal copyright rights) as one example of additional restrictions.
> Licencja może nie zapewniać wszystkich niezbędnych zgód dla niektórych użyć utworu. Dotyczy to w szczególności innych praw, takich jak ochrona wizerunku, prywatności czy autorskie prawa osobiste. Mogą one ograniczać możliwości wykorzystania utworu.
Paraphrased (sorry IANAL and translating legalese is not my strong point): The licence might not ensure all required permissions for some uses of the art. It's possible especially in cases of other rights being violated, like the right to protect identity, privacy or personal copyright which might further restrict possible uses of the art.
I'm pretty sure Poland isn't the only country where there are additional restrictions, I don't know why you think it's insane honestly.
I would argue "in practice" is all that matters. No matter what you do if someone with enough power wants to fuck you up legally - he will. As true in USA as in Germany, Poland, Russia or North Korea. Only the probability is different. It's sad, but it's the reality we live in.
I prefer a system with obvious loopholes and low "getting fucked probability" (GFP) to a system with no loopholes and high GFP.
Government of my country in last 5 years broke constitution dozens of times, including unlawfully changing the election date, changing how judges are chooosen (making them dependant on the politicians), restricting many kinds of personal liberties like freedom of assembly without going through the proper process and many others. And nobody can do anything because they have political support because they gave away a big portion of yearly GDP to poor people.
Constutitional Tribunal said the government is breaking the law. Government ignored it and changed the judges (breaking the law again). Some people protested, most people ignored it. Now a PM that admited "our law breaks the constitution but I will vote for it" became the chairman of that Tribunal as a big "fuck you" to the opposition.
So what that our system of checks and balances was pretty good (I'd argue better than the one in Germany and USA) if the government just decides to ignore it and people don't care?
So I much prefer practice to theory. Good system doesn't work if people don't care. Bad system still works if people care enough.
> So if a Polish resident contributes an original photograph to a Wikipedia article under CC-BY-SA-3.0, and I (or a Polish entity) use that photograph under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 in a way that "harms" the copyright holder, he can sue me (or the Polish entity in question) under Polish law? This seems absolutely insane to me, and surely can't be the case!
I've looked into Polish description of CC-BY-SA-3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pl
and it mentions "autorskie prawa osobowe" (personal copyright rights) as one example of additional restrictions.
> Licencja może nie zapewniać wszystkich niezbędnych zgód dla niektórych użyć utworu. Dotyczy to w szczególności innych praw, takich jak ochrona wizerunku, prywatności czy autorskie prawa osobiste. Mogą one ograniczać możliwości wykorzystania utworu.
Paraphrased (sorry IANAL and translating legalese is not my strong point): The licence might not ensure all required permissions for some uses of the art. It's possible especially in cases of other rights being violated, like the right to protect identity, privacy or personal copyright which might further restrict possible uses of the art.
I'm pretty sure Poland isn't the only country where there are additional restrictions, I don't know why you think it's insane honestly.