User:Candidyeoman55

Hello, my name is Victor, and I'm from Brazil. I carry with me a strong curiosity about the world. I hope to contribute in ways that are meaningful and lasting. My goal is not just to observe but to participate, to take part in building, shaping, and sharing knowledge wherever possible.

Regarding the name Candid Yeoman, I’ll admit I don’t know exactly what “Yeoman” means, but I find the combination appealing. It feels unique, memorable, and open to interpretation, which I think makes it a strong choice for a name or a title. The number 55, on the other hand, is the international dialing code for Brazil.

This page is still in the process of being written, and like most works in progress, it will continue to grow and evolve over time. What you see here now is only the beginning, and I look forward to shaping it into something more complete.

What I think a good copyright policy would be

When discussing copyright, one of the first questions we should ask is whether the image, text, or piece of media in question is itself a product. This distinction matters for how we approach fair use. Some images clearly function as products in their own right, such as the famous photograph Evan Vucci took during the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, or the widely circulated "Distracted Boyfriend" stock photo. These kinds of images are sold, licensed, and directly generate revenue, so it makes sense that Wikipedia reduces the size of the image here, given that one of the fair use principles here is respect for commercial opportunities. Other cases like logos, cover arts of music albums, video games, etc, shouldn't be reduced given that the product the copyright holders are selling is not the image.

However, not every visual representation should qualify. For example, the outline of a country, state, province, region, or city should be considered ineligible for copyright and automatically part of the public domain. Outlines are basic, factual representations, not creative works in the artistic sense. That said, while the raw outline of a place should remain free for everyone to use, maps, which involve creative choices in design, style, and data presentation, could justifiably be eligible for copyright.

There are also cases where works should be disqualified from protection altogether, regardless of creativity. Illegal graffiti, for example, should not enjoy copyright because it is the product of a criminal act. Similarly, material produced by terrorist organizations or criminal groups should be considered ineligible, both for moral and legal reasons, since copyright should not provide protection or legitimacy to groups engaged in violent and unlawful activities.

As for duration, I think it should vary depending on the type of work. The copyright of works by anonymous or unknown authors should last no more than 50 years, since it is unreasonable to indefinitely preserve rights for creators who cannot be identified or contacted. Movies, television programs, musical compositions, and sound recordings should enjoy longer protection of 100 years. Books, meanwhile, should follow the traditional "life of the author plus 70 years" rule, as this strikes a balance between rewarding the author and eventually returning the work to the public.

Finally, there should be a safeguard to prevent works from being locked away indefinitely. If a work becomes orphaned, meaning the rights-holder cannot be located or identified, its copyright should automatically expire, ensuring that the public is not denied access to cultural materials simply because ownership is unclear.

In short, a good copyright policy would carefully distinguish between what is truly a creative product and what belongs in the public domain, would deny protection to works created illegally or for harmful purposes, and would tailor the length of copyright to the type of work, all while ensuring that orphaned works are not lost to the public forever.

Government works

I believe that government works should never be subject to copyright. Instead, they should be governed by separate laws specifically designed to regulate their use. The reason for this is that government-produced material, by its very nature, belongs to the public. It is created using public resources and for the benefit of society as a whole, so it should not be restricted in the same way as private works of authorship.

This principle extends to official symbols of government, such as flags, coats of arms, emblems, and other insignia at the national, state, provincial, regional, or municipal levels. Once such symbols are formally or informally adopted, they should not be eligible for copyright protection ever again. These symbols serve as collective identifiers of communities and institutions rather than the property of any single individual or organization. To subject them to copyright would be to privatize something that is meant to represent the public.

However, while copyright should not apply to government works or symbols, this does not mean they should be used without restriction. Instead, their use should be governed by laws tailored to prevent misuse. For example, regulations could prohibit their use in ways that cause confusion, impersonation, or misrepresentation of official authority. This ensures that while the symbols remain in the public domain, their integrity is preserved and their function as markers of legitimacy and identity is protected.

In short, government works and symbols should always be free for the public to use, but carefully regulated through legal frameworks designed to prevent abuse.

National security

When it comes to national security leaks, the issue is not copyright but security law. Materials leaked from intelligence agencies, militaries, or other state security institutions like the police should never be copyrighted. Instead, such cases should fall under laws governing secrecy, espionage, and the protection of sensitive information. Treating leaks as copyright violations confuses the purpose of intellectual property law. The proper response is to regulate them under national security legislation, which is designed specifically to protect state interests and public safety.

Currency

Currency is another area where copyright should not apply. Money is not a creative product in the same sense as art, literature, or media; rather, it is a tool of exchange and a foundation of the economy. Placing it under copyright would make little sense, since its value comes from government authority and public trust, not from intellectual creativity.

