Mailing List Archive

>
> Isn't it the case that, when someone posts content to Wikipedia, they
> are releasing it under GFDL, regardless of any other license they may
> also choose to release it under? So, even if the content in question
> were clearly labeled as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even CC-BY-NC, it is also
> released under GFDL. With the exception of putting something into PD
> (or some other less restrictive license than GFDL), it just doesn't
> matter what other restrictions may be claimed, it is still released
> under GFDL. Excepting, of course, content posted without the knowledge
> or permission of the copyright holder.

Given the way you say it, I would say yes...

>>
> Ah, well yes, you're right. On Wikinews (at least en.wikinews) by
> posting you are placing the contents into the public domain...again,
> regardless of any other restrictions you may claim. Right?

No

For example, given french law, french people can't place anything in PD.
And they're not the only one !

>
> Because someone posting someone else's material cannot put it in the
> public domain without the other person's permission, the click-through
> agreement does not apply to such content. The question then becomes,
> do we want to remove CC-BY or CC-BY-SA content posted by others? Given
> the above, I'd say that it's reasonable to label content under CC-BY
> as such and keep it. As for CC-BY-SA, GFDL, etc., the situation is not
> quite as clear, but for the sake of interoperability, I'd be inclined
> to be in favor of allowing such content when labeled. Wikinews stories
> are relatively independent from one another.
>
> If this becomes established practice, it may make sense to amend the
> copyright notice to say ".. is in the public domain where not
> otherwise noted."

Once again, many legislations forbid that authors put their work in PD.

Why ? Because publishers would be very happy to force them to do so !
It's a protection for authors.

So, chosing PD as a basis is a major legal flaw that will give wikinews
team a lot of headaches... and that will make me very busy on irc :)

On 5/6/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@gmail.com> wrote:

> Once again, many legislations forbid that authors put their work in PD.
>
> Why ? Because publishers would be very happy to force them to do so !
> It's a protection for authors.

Certainly not. A publisher would not want an author to put their work
in the PD, because it means that any other publisher can republish the
work without charge. A publisher would prefer to make publication by
others either illegal (by taking over the copyright) or otherwise as
restricted as possible. Public Domain would be the full antithesis of
that.

> So, chosing PD as a basis is a major legal flaw that will give wikinews
> team a lot of headaches... and that will make me very busy on irc :)

In my opinion, PD in that case should simply be taken to mean "the
author grants everyone unlimited rights to do as they please."

Which, by the way, is indeed impossible in the law of certain
countries. I as a Dutchman for example cannot sign away my right to
object to the material being published under another name than mine,
or to mutilation of the work in such a way that it is damaging to my
honour or good name as the author.

Andre Engels

> On 5/6/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once again, many legislations forbid that authors put their work in
>> PD.
>>
>> Why ? Because publishers would be very happy to force them to do so !
>> It's a protection for authors.
>
> Certainly not. A publisher would not want an author to put their work
> in the PD, because it means that any other publisher can republish the
> work without charge. A publisher would prefer to make publication by
> others either illegal (by taking over the copyright) or otherwise as
> restricted as possible. Public Domain would be the full antithesis of
> that.

I agree with you, but that is the justification for the French law
stating that French authors cannot let trash their author's rights in
order to avoid economical pressure from publishers.

>
>> So, chosing PD as a basis is a major legal flaw that will give
>> wikinews
>> team a lot of headaches... and that will make me very busy on irc :)
>
> In my opinion, PD in that case should simply be taken to mean "the
> author grants everyone unlimited rights to do as they please."
> Which, by the way, is indeed impossible in the law of certain
> countries. I as a Dutchman for example cannot sign away my right to
> object to the material being published under another name than mine,
> or to mutilation of the work in such a way that it is damaging to my
> honour or good name as the author.

Same thing in France. In that case any French author writing on
wikinews could try to sue anybody using wikinews content.

Andre Engels wrote:

> In my opinion, PD in that case should simply be taken to mean "the
> author grants everyone unlimited rights to do as they please."
>
>Which, by the way, is indeed impossible in the law of certain
>countries. I as a Dutchman for example cannot sign away my right to
>object to the material being published under another name than mine,
>or to mutilation of the work in such a way that it is damaging to my
>honour or good name as the author.
>
This sounds as though you're mixing up copyrights and moral rights.
Copyright is an economic right. Allowing all others to republish the
work without paying royalties falls within that. Demanding that you be
shown as the author is a different thing. Whether a "mutilation"
damages your honour or good name would be an arguable question of fact.
Parodies would not fall into that.

Ec

On 5/7/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> This sounds as though you're mixing up copyrights and moral rights.
> Copyright is an economic right. Allowing all others to republish the
> work without paying royalties falls within that. Demanding that you be
> shown as the author is a different thing. Whether a "mutilation"
> damages your honour or good name would be an arguable question of fact.
> Parodies would not fall into that.

I don't understand your statement. The question was whether it was
possible to put some of your work in the public domain. Public domain
to me means "Anyone can use it however they like". The law says that
there are certain rights to the work that I cannot sign away. Thus, I
cannot put it in the public domain. I *can* allow others to republish
the work without royalties, but there are certain rights I cannot give
them.

Andre Engels