Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

RE: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

bpatrick at fowlerwhite

Feb 9, 2006, 9:23 AM

Post #1 of 27 (2232 views)
Permalink

RE: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints

Not everything that is on Wikipedia is by virtue of it simply being
there, magically transformed into GFDL, as you indicate. That is the
essential problem, and the fallacy (some) users erroneously believe. So
long as there are uploads, there will be copyvio. It must be dealt with
accordingly.

To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
copyvio. It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
delete. The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
actual systemic copyvio problem.

-Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: juriwiki-l-bounces [at] wikimedia
[mailto:juriwiki-l-bounces [at] wikimedia] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Cc: juriwiki-l [at] mail
Subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

Hoi,
The great thing of juriwiki-l is that it is in essence a big black hole.

Things get in there and it is not seen that something comes out. When it
comes to issues with licenses and issues to do with the implementation
of the rules many projects *choose* how to implement them. This results
in content that is inconsistent with the GFDL. This in turn results in
people telling organisations that use Wikipedia content that they cannot
use the content as is.

In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, the license of the Wikimedia
project (GFDL) states that everything that is included in the projects
needs to be available under this license. When people license things
under a license that is more Free, that is fine, but it needs to allow
for GFDL publication.

My question to the nice people that are also on the juriwiki-l am I
correct in what I just said.

Thanks,
GerardM

Patrick, Brad wrote:
> You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
> copyvio as significant. Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
> i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive. Juriwiki-L is the
> place where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>
> Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.
>
> -Brad
>
> Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
> Fowler White Boggs Banker
> 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
> Suite 1700
> Tampa, FL 33602-5239
> (813) 228-7411 main
> (813) 222-3336 direct
> (813) 229-8313 fax
> bpatrick [at] fowlerwhite
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia] On Behalf Of Kim Bruning
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:34 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
>> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I
>> lose, my right honerable opposition shall likely successfully
>> endeavour to severely reduce copyright checks on the english
>>
> wikipedia.
>
> The lack of response is deafening! :-P
>
> I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and
> incorrect use of fair use provisions are NOT a concern for the
> foundation at this moment in time?
>
> Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as
> disruptive on en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given

> to the community. I shall concede this point to my opposition, and
> request for copyright checks on en.wikipedia to be curtailed.
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>

_______________________________________________
Juriwiki-l mailing list
Juriwiki-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/juriwiki-l

This email and its attachments are strictly intended for use and viewing
by the sole addressee(s) on the juriwiki-l mailing-list.

They cannot be published outside of this list without the prior
authorization of their author(s).

They may contain legally privileged and/or confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or
this email has been sent to you through inadvertence, mistake or
negligence, or you have otherwise received this email without the
knowledge, authority and consent of the sender, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, forwarding, distribution or copying of this
email, and/or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you believe
you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the
juriwiki-l mailing list by writing to juriwiki-l [at] wikimedia and
permanently delete the original email and any attachments and discard
any copies or printouts of this email and any attachments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

smoddy at gmail

Feb 9, 2006, 9:24 AM

Post #2 of 27 (2170 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

On 2/9/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick [at] fowlerwhite> wrote:
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio. It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete. The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.

I hereby promise to quote you on that!

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bpatrick at fowlerwhite

Feb 9, 2006, 9:26 AM

Post #3 of 27 (2172 views)
Permalink

RE: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

Quote should include...[insert]..."in accordance with existing copyvio
policy." See en:wp:Copyvio.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

On 2/9/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick [at] fowlerwhite> wrote:
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio. It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete. The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.

I hereby promise to quote you on that!

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Feb 9, 2006, 10:09 AM

Post #4 of 27 (2158 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

Hoi Brad,
I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it
being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of the
terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence would be
that material that is not available under the GFDL should not be
included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?

One other question, why do you single out the en.wp to take action on
copyvio? What is it that makes this project special ? Would this advise
not be as appropriate for any project and any language ?

Thanks,
GerardM

Patrick, Brad wrote:
> Not everything that is on Wikipedia is by virtue of it simply being
> there, magically transformed into GFDL, as you indicate. That is the
> essential problem, and the fallacy (some) users erroneously believe. So
> long as there are uploads, there will be copyvio. It must be dealt with
> accordingly.
>
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio. It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete. The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.
>
> -Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juriwiki-l-bounces [at] wikimedia
> [mailto:juriwiki-l-bounces [at] wikimedia] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:03 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Cc: juriwiki-l [at] mail
> Subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>
> Hoi,
> The great thing of juriwiki-l is that it is in essence a big black hole.
>
> Things get in there and it is not seen that something comes out. When it
> comes to issues with licenses and issues to do with the implementation
> of the rules many projects *choose* how to implement them. This results
> in content that is inconsistent with the GFDL. This in turn results in
> people telling organisations that use Wikipedia content that they cannot
> use the content as is.
>
> In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, the license of the Wikimedia
> project (GFDL) states that everything that is included in the projects
> needs to be available under this license. When people license things
> under a license that is more Free, that is fine, but it needs to allow
> for GFDL publication.
>
> My question to the nice people that are also on the juriwiki-l am I
> correct in what I just said.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>> You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
>> copyvio as significant. Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
>> i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive. Juriwiki-L is the
>> place where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>>
>> Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.
>>
>> -Brad
>>
>> Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
>> Fowler White Boggs Banker
>> 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
>> Suite 1700
>> Tampa, FL 33602-5239
>> (813) 228-7411 main
>> (813) 222-3336 direct
>> (813) 229-8313 fax
>> bpatrick [at] fowlerwhite
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia
>> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia] On Behalf Of Kim Bruning
>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:34 AM
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I
>>> lose, my right honerable opposition shall likely successfully
>>> endeavour to severely reduce copyright checks on the english
>>>
>>>
>> wikipedia.
>>
>> The lack of response is deafening! :-P
>>
>> I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and
>> incorrect use of fair use provisions are NOT a concern for the
>> foundation at this moment in time?
>>
>> Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as
>> disruptive on en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given
>>
>
>
>> to the community. I shall concede this point to my opposition, and
>> request for copyright checks on en.wikipedia to be curtailed.
>>
>> sincerely,
>> Kim Bruning
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Juriwiki-l mailing list
> Juriwiki-l [at] wikimedia
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/juriwiki-l
>
> This email and its attachments are strictly intended for use and viewing
> by the sole addressee(s) on the juriwiki-l mailing-list.
>
>
> They cannot be published outside of this list without the prior
> authorization of their author(s).
>
> They may contain legally privileged and/or confidential or proprietary
> information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or
> this email has been sent to you through inadvertence, mistake or
> negligence, or you have otherwise received this email without the
> knowledge, authority and consent of the sender, you are hereby notified
> that any dissemination, forwarding, distribution or copying of this
> email, and/or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you believe
> you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the
> juriwiki-l mailing list by writing to juriwiki-l [at] wikimedia and
> permanently delete the original email and any attachments and discard
> any copies or printouts of this email and any attachments.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] wikimedia
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

erik_moeller at gmx

Feb 9, 2006, 3:09 PM

Post #5 of 27 (2164 views)
Permalink

Re: GFDL compatibility (was: Copyright complaints) [In reply to]

Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi Brad,
> I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it
> being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
> crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of the
> terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence would be
> that material that is not available under the GFDL should not be
> included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?

Our current practice as I understand it is:

- GFDL text can only be combined with text under licenses that are
explicitly compatible with the GFDL. We currently consider simple
attribution-only licenses to be compatible, while there is as of yet no
two-way compatibility to other copyleft licenses like the CC-BY-SA.
Limited fair use quotations are considered outside the scope of
applicability of the license.

- GFDL text can be combined with images under any license which we
permit per project-level policy, e.g.., we consider it a policy issue,
not a legal one, to forbid images which do not allow commercial use.
This combination of GFDL text with non-GFDL images is taken to be
covered by the aggregation clause (section 7) of the GFDL.

Since, with the exception of fair use images, all our allowed image
licenses are philosophically similar to the GFDL, we should strive for
explicit compatibility in the long run.

In addition, there is the practice of multi-licensing both text and
image contributions under the GFDL and one or more other licenses; this
is to ensure that external parties can choose which license to follow,
while all internal use is covered by the GFDL. This is not without its
problems, since in the case of text contributions e.g. under
CC-BY-SA/GFDL, it allows external parties to circumvent the copyleft
requirement by creating a derivative work under a license which is not
compatible with the GFDL.

Our biggest copyright black hole at the moment are fair use images on
en.wikipedia.org. However, we seem to be evolving towards the reasonable
practice of limiting fair use to an explicit whitelist of cases where it
is most defensible; on the English Wikipedia, this is currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use

Different language projects have different policies of fair use; some
follow their national laws (e.g. Polish Wikinews), others exclude it
entirely (German Wikipedia). There might be some which use US Copyright
Law as a basis since our servers are in Florida, and there are certainly
language editions which are fairly lax about image copyrights. I would
suggest an explicit cross-language survey of the issue to be conducted
by the Legal Committee.

HTH,
Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Feb 9, 2006, 4:17 PM

Post #6 of 27 (2172 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi Brad,
> I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it
> being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
> crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of
> the terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence
> would be that material that is not available under the GFDL should not
> be included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?
>
> One other question, why do you single out the en.wp to take action on
> copyvio? What is it that makes this project special ? Would this
> advise not be as appropriate for any project and any language ?

If material is already in the public domain it is not subject to GFDL
because it does not need to be licensed. This seems to suggest that yo
would prevent inclusion of public domain material.

en-wp is probably singled out because of its high traffic. Copyright
issues affect all projects in varying degrees. Wiktionary, however,
does not have much to do with image copyrights because very few images
are uploaded in the first place.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bpatrick at fowlerwhite

Feb 9, 2006, 8:29 PM

Post #7 of 27 (2153 views)
Permalink

RE: Re: GFDL compatibility (was: Copyright complaints) [In reply to]

I think all would agree a unified license would be the best. I defer to
soufron with respect to the multilingual comparative approach you
suggest.

My recollection from earlier discussions was that the biggest problem
with copyright was the anonymous images which are found by the bushel on
Commons. Anonymous is an awful place to be in terms of protection. But
there is very little to be done with that, I surmise.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] wikimedia] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: GFDL compatibility (was: Copyright
complaints)

Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi Brad,
> I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it

> being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
> crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of
> the terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence
> would be that material that is not available under the GFDL should not

> be included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?

Our current practice as I understand it is:

- GFDL text can only be combined with text under licenses that are
explicitly compatible with the GFDL. We currently consider simple
attribution-only licenses to be compatible, while there is as of yet no
two-way compatibility to other copyleft licenses like the CC-BY-SA.
Limited fair use quotations are considered outside the scope of
applicability of the license.

- GFDL text can be combined with images under any license which we
permit per project-level policy, e.g.., we consider it a policy issue,
not a legal one, to forbid images which do not allow commercial use.
This combination of GFDL text with non-GFDL images is taken to be
covered by the aggregation clause (section 7) of the GFDL.

Since, with the exception of fair use images, all our allowed image
licenses are philosophically similar to the GFDL, we should strive for
explicit compatibility in the long run.

In addition, there is the practice of multi-licensing both text and
image contributions under the GFDL and one or more other licenses; this
is to ensure that external parties can choose which license to follow,
while all internal use is covered by the GFDL. This is not without its
problems, since in the case of text contributions e.g. under
CC-BY-SA/GFDL, it allows external parties to circumvent the copyleft
requirement by creating a derivative work under a license which is not
compatible with the GFDL.

Our biggest copyright black hole at the moment are fair use images on
en.wikipedia.org. However, we seem to be evolving towards the reasonable
practice of limiting fair use to an explicit whitelist of cases where it
is most defensible; on the English Wikipedia, this is currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use

Different language projects have different policies of fair use; some
follow their national laws (e.g. Polish Wikinews), others exclude it
entirely (German Wikipedia). There might be some which use US Copyright
Law as a basis since our servers are in Florida, and there are certainly
language editions which are fairly lax about image copyrights. I would
suggest an explicit cross-language survey of the issue to be conducted
by the Legal Committee.

HTH,
Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

eloquence at gmail

Feb 9, 2006, 9:29 PM

Post #8 of 27 (2169 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: GFDL compatibility (was: Copyright complaints) [In reply to]

On 2/10/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick [at] fowlerwhite> wrote:
> My recollection from earlier discussions was that the biggest problem
> with copyright was the anonymous images which are found by the bushel on
> Commons. Anonymous is an awful place to be in terms of protection. But
> there is very little to be done with that, I surmise.

No Wikimedia project currently allows uploads by unregistered users,
so all uploads are at least associated with a user-chosen pseudonym
(and often with an e-mail address, which many users set when creating
an account). Images which were created by other people than the
uploader must include source informaion, and this is generally
enforced nowadays. Commons is neither special in this regard, nor do I
see the situation as being substantially different from that with
text, which is also most commonly contributed pseudonymously, or even
under an IP address.

Perhaps you're referring to a particular problem Commons had earlier
in its history with images that were copied over from the local
language Wikipedias, where the uploaders often forgot to add the
correct source information (other than a brief text like "from
en.wikipedia"), sometimes implicitly taking credit for the work of
others. This problem is less serious today because many more uploads
go directly to Commons. It's true we still have some legacy uploads
to sort through. Fortunately, most of them are probably not genuine
copyvios.

The problem will become even less serious thanks to Brion, who is
working on the single login transition this month. We can then add
neat features like the ability to move files, including their correct
history, to Commons with the click of a button, or to upload directly
to Commons from a local project..Both should result in cleaner
metadata.

We do not often have the problem that users maliciously upload the
works of others and claim to have created them on their own. What is
much more common is careless uploading of files from the web, with a
license either not given, or one randomly selected. The Commons
community is very diligent in weeding out these uploads, and there are
some good indicators to identify them. For example, because new users
generally don't immediately create user pages, we can identify them as
newbies (their username will be red) and treat them accordingly.

In general, I'm fairly confident that the Commons collection is
reasonably clean of clear copyright violations. There might be some
glaring exceptions hidden deeply in our archives, but that's no
different from Flickr, Ourmedia or any other media sharing service. In
fact, due to our very watchful community, we might even do better than
them already. With FlickrLickr, I've certainly come across some
blatant copyright violations which have not been removed in over a
year, labeled as Creative Commons no less.

The more difficult cases for us are those where users try to be
clever. For instance, the German Wikipedia allows no fair use, which
is quite a PITA when you want to illustrate an article about, say,
"The Simpsons". So what happens is that the users take a photo of some
plastic doll^W^Waction figure and put it under the GFDL. Of course,
the character design is no less copyrighted than before, but people
tend not to grasp the (truthfully rather bizarre) notion of
copyrighting three-dimensional objects. The same happens with photos
of buildings, statues etc. - there's a lack of awareness of the
international standards, and a lack of willingness to enforce them.

This is where Commons needs to find a way to strike a middle ground
between trying to comply with every single national law, and only
following US law and US precedents. Something like "national
applicable law or the internationally prevalent legal standard,
whichever is more permissive" might do the trick.

On the positive side, look at this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Georgia_Aquarium_-_Ocean_Voyager_Tunnel_Jan_2006.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Public_Library_Research_Room_Jan_2006.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Dave_Matthews_Band_-_Band_Shot_Melbourne_2005.jpg

(Note the resolution!)

Kind of makes up for the copyright issues, doesn't it? ;-)

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

xkernigh at netscape

Feb 10, 2006, 11:33 PM

Post #9 of 27 (2160 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> ... If this is correct, the consequence would be
> that material that is not available under the GFDL should not be
> included in a WMF project. ...

No. Assuming that "a WMF project" = any Wikimedia Foundation project, there
are ways to insert non-GFDL content into such projects, and not only
non-GFDL images (like CC-BY-SA) at Commons, en.Wikibooks, or elsewhere.

Read http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright

"If you contribute source materials written by someone else to Wikisource
you thereby warrant that the source material is either public domain in the
United States or that you have permission from the copyright holder to
place the work on Wikisource."

I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I have some noncommercial or
no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then I am allowed to upload
that source text to en.Wikisource.

-- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

beesley at gmail

Feb 10, 2006, 11:45 PM

Post #10 of 27 (2164 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

> I possibly misunderstood it, by I think that if I have some noncommercial or
> no-derivates license (such as CC-BY-NC-ND), then I am allowed to upload
> that source text to en.Wikisource.

No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states
"Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be
released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not
compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't
be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

kim at bruning

Feb 11, 2006, 11:59 AM

Post #11 of 27 (2153 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:23:34PM -0500, Patrick, Brad wrote:
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio. It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete. The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.

While I thank you for that statement, it's not yet sufficient.

The english wikipedia community currently does not accept
"unilaterally deleting out of process" and has severly punished those
who do so.

Due to the nature of the wiki, I can get people to listen to me, but
I cannot give orders. I have to come up with reasoned arguments why
people would voluntarily want to take some course of action.

Could you help me by providing those? Preferably we could do this by
creating a page on the english wikipedia, detailing such reasoning.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

davidp.newton at gmail

Feb 11, 2006, 1:04 PM

Post #12 of 27 (2154 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

>No, you are not allowed to do that. The text under the edit box states
>"Please note that all contributions to Wikisource are considered to be
>released under the GNU Free Documentation License". CC-BY-NC-ND is not
>compatible with the GFDL, and is also not a free license, so wouldn't
>be acceptable on any Wikimedia project.

>Angela.

Funny, I was trying to find out whether that was the case a few months
ago with respect to Wikisource. What happened back then suggested that
it was NOT the case. Have a look at the mailing list archives for
November and December 2005 and you will see what I mean.

I posted about the Wikisource copyright licence ambiguity to
foundation-l and the Wikisource Scriptorium and got very unhelpful
answers. I therefore went ahead and started and consultation about
what the terms of the Wikisource copyright page should be. The
conclusion of that consultation was that it was not only free licences
that people wanted on Wikisource. Free licences are certainly
prefereable, but there are things that are not available under free
licences. We also have a serious problem with "fair use" at Wikisource
where people are posting copyvios and then claiming "fair use".
Personally I'm in favour of banning "fair use" contributions to
Wikisource given that Wikisource reproduces the whole of a work.

You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
users at this news.

David Newton
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

beesley at gmail

Feb 11, 2006, 3:05 PM

Post #13 of 27 (2152 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

> You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
> completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
> have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
> back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
> users at this news.

Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
Foundation projects require freely licensed text.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fallout at lexx

Feb 11, 2006, 3:27 PM

Post #14 of 27 (2152 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

> Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
> text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
> on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
> Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
> Angela.

Actually, ND might make sense at Wikisource. But definitely not NC.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

jwales at wikia

Feb 11, 2006, 4:04 PM

Post #15 of 27 (2160 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

Angela wrote:
>>You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
>>completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
>>have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
>>back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
>>users at this news.
>
>
> Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
> text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
> on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
> Foundation projects require freely licensed text.

Totally. That's been foundation policy forever.

--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################

saintonge at telus

Feb 11, 2006, 4:05 PM

Post #16 of 27 (2145 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Angela wrote:
>
>
>>>You've come in months after I was trying to sort this out and
>>>completely contradicted what was thrashed out then. It really would
>>>have been helpful if you had actually participated in things months
>>>back. There are going to be more than a few rather annoyed Wikisource
>>>users at this news.
>>>
>>>
>>Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
>>text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
>>on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
>>Foundation projects require freely licensed text.
>>
>>
>Totally. That's been foundation policy forever.
>
IIRC the issue was about whether resolutions of the UN Security Council
were copyrightable.under US law. If they are not copyrightable the
issue of licences doesn't matter.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

kim at bruning

Feb 11, 2006, 4:25 PM

Post #17 of 27 (2147 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 08:59:02PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:23:34PM -0500, Patrick, Brad wrote:
> > To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> > copyvio. It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> > delete. The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> > actual systemic copyvio problem.
>
> While I thank you for that statement, it's not yet sufficient.

Oh dear, in fact, I originally was going to make this statement
somewhat stronger, along the lines of that people would respond "why
should we listen to some lawyer on some mailing list" and basically
ignore what you were saying.

I deleted that because I thought it'd be too inflammatory to
seriously put on the list.

In the mean time however, reality has caught up with me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_exposure_by_straw_poll

See especially the comments by Mel Etitis, and also note Jkelly.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

davidp.newton at gmail

Feb 12, 2006, 1:42 AM

Post #18 of 27 (2159 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

Angela wrote:

>Can you please point out where Wikisource agreed to allow CC-BY-NC-ND
>text? I don't recall any mention of it on any of the mailing lists I'm
>on. It really shouldn't be news to anyone using Wikisource that all
>Foundation projects require freely licensed text.

As I said in my previous message I saw that there was an ambiguity in
the Wikisource copyright page back in November. See here:

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-November/005050.html

I tried to get a definitive statement, of the type that you just made,
out of people on this very mailing list. I also posted things on the
Scriptorium at Wikisource to get input there. The result was more
confusion. I then got interested parties to chat in IRC (those
interested parties that were actually interested enough at the time to
respond) to see what should be done about this. The copyright page of
the main Wikisource domain was altered with a note making it clear
that this was a trial. Nothing was said about it for a month and so
the page that was referred to earlier in this thread was altered.

It wasn't exactly like this alteration was made in secret and it
wasn't exactly like this alteration was made without trying to get the
opinion of the Foundation on the matter. After all that's precisely
why I posted about it on this very mailing list!

I suggest that you be the one to make the policy clear on Wikisource.
I also suggest that you be the one to tag the hundreds of UN
resolution copyvios on there for deletion. If this is to be the
confirmed policy I will remove work that I have done on starting to
put some British legislation online, which is under Crown copyright
and hence incompatible with the GFDL. Prepare for a storm of protest,
particularly about the UN resolutions (although I happen to agree that
they are copyvios in that case).

If Wikisource is not to be a repository of works that are freely
reproducable, but not compatible with the terms of the GFDL then I
think starting something on Wikicities would be in order. I originally
intended to use the Wiki format to create copies of the original
legislation online and then create amended copies of them as they
appeared at various points. Since the promised British Government
statute law database is currently mired in developmental purgatory
that seemed a very useful thing to do and perfect for Wikisource.

Good luck in implementing (properly this time) the copyright policy of
the Foundation. You'll need it given the number of those willing to
wilfully violate copyright on Wikisource.

David Newton
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fallout at lexx

Feb 12, 2006, 2:55 AM

Post #19 of 27 (2144 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

David Newton napisa�u:

> If Wikisource is not to be a repository of works that are freely
> reproducable, but not compatible with the terms of the GFDL then I
> think starting something on Wikicities would be in order.
> David Newton

Aren't all Wikicities also GFDL?

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

robert_horning at netzero

Feb 12, 2006, 8:56 AM

Post #20 of 27 (2166 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

David Newton wrote:

>We also have a serious problem with "fair use" at Wikisource
>where people are posting copyvios and then claiming "fair use".
>Personally I'm in favour of banning "fair use" contributions to
>Wikisource given that Wikisource reproduces the whole of a work.
>
>
I have seen a slight increase in the use of "fair use" to justify
copyright violations on Wikibooks as well. I think this is mainly
people who want to simply copy text from elsewhere on the internet and
then use "fair use" as justification for why they have it.

As far as Wikisource banning fair use documents, I think that is a
pretty good idea. I'm sorry I missed that discussion on the Scriptorium.

--
Robert Scott Horning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

beesley at gmail

Feb 12, 2006, 3:18 PM

Post #21 of 27 (2147 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

On 2/12/06, Pawe� Dembowski <fallout [at] lexx> wrote:

> Aren't all Wikicities also GFDL?

Yes, they are. Also, a wiki makes little sense for something under a
non-derivative license since it is not allowed to be edited.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Feb 13, 2006, 5:31 PM

Post #22 of 27 (2156 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

David Newton wrote:

>I tried to get a definitive statement, of the type that you just made,
>out of people on this very mailing list. I also posted things on the
>Scriptorium at Wikisource to get input there. The result was more
>confusion. I then got interested parties to chat in IRC (those
>interested parties that were actually interested enough at the time to
>respond) to see what should be done about this. The copyright page of
>the main Wikisource domain was altered with a note making it clear
>that this was a trial. Nothing was said about it for a month and so
>the page that was referred to earlier in this thread was altered.
>
>It wasn't exactly like this alteration was made in secret and it
>wasn't exactly like this alteration was made without trying to get the
>opinion of the Foundation on the matter. After all that's precisely
>why I posted about it on this very mailing list!
>
One needs to understand the decision making dynamics around the wikis.
A lack of responses does not equate to disinterest or agreement. Most
people don't feel like carrying on discussions ad nauseam when it
doesn't affect what they are personally doing. Most policy discussions
are inconclusive and very, very tedious. When you change a "policy"
page, most people don't notice it.

>I suggest that you be the one to make the policy clear on Wikisource.
>I also suggest that you be the one to tag the hundreds of UN
>resolution copyvios on there for deletion. If this is to be the
>confirmed policy I will remove work that I have done on starting to
>put some British legislation online, which is under Crown copyright
>and hence incompatible with the GFDL. Prepare for a storm of protest,
>particularly about the UN resolutions (although I happen to agree that
>they are copyvios in that case).
>
>If Wikisource is not to be a repository of works that are freely
>reproducable, but not compatible with the terms of the GFDL then I
>think starting something on Wikicities would be in order. I originally
>intended to use the Wiki format to create copies of the original
>legislation online and then create amended copies of them as they
>appeared at various points. Since the promised British Government
>statute law database is currently mired in developmental purgatory
>that seemed a very useful thing to do and perfect for Wikisource.
>
The copyright status of statutes is highly debatable. The US believes
that its own statutes should be freely reproducible, but this is not the
case in many other countries. I am not familiar enough with the case
law for this in those countries to make an informed comment on how such
arguments would turn out. Suffice it to say that there is an important
public policy issue involved that would not be relevant to most other
allegations of coyright infringement.

>Good luck in implementing (properly this time) the copyright policy of
>the Foundation. You'll need it given the number of those willing to
>wilfully violate copyright on Wikisource.
>
To say that these activities are wilfull violations is an improper
accusation. There can be no wilfull violation when there is significant
doubt that an action is a violation in the first place.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

davidp.newton at gmail

Feb 14, 2006, 2:24 PM

Post #23 of 27 (2159 views)
Permalink

Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

We have a really significant problem here. As with AFD copyright is a
system-wide problem that needs to be addressed.

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>One needs to understand the decision making dynamics around the wikis.
>A lack of responses does not equate to disinterest or agreement. Most
>people don't feel like carrying on discussions ad nauseam when it
>doesn't affect what they are personally doing. Most policy discussions
>are inconclusive and very, very tedious. When you change a "policy"
>page, most people don't notice it.

I fully understand the decision-making processes around the wikis
since I have been an active participant with this project for over two
and half years. In some circumstances, especially when care has been
taken to let people know about what is going on then a lack of
response certainly DOES equate to disinterest. In a decision situation
it can also be interpreted to mean agreement.

This is an immensely serious issue since it exposes Wikipedia,
Wikisource and the Wikimedia Foundation, not to mention the
contributors to the sites, to legal liability. I wanted a definitive
statement over copyright and I did not get that statement.
Consequently I went the wiki way and tried to get a consensus over
what to do. Besides, the opinions of "most" people weren't what I was
after. I was after a policy statement about copyright on a Wikimedia
Foundation project. That concerns the board and they should be (and
for the most part are) directly concerned with matters of high policy
like this.

>>I suggest that you be the one to make the policy clear on Wikisource.
>>I also suggest that you be the one to tag the hundreds of UN
>>resolution copyvios on there for deletion. If this is to be the
>>confirmed policy I will remove work that I have done on starting to
>>put some British legislation online, which is under Crown copyright
>>and hence incompatible with the GFDL. Prepare for a storm of protest,
>>particularly about the UN resolutions (although I happen to agree that
>>they are copyvios in that case).
>>
>>If Wikisource is not to be a repository of works that are freely
>>reproducable, but not compatible with the terms of the GFDL then I
>>think starting something on Wikicities would be in order. I originally
>>intended to use the Wiki format to create copies of the original
>>legislation online and then create amended copies of them as they
>>appeared at various points. Since the promised British Government
>>statute law database is currently mired in developmental purgatory
>>that seemed a very useful thing to do and perfect for Wikisource.
>>
>The copyright status of statutes is highly debatable. The US believes
>that its own statutes should be freely reproducible, but this is not the
>case in many other countries. I am not familiar enough with the case
>law for this in those countries to make an informed comment on how such
>arguments would turn out. Suffice it to say that there is an important
>public policy issue involved that would not be relevant to most other
>allegations of coyright infringement.

You may think that there is something that is highly debateable about
the copyright status of foreign statutes but that does not necessarily
make it so. The status of Federal statutes is clear in USC 17. Case
law deals with state and county statutes in the US. Applying that case
law to foreign statues is very likely incorrect. Remember that in
common law jurisdictions courts very often make distinctions when
ruling on similar cases that, for example, differ in having a private
individual suing a private individual and a private individual suing a
public authority on much the same facts of a case. Such actions can
cause big problems. When talking about foreign and domestic statute
copyright status we are talking about things that would have a strong
chance of being distinguished by a court.

Other countries have public domain laws etc, and some, like the UK,
have essentially waived copyright in statutes. That does not mean that
those countries that do claim copyrights on their laws cannot enforce
those copyrights in the United States. One of the fundamental bases
for the case law on US statutes is to let all people have access to
the law that governs them. When in the United States and talking about
foreign law that basis does not exist.

>>
>To say that these activities are wilfull violations is an improper
>accusation. There can be no wilfull violation when there is significant
>doubt that an action is a violation in the first place.

Yes there can be wilful infringement if the people concerned have been
warned about what they are doing. Someone can believe that there is
significant doubt over their actions when in fact there is no doubt at
all. If that person is warned about their actions and still continues
those actions that takes things to a whole different level. I say
there is wilful infringement because the people concerned have been
warned about their actions likely not being fair use and have still
continued to take those actions. They have also been told why those
actions are likely not fair use.

In the same vein if I were to continue to post Crown copyright
legislation on Wikisource after the clear policy statement of the
board I would be in wilful violation of that policy. I might think
that there was significant doubt over my actions, but there would not
be in reality.

I hope the UN doesn't come after us for posting texts of resolutions.
I don't know how likely to sue they are. If they do come after
Wikisource and those who posted the resolution texts then it cannot be
said that those posting the texts were not warned.

David Newton
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Feb 15, 2006, 1:50 AM

Post #24 of 27 (2150 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

David Newton wrote:

>We have a really significant problem here. As with AFD copyright is a
>system-wide problem that needs to be addressed.
>
Try not to make it a bigger problem.

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>One needs to understand the decision making dynamics around the wikis.
>>A lack of responses does not equate to disinterest or agreement. Most
>>people don't feel like carrying on discussions ad nauseam when it
>>doesn't affect what they are personally doing. Most policy discussions
>>are inconclusive and very, very tedious. When you change a "policy"
>>page, most people don't notice it.
>>
>>
>I fully understand the decision-making processes around the wikis
>since I have been an active participant with this project for over two
>and half years. In some circumstances, especially when care has been
>taken to let people know about what is going on then a lack of
>response certainly DOES equate to disinterest. In a decision situation
>it can also be interpreted to mean agreement.
>
For the most part people will admit that they do not have enough
background in copyright law to take a meaningful position. You can't
properly call something a "decision situation" when very few people are
able to participate.

>This is an immensely serious issue since it exposes Wikipedia,
>Wikisource and the Wikimedia Foundation, not to mention the
>contributors to the sites, to legal liability. I wanted a definitive
>statement over copyright and I did not get that statement.
>Consequently I went the wiki way and tried to get a consensus over
>what to do. Besides, the opinions of "most" people weren't what I was
>after. I was after a policy statement about copyright on a Wikimedia
>Foundation project. That concerns the board and they should be (and
>for the most part are) directly concerned with matters of high policy
>like this.
>
Asking for a definitive statement is asking for the impossible. The law
is simply not as clear as you believe it to be. The best policy would
be to use common sense with support for neither flagrant copyright
infringement nor copyright paranoia. As a whole the Wikimedia
Foundation needs to look after its own interests to be sure, and it
needs to determine how much risk it is willing to accept. I suppose
that accepting that there is a wide grey area is a form of policy
statement. How wide that grey area should be will vary according to
specific circumstances; it's a pragmatic approach.

As for individual contributors, they need to accept the proper
consequences of their actions on an individual basis. I accept the
legal consequences of anything that I post, but then I whatever I
contribute is done in full consciousness of the legalities involved.