That said, this does not mean currency should be unregulated. Instead of copyright, laws against counterfeiting should ensure that money cannot be reproduced or altered in ways that undermine its legitimacy. In fact, the U.S. Secret Service was originally created in the 19th century specifically to combat counterfeiting, which was a major problem at the time. Similar institutions and laws exist around the world, designed to preserve the integrity of national currencies.

Thus, currency should be entirely free of copyright, but protected by strong legal frameworks that prevent fraud and forgery while ensuring that the design and circulation of money remain reliable.

Crown and Government Copyright

In Commonwealth realms, there is the concept of Crown copyright, while in others there is government copyright. Both allow the state to claim ownership over works produced by or for government institutions. While these systems are intended to give the state control over official materials, I believe they should be eliminated. Publicly funded works should belong to the public by default, and only in very narrow cases—such as sensitive security documents—should restrictions apply, and even then it should be non-copyright restrictions. Otherwise, Crown or government copyright simply creates unnecessary barriers between citizens and information that was produced with their own resources.

Freedom of panorama

I believe freedom of panorama should be very permissive. This principle, which allows people to photograph and share images of public buildings, monuments, and artworks permanently located in public spaces, is essential for ensuring that culture remains accessible to everyone. Public spaces belong to the people, and so should the ability to freely capture and share what exists in them.

A famous example of restrictive rules comes from France, where the Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain, but the tower’s nighttime light display is still copyrighted. This means that technically, distributing photographs of the illuminated Eiffel Tower requires permission, even though the monument is an international symbol standing in a public place. Rules like these show how overly strict laws can interfere with something as simple and natural as sharing a picture of a landmark.

For that reason, freedom of panorama should be broad and unrestricted, ensuring that anyone can photograph and share public works without fear of legal consequences.

Politics

Politically, I identify as a conservative Brazilian with strong sympathies toward the values and institutions of the Western world. I am firmly pro-American, supportive of Ukraine in its defense of sovereignty, and staunchly pro-Israel. I hold an unwavering opposition to antisemitism in all its forms, as well as to terrorism and any ideology that seeks to undermine peace, order, or human dignity.

Although I am a Catholic, my respect and admiration extend beyond my own faith. I feel a deep sense of sympathy for Protestants, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Spiritists, Mormons, and Jews. Each of these traditions contributes in its own way to the moral and spiritual fabric of society, and I believe mutual respect among faiths strengthens rather than weakens our shared moral foundation.

When it comes to foreign and domestic policy, I believe Brazil must stand firmly with the Western world rather than align itself with anti-Western blocs or regimes that oppose democracy and liberty. I hold a strong dislike for the Workers’ Party (PT) and its ideological direction, but I do not identify as a “Bolsonarista.” My loyalty is not to politicians or movements, but to principles: freedom, democracy, and truth. I am fiercely opposed to tyranny in all its forms, deeply committed to free speech, and adamantly against the ideological excesses of wokeness.

I completely rejected the 8 January 2023 attacks in Brasília, which I view as a shame to Brazil’s image abroad. At the same time, I believe the Supreme Court of Brazil has overstepped its constitutional limits in recent years. Both lawlessness and authoritarian overreach are threats to the rule of law.

Economically, I am a passionate defender of capitalism, viewing it as the most effective system for generating prosperity and rewarding effort. However, I also believe in maintaining certain safeguards to ensure that misfortune or bad luck does not condemn people to destitution. My stance is decidedly anti-socialist and anti-communist, as I regard those ideologies as fundamentally flawed and historically destructive. I am also anti-populism, as I believe it oversimplifies complex issues and often leads to emotional, rather than rational, governance.

On moral and social issues, I hold a pro-natalist view, supporting the encouragement of family growth and the protection of human life. I am firmly against abortion, but I recognize there are rare and tragic circumstances that warrant exceptions—such as when the mother’s life is at risk, in cases of severe fetal abnormalities, ectopic pregnancies, or incest (which I define as involving individuals sharing the same biological great-grandparent). In the case of rape, I would allow abortion only before the fetus reaches viability, and even then, only if the nation is not facing wartime or demographic emergency conditions.

As an autistic individual, I strongly support autism advocacy and the fight against discrimination toward people on the spectrum. Society must create space for autistic voices to be heard, understood, and respected. However, I am also concerned that many current autism advocacy movements have become entangled with the broader ideology of wokeness, which I believe distracts from the real issues that autistic individuals face and ultimately harms our cause.

I recognize that no political camp has a monopoly on truth or moral clarity. Conservatives, like liberals and leftists, are fallible. What matters most is the integrity of dialogue, the willingness to learn, and the respect we show toward those who disagree with us.

If you hold different beliefs from mine, that is perfectly fine. I welcome respectful disagreement and civil debate. Above all, let us uphold dignity—always.

Summary

I just want to contribute to create and foster a better and more informed world.