Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

smolensk at eunet

Aug 22, 2008, 10:41 PM

Post #26 of 34 (544 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

On Friday 22 August 2008 19:58:54 Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk [at] eunet> wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 August 2008 08:08:49 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> >> Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?
> >
> > On a more serious note, perhaps bribe^H^H^H^H^Heconomic aid could be
> > given to the government of an internationally recognised small country
> > (say, Nauru), so that they drop copyright altogether?
>
> Why would you want to drop copyright anyway?

If said country wouldn't be cut out of the Internet, a server located in it
could host literally anything.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere9 at yahoo

Aug 23, 2008, 5:55 AM

Post #27 of 34 (544 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Supporters of broad use of PD-art outside of the U.S. have seized on a
> statement by Erik Möller that, "To put it plainly, WMF's position has
> always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain
> works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary
> represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." and called
> it the "position of the WMF"
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF)
> and "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation"
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-art).
>
> In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his
> intentions, Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the
> WMF. If the board does /intend/ to make this statement, a binding
> resolution would be a much better means.
>
> This choice of interpretation involves deliberately ignoring the current
> legal climate in certain countries outside the U.S., and I believe that
> is a significant departure at Commons.
>
> I am asking the board to step in and provide clarity on this issue in
> particular, and the ways they will and will not communicate their views
> on important issues in general.
>
> Matt Flaschen

I have no special opinion regarding the PD-art issue.

I have no idea whether Erik has the authority to make such statement in
the name of the WMF on commons wiki. I do not think it really matters
because in the end, if a staff member makes a statement, and the ED and
board are informed (eg, on this list), and neither the board nor the ED
reacts, that either mean that
- Erik has that authority;
- or that means that they agree with Erik statement;
- or that means they have no idea/do not care and are happy to let Erik
in charge of this issue.
Either way, Erik statement stands. And what matters is simply to make
sure that ED and Board are aware of the statement (which is probably the
case now as I expect ED and at least one board member read that list).

However, what bothers me a bit is that when the board is *asked* several
times to step in, I expect the board to publicly react and say something.
I do not really care what they could say (option 1: Erik has that
authority; option 2: board agrees with Erik; option 3: the board is
happy to refer to Erik on such issues). But I expect a reaction.

Lack of reaction could imply
- that the board is not aware of the issue (---> if so, we need a mean
to make sure the board hears community member)
- that the board has no idea how to react (---> if so, change the board)

Ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

h.schlottmann at gmx

Aug 23, 2008, 6:06 AM

Post #28 of 34 (544 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

Marco Chiesa wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann [at] gmx
>> wrote:
>
>> Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run
>> museums. We ignore that as well.
>>
> ..and the Italian wikipedia finds itself in the awkward position of not
> being able to use "free" material hosted on commons (the governing body of
> the museums in Florence sent us a takedown notice some time ago)

Who received that take-down-notice? Individual editors? The uploader of
images? The Italian chapter? The designated agent of the Foundation
according to the DMCA-notice?

Ciao Henning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

midom.lists at gmail

Aug 23, 2008, 7:56 AM

Post #29 of 34 (543 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

Hello,

> *I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are
> using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from
> Wikipedia.*[1]

Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's "free culture manifesto",
Jimmy supported use of PD-art :)
""I wouldn't encourage you to break the law, but if you accidentally
take a photo of these works it would be great to put it on Wikipedia
for the public domain."

Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as otherwise we'd have
to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level answer to these
questions.

Generally, Foundation allows communities to decide, providing legal
boundaries, within which it supports the projects, and of course -
guidance, along the values.

In this case, Foundation has the interpretation of what is PD, and can
allow more flexible, Florida-centric evaluation of PD.
Narrower PD interpretations are up for community.

> So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike
> have given
> theirs *opinions*.

Is the need for an official statement your opinion or official
statement?
Both Mike and Erik are responsible employees of Foundation, and they
definitely have capacity to discuss with community and provide
guidelines.

> If Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have official
> statements regarding subjects like this, the Wikimedia Foundation
> doesn't
> need to have a Board of Trustees (since everyone can assert anything)

Or rather, look at it the other way. As Wikimedia Foundation has
employees doing the job, Board of Trustees can limit the participation
in actual execution of mission.

> and
> hundreds of volunteers don't need to waste your time translating
> gazillions
> of pages related to the Board elections expecting that the
> Foundation never
> given controversial rulings that can broke copyleft things in some
> contries.

I honor any volunteerism, and everyone's choice to spend whatever
effort they think is necessary.

You seem to believe that Foundation should have authority to rule the
community.
Actually, Foundation is supporting the community, and BoT is having
authority over Foundation.

By electing members to BoT, you chose someone who supports you, not
rules you.

If you feel that Foundation may not be able to support you, if it
chose to be more flexible regarding PD interpretations, let us know,
and we will discuss that in next meeting.
If you feel that Foundation should be actually restricting the
community, so our values are better preserved, we can probably do that
too, if that is really needed, though I'd really really like to trust
community with that.

Personally, I want to be able to spread more information, rather than
less.
I'd like others to be able to spread more information too. Thats what
we're doing, right?

In perfect universe we may team up with other organizations and do
impact litigation and impact education, and teach the world that
freeing up the content is good.
Well, ok, in perfect universe we wouldn't even have to do that :)

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

matthew.flaschen at gatech

Aug 23, 2008, 12:53 PM

Post #30 of 34 (543 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> For example: The King James Bible enjoys a perpetual copyright in the
> UK. Only four printers are licensed to print copies and they pay (small)
> royalties. We host a copy of the KJB on wikisource none the less.

That has to do with dubious copyright policy at Wikisource (which I know
is even more lax than this), not Commons.

> Greece has a very questionable provision in the copyright law, under
> which the state claims copyright (!) for each and every antiquities from
> the Greek history. We happily ignore that and show excavations, works of
> art, historic weapons and the like.

> Italy has a similar provision regarding works of art in state-run
> museums. We ignore that as well.

Neither of these are anywhere near as broad as the PD-art issue.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

matthew.flaschen at gatech

Aug 23, 2008, 1:00 PM

Post #31 of 34 (542 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> *I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are
>> using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from
>> Wikipedia.*[1]
>
> Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's "free culture manifesto",
> Jimmy supported use of PD-art :)
> ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the law, but if you accidentally
> take a photo of these works it would be great to put it on Wikipedia
> for the public domain."
>
> Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as otherwise we'd have
> to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level answer to these
> questions.

I certainly am not asking for an emergency meeting, only that it be
addressed at the next regular meeting.

> If you feel that Foundation may not be able to support you, if it
> chose to be more flexible regarding PD interpretations, let us know,
> and we will discuss that in next meeting.
> If you feel that Foundation should be actually restricting the
> community, so our values are better preserved, we can probably do that
> too, if that is really needed, though I'd really really like to trust
> community with that.

I do generally trust the community with that, but I am noticing a
long-term slide on Commons towards ignoring laws that are not convenient.

> Personally, I want to be able to spread more information, rather than
> less.
> I'd like others to be able to spread more information too. Thats what
> we're doing, right?

I always thought we were spreading as much /free/ information as possible.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

birgitte_sb at yahoo

Aug 23, 2008, 1:45 PM

Post #32 of 34 (541 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

--- On Sat, 8/23/08, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen [at] gatech> wrote:

> From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen [at] gatech>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Date: Saturday, August 23, 2008, 3:00 PM
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >> *I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004,
> content which we are
> >> using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses
> should be removed from
> >> Wikipedia.*[1]
> >
> > Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's
> "free culture manifesto",
> > Jimmy supported use of PD-art :)
> > ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the
> law, but if you accidentally
> > take a photo of these works it would be great to put
> it on Wikipedia
> > for the public domain."
> >
> > Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as
> otherwise we'd have
> > to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level
> answer to these
> > questions.
>
> I certainly am not asking for an emergency meeting, only
> that it be
> addressed at the next regular meeting.
>
>

And afterwards are you and your opponents promising to never asking for a review when the make-up of the board changes hoping to get the answer you like better? Seriously the problem in your community cannot be solved at a board meeting. Appeals to authority aren't the answer here. Commons needs to work out it out. This is not going to be the last questionable area of copyright law and it is no different than the others.

Birgitte SB

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere9 at yahoo

Aug 23, 2008, 5:53 PM

Post #33 of 34 (543 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

Thank you for your insightful comments Domas.

Ant

Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> *I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are
>> using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from
>> Wikipedia.*[1]
>
> Well, back in 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania's "free culture manifesto",
> Jimmy supported use of PD-art :)
> ""I wouldn't encourage you to break the law, but if you accidentally
> take a photo of these works it would be great to put it on Wikipedia
> for the public domain."
>
> Please allow me to state my individual opinion, as otherwise we'd have
> to hold an emergency meeting to provide a board-level answer to these
> questions.
>
> Generally, Foundation allows communities to decide, providing legal
> boundaries, within which it supports the projects, and of course -
> guidance, along the values.
>
> In this case, Foundation has the interpretation of what is PD, and can
> allow more flexible, Florida-centric evaluation of PD.
> Narrower PD interpretations are up for community.
>
>> So, yes, there is a need to an official statement. Erik and Mike
>> have given
>> theirs *opinions*.
>
> Is the need for an official statement your opinion or official
> statement?
> Both Mike and Erik are responsible employees of Foundation, and they
> definitely have capacity to discuss with community and provide
> guidelines.
>
>> If Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need to have official
>> statements regarding subjects like this, the Wikimedia Foundation
>> doesn't
>> need to have a Board of Trustees (since everyone can assert anything)
>
> Or rather, look at it the other way. As Wikimedia Foundation has
> employees doing the job, Board of Trustees can limit the participation
> in actual execution of mission.
>
>> and
>> hundreds of volunteers don't need to waste your time translating
>> gazillions
>> of pages related to the Board elections expecting that the
>> Foundation never
>> given controversial rulings that can broke copyleft things in some
>> contries.
>
> I honor any volunteerism, and everyone's choice to spend whatever
> effort they think is necessary.
>
> You seem to believe that Foundation should have authority to rule the
> community.
> Actually, Foundation is supporting the community, and BoT is having
> authority over Foundation.
>
> By electing members to BoT, you chose someone who supports you, not
> rules you.
>
> If you feel that Foundation may not be able to support you, if it
> chose to be more flexible regarding PD interpretations, let us know,
> and we will discuss that in next meeting.
> If you feel that Foundation should be actually restricting the
> community, so our values are better preserved, we can probably do that
> too, if that is really needed, though I'd really really like to trust
> community with that.
>
> Personally, I want to be able to spread more information, rather than
> less.
> I'd like others to be able to spread more information too. Thats what
> we're doing, right?
>
> In perfect universe we may team up with other organizations and do
> impact litigation and impact education, and teach the world that
> freeing up the content is good.
> Well, ok, in perfect universe we wouldn't even have to do that :)
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

chiesa.marco at gmail

Aug 25, 2008, 1:04 AM

Post #34 of 34 (511 views)
Permalink

Re: PD-art and official "position of the WMF" [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Henning Schlottmann
<h.schlottmann [at] gmx>wrote:

>
> Who received that take-down-notice? Individual editors? The uploader of
> images? The Italian chapter? The designated agent of the Foundation
> according to the DMCA-notice?
>
>
>
The Italian language OTRS

Cruccone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads