Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

matthew.flaschen at gatech

Aug 20, 2008, 4:51 PM

Post #1 of 34 (729 views)
Permalink

PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

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

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

cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 20, 2008, 5:33 PM

Post #2 of 34 (718 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
>

Not to put a too fine point on it; yes,
the concept of Public Domain has no
I mean *no* protection outside the
jurisdictions where it is defined...

And my country, sadly is one of
those who have these "moral
rights" etc. which are much stronger.

Which is *not* to say that clarifying
what are "secondary rights" or "rights
by familiarity" are rights in opposition
copyright provisions, which is the
inference that one might draw from
what Erik in error wrote.

Copyright is one thing that many
think is a minimum, but in actual fact
many countries are well more comprehensive.

And likewise, Erik Möller, or me, have no
actual ways of saying yes, we want to
relax one or the other side of national
legislature in terms to make it in tune
with our personal ideology. Erik, you
are well advised to not even try.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.

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

thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 20, 2008, 5:33 PM

Post #3 of 34 (717 views)
Permalink

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

> In my opinion, this is mistaken on many levels. Regardless of his
> intentions, Erik MÃ¶ller 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.

I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board
member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not
sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as
spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the
foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal
disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was
incorrect.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rarohde at gmail

Aug 20, 2008, 6:54 PM

Post #4 of 34 (717 views)
Permalink

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

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com>wrote:

> > 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.
>
> I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board
> member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not
> sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as
> spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the
> foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal
> disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was
> incorrect.

For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008,
when Erik would already be Deputy Director.

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

dgoodmanny at gmail

Aug 20, 2008, 10:37 PM

Post #5 of 34 (716 views)
Permalink

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

Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we
can go by US copyright law. The
alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive
position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive
meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of
surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As
obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things
will be.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board
>> member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not
>> sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as
>> spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the
>> foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal
>> disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was
>> incorrect.
>
>
>
> For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008,
> when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

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

mboverloadlister at gmail

Aug 20, 2008, 10:49 PM

Post #6 of 34 (717 views)
Permalink

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

[[Principality of Sealand]], anyone?

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we
> can go by US copyright law. The
> alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive
> position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive
> meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of
> surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As
> obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things
> will be.
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board
>>> member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not
>>> sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as
>>> spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the
>>> foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal
>>> disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was
>>> incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008,
>> when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
>>
>> -Robert Rohde
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

geo.plrd at yahoo

Aug 20, 2008, 11:08 PM

Post #7 of 34 (717 views)
Permalink

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

Socialist Republic of Wikimedia anyone?

----- Original Message ----
From: mboverload <mboverloadlister[at]gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

[[Principality of Sealand]], anyone?

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we
> can go by US copyright law. The
> alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive
> position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive
> meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of
> surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As
> obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things
> will be.
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board
>>> member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not
>>> sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as
>>> spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the
>>> foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal
>>> disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was
>>> incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July 2008,
>> when Erik would already be Deputy Director.
>>
>> -Robert Rohde
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

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

matthew.flaschen at gatech

Aug 21, 2008, 5:01 AM

Post #8 of 34 (718 views)
Permalink

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

David Goodman wrote:
> Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we
> can go by US copyright law. The
> alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive
> position of any country whatsoever.

That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are
in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source
country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a
significant departure from that.

Matt Flaschen

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

tacodeposit at gmail

Aug 21, 2008, 6:51 AM

Post #9 of 34 (715 views)
Permalink

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

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen
<matthew.flaschen[at]gatech.edu> wrote:
> Erik Möller does not have the authority to speak for the
> WMF.

Yes he does.

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

szilagyi at gmail

Aug 21, 2008, 8:59 AM

Post #10 of 34 (713 views)
Permalink

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

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flaschen[at]gatech.edu> 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.
>

Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community, and
should have included that CC to start. Lets all try to include commons-l on
future replies.

Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I
believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the
board to endorse or not endorse it?

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

lugusto at gmail

Aug 21, 2008, 9:36 AM

Post #11 of 34 (712 views)
Permalink

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

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
> matthew.flaschen[at]gatech.edu> 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.
> >
>
> Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community,
> and
> should have included that CC to start. Lets all try to include commons-l on
> future replies.
>
> Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I
> believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the
> board to endorse or not endorse it?
>
> - Joe
>

Back in 2004, Jimmy Wales has stated:

*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]

In 2007, a resolution regarding it has announced:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Licensing_policy&action=history

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

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012156.html
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 21, 2008, 10:43 AM

Post #12 of 34 (707 views)
Permalink

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

> Back in 2004, Jimmy Wales has stated:
>
> *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]
>
> In 2007, a resolution regarding it has announced:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Licensing_policy&action=history

Well, that didn't happen and there is no consensus for it. The fact
that the board passed a resolution regarding the use of non-free
content shows that that pronouncement is outdated.

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

No, Erik gave an official statement. He clearly stated that he was
speaking on behalf of the WMF. If he wasn't authorised to do so, then
his boss, Sue, will take the necessary action (I'm sure she's aware of
the statement, she's on this mailing list). The fact that neither she
nor the board have made a statement to the contrary strongly suggests
that Erik's statement was, indeed, officially authorised and, absent
of any reason to believe otherwise, we should accept it as such.

Why do people have a problem with the Deputy Executive Director making
official statements? It seems a perfectly reasonable part of his job.

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

h.schlottmann at gmx

Aug 21, 2008, 11:01 AM

Post #13 of 34 (707 views)
Permalink

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

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are
> in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source
> country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a
> significant departure from that.

As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some
established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.

Ciao Henning

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

matthew.flaschen at gatech

Aug 21, 2008, 1:21 PM

Post #14 of 34 (704 views)
Permalink

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

Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> Adding commons-l as a CC as this clearly involves the commons community, and
> should have included that CC to start.

I wasn't trying to hide anything. I mentioned my initial post at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Board_position

> Erik is deputy director, and he, Sue, Mike Godwin or the board itself I
> believe is entitled to make such a statement. Are you simply asking for the
> board to endorse or not endorse it?
>
> - Joe

Yes, exactly. And I would ask that the foundation be more deliberate
about important statements in the future (and this is very important).

Matt Flaschen

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

matthew.flaschen at gatech

Aug 21, 2008, 1:22 PM

Post #15 of 34 (704 views)
Permalink

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

Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>
>> That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing
>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are
>> in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source
>> country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a
>> significant departure from that.
>
> As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some
> established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.

Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make
any more exceptions.

Matt Flaschen

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

matthew.flaschen at gatech

Aug 21, 2008, 1:25 PM

Post #16 of 34 (705 views)
Permalink

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

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Back in 2004, Jimmy Wales has stated:
>>
>> *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]
>>
>> In 2007, a resolution regarding it has announced:
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Licensing_policy&action=history
>
> Well, that didn't happen and there is no consensus for it. The fact
> that the board passed a resolution regarding the use of non-free
> content shows that that pronouncement is outdated.

He said _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses (like
Template:Permission or Template:Noncommercial). Fair use was still
meant to be allowed.

Matt Flaschen

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

h.schlottmann at gmx

Aug 21, 2008, 2:36 PM

Post #17 of 34 (704 views)
Permalink

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

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>
>>> That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing
>>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are
>>> in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source
>>> country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a
>>> significant departure from that.
>> As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some
>> established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
>
> Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make
> any more exceptions.

My other posting went to commons-l. Copied from there:

-----

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.

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.

-----

Ciao Henning

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

zvandijk at googlemail

Aug 21, 2008, 2:45 PM

Post #18 of 34 (704 views)
Permalink

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

Which law is valid for Wikipedia? Floridan?
Ziko

2008/8/21 Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann[at]gmx.net>:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>>> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing
>>>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are
>>>> in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source
>>>> country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a
>>>> significant departure from that.
>>> As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some
>>> established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
>>
>> Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make
>> any more exceptions.
>
> My other posting went to commons-l. Copied from there:
>
> -----
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -----
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

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

chiesa.marco at gmail

Aug 22, 2008, 1:00 AM

Post #19 of 34 (701 views)
Permalink

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

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann[at]gmx.net
> 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)
Cruccone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effeietsanders at gmail

Aug 22, 2008, 6:54 AM

Post #20 of 34 (695 views)
Permalink

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

Besides the law for where the servers are, you always have to abide
the law yourself :) If it is not allowed in The Netherlands to do
something, I doubt you can just do it here, because it is on US
servers :) So, multiple laws I guess.

Lodewijk

2008/8/21 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk[at]googlemail.com>:
> Which law is valid for Wikipedia? Floridan?
> Ziko
>
> 2008/8/21 Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann[at]gmx.net>:
>> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>>>> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is not the only alternative. Commons:Licensing
>>>>> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) states, "that are
>>>>> in the public domain in at least the United States *and* in the source
>>>>> country of the work." However, this change to PD-art policy is a
>>>>> significant departure from that.
>>>> As have been a few others before. The rule you quote above has some
>>>> established exceptions, PD-art is just one of them.
>>>
>>> Such as? Even assuming you are correct, we can still choose not to make
>>> any more exceptions.
>>
>> My other posting went to commons-l. Copied from there:
>>
>> -----
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Ciao Henning
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

wknight8111 at gmail

Aug 22, 2008, 7:00 AM

Post #21 of 34 (695 views)
Permalink

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM, effe iets anders
<effeietsanders[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> Besides the law for where the servers are, you always have to abide
> the law yourself :) If it is not allowed in The Netherlands to do
> something, I doubt you can just do it here, because it is on US
> servers :) So, multiple laws I guess.

There's also a difference between the users of content, and the
reusers of content. If you take something that is illegal in your
country and try to reuse it, publish it, sell it, you're going to get
in trouble no matter where our servers are located. I doubt there are
going to be too many problems for our casual readers, how much trouble
can you get in for reading a webpage which contains images that are
illegally licensed?

When some country tries to sue the WMF over these infractions, the
location of the servers is going to be a much more important issue.

--Andrew Whitworth

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

lars at aronsson

Aug 22, 2008, 7:40 AM

Post #22 of 34 (695 views)
Permalink

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

Marco Chiesa wrote:

> ..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)

If a takedown notice is sent in Italy, and the publisher refuses,
and the case goes to court, and the court finds that the copyright
claim was without substance, is there any punishment for the false
claim of copyright?

As far as I know, false copyright claims (also called copyfraud)
is not a crime in Sweden, so museums can send takedown notices at
will, at no legal risk to themselves.

--
Lars Aronsson (lars[at]aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

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

smolensk at eunet

Aug 22, 2008, 10:20 AM

Post #23 of 34 (690 views)
Permalink

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

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?

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: mboverload <mboverloadlister[at]gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"
>
> [[Principality of Sealand]], anyone?
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny[at]gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Among the benefits of have organized Commons in the US, is that we
> > can go by US copyright law. The
> > alternative would be for Commons to adopt the most restrictive
> > position of any country whatsoever. Given the expansive
> > meanings of "moral rights", and the impossibility in some countries of
> > surrendering them, this might make such a project impossible. As
> > obvious, I am not a lawyer , and I tend to write the way I hope things
> > will be.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton[at]gmail.com>wrote:
> >>> > 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.
> >>>
> >>> I disagree, as a senior member of the foundation (either as a board
> >>> member or as Vice-ED or whatever his current title is now - I'm not
> >>> sure when the statement was made), he can certainly act as
> >>> spokesperson for the foundation. If what he said doesn't fit the
> >>> foundation's official position then it's an matter for internal
> >>> disciplinary procedures, but I've seen nothing to suggest he was
> >>> incorrect.
> >>
> >> For the sake of clarity, the statement being discussed is from July
> >> 2008, when Erik would already be Deputy Director.

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

bryan.tongminh at gmail

Aug 22, 2008, 10:58 AM

Post #24 of 34 (691 views)
Permalink

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk[at]eunet.yu> 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?

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

geniice at gmail

Aug 22, 2008, 11:44 AM

Post #25 of 34 (690 views)
Permalink

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

2008/8/22 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk[at]eunet.yu>:
> 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?
>

If you feel the world needs a closed source version of linux maybe.

There are countries which have more relaxed situations with regard to
copyright than the US. For various reasons there would be little
benefit in relocating to them

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
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 lists@gossamer-threads.com