>>>I suggest that you be the one to make the policy clear on Wikisource.
>>>I also suggest that you be the one to tag the hundreds of UN
>>>resolution copyvios on there for deletion. If this is to be the
>>>confirmed policy I will remove work that I have done on starting to
>>>put some British legislation online, which is under Crown copyright
>>>and hence incompatible with the GFDL. Prepare for a storm of protest,
>>>particularly about the UN resolutions (although I happen to agree that
>>>they are copyvios in that case).
>>>
>>>If Wikisource is not to be a repository of works that are freely
>>>reproducable, but not compatible with the terms of the GFDL then I
>>>think starting something on Wikicities would be in order. I originally
>>>intended to use the Wiki format to create copies of the original
>>>legislation online and then create amended copies of them as they
>>>appeared at various points. Since the promised British Government
>>>statute law database is currently mired in developmental purgatory
>>>that seemed a very useful thing to do and perfect for Wikisource.
>>>
>>>
>>The copyright status of statutes is highly debatable. The US believes
>>that its own statutes should be freely reproducible, but this is not the
>>case in many other countries. I am not familiar enough with the case
>>law for this in those countries to make an informed comment on how such
>>arguments would turn out. Suffice it to say that there is an important
>>public policy issue involved that would not be relevant to most other
>>allegations of coyright infringement.
>>
>>
>
>You may think that there is something that is highly debateable about
>the copyright status of foreign statutes but that does not necessarily
>make it so. The status of Federal statutes is clear in USC 17. Case
>law deals with state and county statutes in the US. Applying that case
>law to foreign statues is very likely incorrect. Remember that in
>common law jurisdictions courts very often make distinctions when
>ruling on similar cases that, for example, differ in having a private
>individual suing a private individual and a private individual suing a
>public authority on much the same facts of a case. Such actions can
>cause big problems. When talking about foreign and domestic statute
>copyright status we are talking about things that would have a strong
>chance of being distinguished by a court.
>
If iit wasn't debatable we wouldn't be having this debate. I know that
common law courts make many distinctions when they rule, but your
confused speculation about what this means does not help to resolve
anything.

>Other countries have public domain laws etc, and some, like the UK,
>have essentially waived copyright in statutes. That does not mean that
>those countries that do claim copyrights on their laws cannot enforce
>those copyrights in the United States. One of the fundamental bases
>for the case law on US statutes is to let all people have access to
>the law that governs them. When in the United States and talking about
>foreign law that basis does not exist.
>
Have any such foreign governments even tried to eforce this kind of
copyright in US courts, or are you just speculating again?

>>To say that these activities are wilfull violations is an improper
>>accusation. There can be no wilfull violation when there is significant
>>doubt that an action is a violation in the first place.
>>
>>
>Yes there can be wilful infringement if the people concerned have been
>warned about what they are doing. Someone can believe that there is
>significant doubt over their actions when in fact there is no doubt at
>all. If that person is warned about their actions and still continues
>those actions that takes things to a whole different level. I say
>there is wilful infringement because the people concerned have been
>warned about their actions likely not being fair use and have still
>continued to take those actions. They have also been told why those
>actions are likely not fair use.
>
This is sophistry. Warned by whom? What makes your opinion that a text
is protected any more correct than someone else's opinion that it
isn't. If once you have "warned" them they review the situation and
come to a different conclusion, why should your opinioin be the one to
prevail?

>In the same vein if I were to continue to post Crown copyright
>legislation on Wikisource after the clear policy statement of the
>board I would be in wilful violation of that policy. I might think
>that there was significant doubt over my actions, but there would not
>be in reality.
>
Until there is such a "clear policy statement" there can be no wilful
violation of WMF policy, but that is a different issue from violation of
law.

>I hope the UN doesn't come after us for posting texts of resolutions.
>I don't know how likely to sue they are. If they do come after
>Wikisource and those who posted the resolution texts then it cannot be
>said that those posting the texts were not warned.
>
If you are not personally posting the texts you should have nothing to
worry about. I'm sure there is plenty enough for you to do without
violating your own rigid interpretation of copyright law. I only
contributed one or two of them some time ago, and I assure you that I
will not use lack of warning as an excuse.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

morven at gmail

Feb 15, 2006, 7:26 AM

Post #25 of 27 (2144 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: [Juriwiki-l] Re: Copyright complaints [In reply to]

On 2/14/06, David Newton <davidp.newton [at] gmail> wrote:
> This is an immensely serious issue since it exposes Wikipedia,
> Wikisource and the Wikimedia Foundation, not to mention the
> contributors to the sites, to legal liability. I wanted a definitive
> statement over copyright and I did not get that statement.

Some points:

1) We're dealing with a matter of copyright law and not a basic,
everyday one. On legal questions where there isn't a huge amount of
precedent and case law, you can't get a definitive answer. Thus, not
many people feel qualified to comment on what the legal situation is.
2) The Foundation, I'm sure, does not want to expose itself to
liability by giving legal advice to contributors.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads