Mailing List Archive

I would agree on the grammatical editing point. For something to be
copyrighted it needs to be in some way original/creative, but
grammatical editing is done by a set of fixed guidelines (MoS,
standard English) and isn't very creative. Therefore, it seems
sensible to not consider such edits copyrightable.

On 13/07/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> > Robert Scott Horning
> > <mailto:foundation-l%40wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20GFDL%20publisher%20credit&In-Reply-To=>
> > wrote
> >
> >Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >>If Wikimedia wants to hold a copyright interest inthis material it needs
> >>to be ready to defend those copyrights in a serious way. Having an
> >>employee make ad-hoc, arbitrary and speculative pronouncements on the
> >>law without a clear policy from the Board to back it up probably puts
> >>the entire project into greater peril than the obvious silliness of the
> >>more ignorant copyright violators.
> >>
> >>Ec
> >>
> >The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold
> >copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free
> >Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a
> >copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the
> >copyright and defending the GPL.
> >
> My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a
> non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend
> editors' copyrights. This would prevent some distant future management
> from using its standing as a copyright owner to do things that can only
> be done by any copyright owner. By disowning any copyrights it may have
> in the material it also helps to maintain its distance from the content
> if it is ever named to defend some suit based on the contents.
>
> >The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL
> >violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the
> >WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia
> >content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be
> >legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an
> >individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that
> >you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each
> >seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
> >
> Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if
> the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There
> is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite
> for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure
> that all needed registrations happen?
>
> >Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for
> >the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the
> >decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests
> >on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to
> >Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each
> >contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into
> >harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the
> >content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor
> >change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe
> >really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
> >
> >That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to
> >Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
> >
> I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders
> should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't
> agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has
> published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort
> on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the
> legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> > Robert Scott Horning said:
> >The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold
> >copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free
> >Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a
> >copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the
> >copyright and defending the GPL.
> >
> My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a
> non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend
> editors' copyrights.

Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over
the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically,
as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free
derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as
copyright law is concerned.

Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use
lawsuits to make works more free, not less.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>>Robert Scott Horning
>>
>>The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL
>>violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the
>>WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia
>>content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be
>>legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an
>>individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that
>>you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each
>>seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
>>
>>
>>
>Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if
>the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There
>is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite
>for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure
>that all needed registrations happen?
>
>
Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement
because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove
copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages.
Note that the registration must take place before the infringement
occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list
before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal
registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would
make such registration difficult to impossible.

All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to
individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to
think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.

>>Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for
>>the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the
>>decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests
>>on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to
>>Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each
>>contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into
>>harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the
>>content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor
>>change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe
>>really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
>>
>>That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to
>>Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders
>should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't
>agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has
>published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort
>on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the
>legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
>
>Ec
>
>
I'm not saying that a person who adds some minor edit to a Wikipedia
article that is then brought up in a libel lawsuit is necessarily going
to be completely held responsible for everything in that article, but
liability is certainly there to an extent and it wouldn't surprise me if
your name was brought up in a formal lawsuit that simply decided to go
after every contributor in the history of the article, even if all you
did was revert blatant vandalism at one point acting in good faith.
That would still take some time to explain even what reverting
vandalism is to a judge, who has no clue about MediaWiki software and
wouldn't even really understand the role of admins or vandalism patrols
in Wikimedia projects. I'm sure such a judge in a lawsuit like that
would learn real fast, but you would have to get a lawyer and defend
yourself first. As the John Siegenthaler situation suggests, there may
be some individuals who really get bent out of shape for what content is
in Wikipedia and don't care to seek redress from within the Wikimedia
community of users and editors. And if you reverted one form of
vandalism, the question would be raised as to why you let other
blatantly wrong facts about a person or company go unchecked.

I hope that nobody really has to deal with these issues, and I'm also
sure that if there was a problem that a "legal defense fund" could be
set up very quickly to help out Wikimedia users who through no fault of
their own got tied up with these issues.

I was involved briefly with the DVD de-CSS software and "dodged the
bullet" when my involvement was only peripheral to the lawsuits that
were thrown around by the MPAA and the DVD Fourm for cracking the
encryption used on DVD-Video discs. And this was GPL'd software that
the only justification for filing the lawsuit was a violation of a trade
secret by somebody who did reverse engineering of software and didn't
have any affiliation with any company producing DVD software. I do know
some of the people who were dragged into court over that issue, and it
was a pain to try and deal with. With the technical books that are on
Wikibooks, I don't see a reason why that sort of situation might not
repeat itself again but with written publications instead.... even if
the situation turns out to be perfectly legal. And the liability would
indeed rest on the contributors in this situation.

--
Robert Scott Horning


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

> Anthony
> <mailto:foundation-l%40wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20GFDL%20publisher%20credit&In-Reply-To=44B43991.5060907%40telus.net>
> wrote
>
>On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>> >It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the
>> >Internet, though. The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
>> >of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
>> >argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all. The
>> >more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
>> >interpretation.
>> >
>> If it has been made public it has been published. The real question
>> here is _who_ did the publishing.
>>
>{{citationneeded}}
>
>
"For he bat wil pupplische ony thing to make it openly knowen, he wil
make it
to ben cryed and pronounced in the myddel place of a Town" - John
Mandeville, "Travels", 14th century. The basic meaning has been around
for a long time.

Ec


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

On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> > Anthony
> > <mailto:foundation-l%40wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20GFDL%20publisher%20credit&In-Reply-To=44B43991.5060907%40telus.net>
> > wrote
> >
> >On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >> >It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the
> >> >Internet, though. The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
> >> >of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
> >> >argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all. The
> >> >more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
> >> >interpretation.
> >> >
> >> If it has been made public it has been published. The real question
> >> here is _who_ did the publishing.
> >>
> >{{citationneeded}}
> >
> >
> "For he bat wil pupplische ony thing to make it openly knowen, he wil
> make it
> to ben cryed and pronounced in the myddel place of a Town" - John
> Mandeville, "Travels", 14th century. The basic meaning has been around
> for a long time.
>
> Ec
>
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of
copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
work does not of itself constitute publication."

Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
court would agree with that.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/13/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
> And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of
> copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
> transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
> to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
> purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
> display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
> work does not of itself constitute publication."
>
> Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
> rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
> *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
> court would agree with that.
>

Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle
of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means
of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
in separate places and at the same time or at different times."

Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the
definition of "publication".

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>>Robert Scott Horning
>>>
>>>The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL
>>>violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the
>>>WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia
>>>content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be
>>>legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an
>>>individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that
>>>you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each
>>>seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
>>>
>>>
>>Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if
>>the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There
>>is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite
>>for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure
>>that all needed registrations happen?
>>
>>
>Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement
>because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove
>copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages.
> Note that the registration must take place before the infringement
>occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list
>before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal
>registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would
>make such registration difficult to impossible.
>
>All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to
>individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to
>think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
>
The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary
terms and need to be proven. Since we all give our services for free
there is no damage to be proven. Only statutory damages make sense. Of
course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally
entitled to file a registration. Those with more radical views about
the nature of free content should have no business preventing others
from protecting their own rights. If they want to remain anonymous that
would still be their choice. The material that should be registered
could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or
on some other regular basis.

>>>Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for
>>>the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the
>>>decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests
>>>on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to
>>>Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each
>>>contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into
>>>harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the
>>>content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor
>>>change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe
>>>really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
>>>
>>>That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to
>>>Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders
>>should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't
>>agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has
>>published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort
>>on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the
>>legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
>>
>I'm not saying that a person who adds some minor edit to a Wikipedia
>article that is then brought up in a libel lawsuit is necessarily going
>to be completely held responsible for everything in that article, but
>liability is certainly there to an extent and it wouldn't surprise me if
>your name was brought up in a formal lawsuit that simply decided to go
>after every contributor in the history of the article, even if all you
>did was revert blatant vandalism at one point acting in good faith.
> That would still take some time to explain even what reverting
>vandalism is to a judge, who has no clue about MediaWiki software and
>wouldn't even really understand the role of admins or vandalism patrols
>in Wikimedia projects. I'm sure such a judge in a lawsuit like that
>would learn real fast, but you would have to get a lawyer and defend
>yourself first. As the John Siegenthaler situation suggests, there may
>be some individuals who really get bent out of shape for what content is
>in Wikipedia and don't care to seek redress from within the Wikimedia
>community of users and editors. And if you reverted one form of
>vandalism, the question would be raised as to why you let other
>blatantly wrong facts about a person or company go unchecked.
>
>I hope that nobody really has to deal with these issues, and I'm also
>sure that if there was a problem that a "legal defense fund" could be
>set up very quickly to help out Wikimedia users who through no fault of
>their own got tied up with these issues.
>
>I was involved briefly with the DVD de-CSS software and "dodged the
>bullet" when my involvement was only peripheral to the lawsuits that
>were thrown around by the MPAA and the DVD Fourm for cracking the
>encryption used on DVD-Video discs. And this was GPL'd software that
>the only justification for filing the lawsuit was a violation of a trade
>secret by somebody who did reverse engineering of software and didn't
>have any affiliation with any company producing DVD software. I do know
>some of the people who were dragged into court over that issue, and it
>was a pain to try and deal with. With the technical books that are on
>Wikibooks, I don't see a reason why that sort of situation might not
>repeat itself again but with written publications instead.... even if
>the situation turns out to be perfectly legal. And the liability would
>indeed rest on the contributors in this situation.
>
I'm not one to go around stiffled by the fear of lawsuits. I don't add
anything that I would not be willing to defend if the situation arose.
I had never heard of Seigenthaler before he became a Wikipedia issue.
If I had I would have been unlikely to enter into a detailed search for
corroborating evidence because I would not have been sufficiently
interested in the subject. On the other hand, I could imagine myself
making minor grammatical and spelling changes. I already do a bit of
that when I'm otherwise just reading the article for information.

I'm also one of those people who would prefer to fight his own case
without hiring lawyers Whether someone would be so impractical as to
sue everybody on the author list remains to be seen, but it could be
fun. ;-)

Ec

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

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>>Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement
>>because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove
>>copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages.
>>Note that the registration must take place before the infringement
>>occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list
>>before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal
>>registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would
>>make such registration difficult to impossible.
>>
>>All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to
>>individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to
>>think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
>>
>>
>>
>The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary
>terms and need to be proven. Since we all give our services for free
>there is no damage to be proven. Only statutory damages make sense. Of
>course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally
>entitled to file a registration. Those with more radical views about
>the nature of free content should have no business preventing others
>from protecting their own rights. If they want to remain anonymous that
>would still be their choice. The material that should be registered
>could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or
>on some other regular basis.
>
>Ec
>
>
One of the requirements for formal registration of copyright require
that you document the nationality and residence (the name of the country
you live in is sufficient) of all copyright claimants. The purpose of
this is to know what laws actually protect the content, as international
copyright conventions do apply and nationality does have some impact on
copyright protection.

I made a request almost a year ago that Wikimedia projects allow
voluntary declaration of this information (I don't think it should ever
be compelled), together with your real legal name for this purpose. The
proposal was mainly that such information could be put into the user
preferences section where you also put your sig and some other personal
details like e-mail address. Even asking for voluntary declarations of
information like this was met with incredible hostility and accusations
that I didn't understand the WMF privacy policy. The purpose of
collecting this information was specifically so I could file formal
copyright registration on behalf of Wikibooks users including myself.

BTW, the Library of Congress does not have a maximum limit of only 5
copyright claimants, but since the GFDL suggests the number of 5 people
listed, most people assume that is the most that you are permitted to
list as authors. It is not, and I don't see a problem with listing 20
or more people, as can happen with some Wikimedia projects. For
Wikibooks, that can be 20 different people with significant
contributions. My reading of the GFDL is that it suggests that you
should list at least five different people if there were that many
contributors, and that meets the minimum terms of the GFDL, and not
necessarily even the minimum requirements for copyright law.

For the Wikijunior books and for some of the other Wikibooks, this
information is being collected more informally in "author" pages where
this information is being listed. It is also assumed that when a
Wikibook is published, that this information will also be used (at least
the author's names) as credit for who helped put together the content.
Again, this is all voluntary and some people have removed their names
from these author pages as well for various reasons. Even these pages
have been controvercial, with some cries to have them all deleted and
banned by policy. This is why I say that the WMF is encouraging
deliberate obfusaction of user information preventing copyright
registration.

At the moment, however, I don't know of any specific content for any
Wikimedia project that has had formal copyright registration occur. And
you are correct that trying to prove damages that a free project like
this would be difficult at best for any monitary amount, although I
think a judge could still come up with at least some modest amount just
to prove a point that copyright violations are wrong to do, even for
free content.

--
Robert Scott Horning


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

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/13/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of
>>copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
>>transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
>>to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
>>purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
>>display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
>>work does not of itself constitute publication."
>>
>>Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>court would agree with that.
>>
>>
>Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
>(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
>place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle
>of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
>(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
>the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means
>of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
>receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
>in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
>
>Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the
>definition of "publication".
>
I don't doubt that this is a part of US law. The point really is does
the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words)
in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation
law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?

Ec

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

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Robert Scott Horning said:
>>>The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold
>>>copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free
>>>Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a
>>>copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the
>>>copyright and defending the GPL.
>>>
>>>
>>My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a
>>non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend
>>editors' copyrights.
>>
>>
>Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over
>the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically,
>as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free
>derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as
>copyright law is concerned.
>
I think that that view is shared by most of us who have a philosophical
attachment to the concept of free information.

>Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use
>lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
>
I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the
option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation,
and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ...
sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the
WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would
be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of
perceived copyvio.

This also relates to the need for the Board to take a clear policy
position that every credited extract from any WMF project not exceeding
a pre-defined size will be considered as fair use throughout the world.
By agreeing not to prosecute certain apparent violations in civil
actions, or to co-operate with authorities in criminal prosecutions it
would be a big step forward in establishing a level playing field for
fair use.

Ec

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

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Anthony wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 7/13/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of
>>>copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
>>>transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering
>>>to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for
>>>purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public
>>>display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a
>>>work does not of itself constitute publication."
>>>
>>>Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>>court would agree with that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
>>(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
>>place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle
>>of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
>>(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
>>the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means
>>of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
>>receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
>>in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
>>
>>Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the
>>definition of "publication".
>>
>>
>>
>I don't doubt that this is a part of US law. The point really is does
>the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words)
>in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation
>law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?
>
>Ec
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
court would agree with that...."

Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
that receives it. The old bible tracts given away back in the 60's by
the Baptist
churches in the South for "free" and the Gideon bibles in every hotel
room in
the South are another example of pre-GFDL activities with "free"
published works
(check the case law on several litigations in the 70's over copyright
issues
with some of these works -- they are viewed as "publications".)

Jeff
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/14/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> BTW, the Library of Congress does not have a maximum limit of only 5
> copyright claimants, but since the GFDL suggests the number of 5 people
> listed, most people assume that is the most that you are permitted to
> list as authors. It is not, and I don't see a problem with listing 20
> or more people, as can happen with some Wikimedia projects. For
> Wikibooks, that can be 20 different people with significant
> contributions. My reading of the GFDL is that it suggests that you
> should list at least five different people if there were that many
> contributors, and that meets the minimum terms of the GFDL, and not
> necessarily even the minimum requirements for copyright law.
>
This is a common misconception. The GFDL requires you list at least 5
authors (plus yourself) *on the title page*. You are still required
to list *all* authors on the history page.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Robert Scott Horning said:
> >>>The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold
> >>>copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free
> >>>Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a
> >>>copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the
> >>>copyright and defending the GPL.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a
> >>non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend
> >>editors' copyrights.
> >>
> >>
> >Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over
> >the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically,
> >as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free
> >derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as
> >copyright law is concerned.
> >
> I think that that view is shared by most of us who have a philosophical
> attachment to the concept of free information.
>
I dunno. I've seen an awful lot of lawsuit-happy Wikipedians. I've
even been legally threatened by a number of them for running a mirror
site.

> >Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use
> >lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
> >
> I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the
> option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation,
> and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ...
> sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the
> WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would
> be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of
> perceived copyvio.
>
What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to
enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute
anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose
I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the
public domain).

I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the
circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from
giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own
content.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> >Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means—
> >(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any
> >place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle
> >of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
> >(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
> >the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means
> >of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of
> >receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
> >in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
> >
> >Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the
> >definition of "publication".
> >
> I don't doubt that this is a part of US law. The point really is does
> the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words)
> in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation
> law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?
>
Well, this thread was talking about the term "publish" in terms of the
GFDL. I said that there was "a reasonable argument that these works
are in fact not yet published at all" in that context. You responded
that "If it has been made public it has been published. The real
question here is _who_ did the publishing."

I don't think it's a given that "it has been published". I think
there's a reasonable argument that Wikipedia is a joint work of
authorship that is still a work in progress, and that the original
publisher is whoever first takes that content and produces a work
which can legitimately be seen as a single GFDL document.

It's like if RMS and ESR get together and work on a novel. They
wouldn't have to add a line in the history section every time they
pass a working copy back and forth. No, they'd finish the novel, put
both their names on it as co-authors, and then publish it as the
original publication.

This doesn't fit nearly as neatly for Wikipedia, but neither does any
other interpretation.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> " ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
> rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
> *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
> court would agree with that...."
>
> Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
> that receives it.

Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get
transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets
transferred? Bits?

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony wrote:

>>I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the
>>option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation,
>>and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ...
>>sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the
>>WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would
>>be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of
>>perceived copyvio.
>>
>>
>>
>What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to
>enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute
>anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose
>I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the
>public domain).
>
>I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the
>circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from
>giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own
>content.
>
>Anthony
>
>
I hope that you are correct and I am wrong in a concern about the lack
of a copyright over Wikimedia project content by the WMF. I can't
possibly envision all of the situations that real life might bring up,
and I've seen over the years too many unusual situations to be able to
even predict just what might be an issue in the future that would
require a WMF copyright claim on project content. It just seems as
though the dismissal of claim of copyright hasn't been completely
thought through, nor is this denial of claim formal either.

What I am suggesting is that if the WMF has a copyright claim on project
content (not necessarily exclusive claim, which is a different issue),
there are both good and bad legal points to be made about what the
consequences of that copyright claim might be, as is also the case of a
denial of copyright claim entirely. Often some organizations will
assume liability on behalf of their members, especially volunteers, for
official activities of that organization. The American Red Cross and
the Boy Scouts of America are two organizations I know of that do this
for their volunteers. As a volunteer scouter, if I get sued because of
my activities when involved with working with youth, the Boy Scouts will
have their legal representatives consult with me over the situation and
defend me in court. There are official policies and such that must be
followed, and I have to convince them that I was following those
polices, but the safty net is there to help me volunteer. I don't know
how far the WMF would go to defend project contributors who are acting
in good faith and follow project and WMF policies to the best of their
ability. I hope I never find out.

--
Robert Scott Horning



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

On 7/14/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >>I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the
> >>option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation,
> >>and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ...
> >>sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the
> >>WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would
> >>be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of
> >>perceived copyvio.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to
> >enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute
> >anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose
> >I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the
> >public domain).
> >
> >I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the
> >circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from
> >giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own
> >content.
> >
> >Anthony
> >
> >
> I hope that you are correct and I am wrong in a concern about the lack
> of a copyright over Wikimedia project content by the WMF. I can't
> possibly envision all of the situations that real life might bring up,
> and I've seen over the years too many unusual situations to be able to
> even predict just what might be an issue in the future that would
> require a WMF copyright claim on project content. It just seems as
> though the dismissal of claim of copyright hasn't been completely
> thought through, nor is this denial of claim formal either.
>
> What I am suggesting is that if the WMF has a copyright claim on project
> content (not necessarily exclusive claim, which is a different issue),
> there are both good and bad legal points to be made about what the
> consequences of that copyright claim might be, as is also the case of a
> denial of copyright claim entirely.

Actually, I think the WMF most likely *does* have its own independent
claim of copyright on project content, which is why I have asked them
to formally and explicity disclaim any such interest (assuming Danny
is correct that they don't want it). But any lawsuits the WMF enters
into on its own behalf would, I think (IANAL), require the WMF to have
its own independent standing. Now this is complicated by the fact
that the GFDL has that (annoying, IMO) automatic termination clause
(section 9), but I would like to think that a judge wouldn't let the
WMF sue me because I, for instance, left out User:Wik from an author
list.

Anyway, my content, which I contribute, is copyrighted by me, and if
someone takes only that content and no one elses than I only I have
the right to sue over the "misuse" of it. If someone wants to take my
content (and the content of others like me) and use it in a CC-by-SA
work, for instance, I'm not going to sue them, even though that
technically violates the GFDL. Presumably the WMF wouldn't sue them
either, but I can imagine situations in which the WMF would be likely
to sue and I wouldn't. If the WMF does have a copyright interest in
Wikipedia, it is likely quite easy to separate out those parts and
still use the rest, at least for something on the level of a small
subset of the overall collection.

Anthony

> Often some organizations will
> assume liability on behalf of their members, especially volunteers, for
> official activities of that organization. The American Red Cross and
> the Boy Scouts of America are two organizations I know of that do this
> for their volunteers. As a volunteer scouter, if I get sued because of
> my activities when involved with working with youth, the Boy Scouts will
> have their legal representatives consult with me over the situation and
> defend me in court. There are official policies and such that must be
> followed, and I have to convince them that I was following those
> polices, but the safty net is there to help me volunteer. I don't know
> how far the WMF would go to defend project contributors who are acting
> in good faith and follow project and WMF policies to the best of their
> ability. I hope I never find out.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Registration is certainly nice in GFDL and most copyleft enforcement
>>>because it sets up a minimum statutory penalty if you can prove
>>>copyright infringement. Otherwise you can only seek actual damages.
>>>Note that the registration must take place before the infringement
>>>occurs. This is something I've discussed at length on this mailing list
>>>before, with many individuals on this list quite against formal
>>>registration, and deliberate obfuscation of user information that would
>>>make such registration difficult to impossible.
>>>
>>>All I'm pointing out is that the situation right now is exactly up to
>>>individual contributors, and you are correct, it boggles the mind to
>>>think what is really necessary to do this enforcement.
>>>
>>>
>>The problem with actual damages is that they are measured in monetary
>>terms and need to be proven. Since we all give our services for free
>>there is no damage to be proven. Only statutory damages make sense. Of
>>course anyone with a copyright interest in a work should be legally
>>entitled to file a registration. Those with more radical views about
>>the nature of free content should have no business preventing others
>>
>>
>>from protecting their own rights. If they want to remain anonymous that
>
>
>>would still be their choice. The material that should be registered
>>could be in the form of a data dump onto CD(s) that are sent monthly or
>>on some other regular basis.
>>
>>
>One of the requirements for formal registration of copyright require
>that you document the nationality and residence (the name of the country
>you live in is sufficient) of all copyright claimants. The purpose of
>this is to know what laws actually protect the content, as international
>copyright conventions do apply and nationality does have some impact on
>copyright protection.
>
Registration is still not a requirement for owning copyright, only for
seeking remedies. The United States had to remove the registration
requirement because international treaties forbid it. I haven't
investigated this, but it seems that these administrative requirements
for registration may derive from regulations rather than statutes.
Perhaps foreign editors can grant jurisdiction to US courts on this.
The requested details may be impossible to untangle for a variety of
reasons. Author lists for every article can be provided, but the
usefulness of those list is highly questionable. You could take the
approach that it is the responsibility of the US Government to primarily
protect the interests of its own citizens both at home and abroad. If
some foreigner accidently gets protected that's a bonus. Government
forms are produced with the majority in mind. At the time these things
were first produced it would have been unimaginable to think that a
publication could have many thousands of mostly unidentifiable authors.
If you contact somebody at the copyright office who knows how to think
outside the box, some kind of solution may be available.

>I made a request almost a year ago that Wikimedia projects allow
>voluntary declaration of this information (I don't think it should ever
>be compelled), together with your real legal name for this purpose. The
>proposal was mainly that such information could be put into the user
>preferences section where you also put your sig and some other personal
>details like e-mail address. Even asking for voluntary declarations of
>information like this was met with incredible hostility and accusations
>that I didn't understand the WMF privacy policy. The purpose of
>collecting this information was specifically so I could file formal
>copyright registration on behalf of Wikibooks users including myself.
>
I remember that. Did you seriously expect that it would be any
different? ;-) It's Dilbert's cubicle on a global scale. :-)
Some obsessions with privacy verge on paranoia. Those individuals need
to realize that there's a downside to that.

>BTW, the Library of Congress does not have a maximum limit of only 5
>copyright claimants, but since the GFDL suggests the number of 5 people
>listed, most people assume that is the most that you are permitted to
>list as authors. It is not, and I don't see a problem with listing 20
>or more people, as can happen with some Wikimedia projects. For
>Wikibooks, that can be 20 different people with significant
>contributions. My reading of the GFDL is that it suggests that you
>should list at least five different people if there were that many
>contributors, and that meets the minimum terms of the GFDL, and not
>necessarily even the minimum requirements for copyright law.
>
LOC may not have a maximum limit of 5, but can it handle thousands? As
far as all this goes GFDL is a separate issue. A good summary of what
you are saying is, "Many people don't know how to read."

>For the Wikijunior books and for some of the other Wikibooks, this
>information is being collected more informally in "author" pages where
>this information is being listed. It is also assumed that when a
>Wikibook is published, that this information will also be used (at least
>the author's names) as credit for who helped put together the content.
> Again, this is all voluntary and some people have removed their names
>from these author pages as well for various reasons. Even these pages
>have been controvercial, with some cries to have them all deleted and
>banned by policy. This is why I say that the WMF is encouraging
>deliberate obfusaction of user information preventing copyright
>registration.
>
AFAIK there has only been one takedown order recently. These should all
be made public, and the affected authors notified, because anybody can
file for a putback. I don't see things as "deliberate", but there is a
strong need for leadership at the Board level on this issue.

>At the moment, however, I don't know of any specific content for any
>Wikimedia project that has had formal copyright registration occur. And
>you are correct that trying to prove damages that a free project like
>this would be difficult at best for any monitary amount, although I
>think a judge could still come up with at least some modest amount just
>to prove a point that copyright violations are wrong to do, even for
>free content.
>
I don't know that a judge would do that. Imposing punitive damages
without legal authority is something that could be easily reversed on
appeal. The statutory damages provisions in effect are what provides
the authority. The judge then has flexibility within the numerical
boundaries in the law.

I know of no existing registrations either. Perhaps the way to go would
be to boldly go forth, listing the authors you know and adding "plus XX
unidentified authors." Sending one in will at least let you know if it
gets accepted. Beyond that, you certainly should not be the one stuck
with the burden of the filing fees for a large number of registrations.

Ec


Ec

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

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>court would agree with that...."
>>
>>Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
>>that receives it.
>>
>>
>Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get
>transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets
>transferred? Bits?
>
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.

Ec

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

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Robert Scott Horning said:
>>>>>The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold
>>>>>copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free
>>>>>Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a
>>>>>copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the
>>>>>copyright and defending the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a
>>>>non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend
>>>>editors' copyrights.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Optionally, I hope. I personally have no desire to sue people over
>>>the vast majority of my legal rights under copyright law. Basically,
>>>as long as you don't take my works and then create a non-free
>>>derivative, I don't care what you do with it, at least so far as
>>>copyright law is concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>I think that that view is shared by most of us who have a philosophical
>>attachment to the concept of free information.
>>
>>
>I dunno. I've seen an awful lot of lawsuit-happy Wikipedians. I've
>even been legally threatened by a number of them for running a mirror
>site.
>
Hmmm! Maybe things are worse than I imagined. I've gradually come to
the conclusion that the more mirrors and forks we have, the better.
I've even considered that having more fair use material may in fact help
free use.

As for you "lawsuit-happy Wikipedians", they often fail to see the big
step between threatening a lawsuit and starting one. My only answer to
them would be, "So do it!"

>>>Frankly, I'd hope that the WMF would do the same, and only use
>>>lawsuits to make works more free, not less.
>>>
>>>
>>I presume that with "optionally" you are referring to WMF retaining the
>>option to sue or not sue based on the circumstances of the situation,
>>and not that each editor has an option about naming WMF as agent ...
>>sometimes. The alternative would only create more confusion when the
>>WMF's right to pursue the matter comes up. On the other hand, it would
>>be ridiculous to demand that WMF pursue with vigour every bit of
>>perceived copyvio.
>>
>>
>What I'm saying is that if the WMF requires me to give it the right to
>enter into copyright lawsuits on my behalf, I won't ever contribute
>anything to Wikipedia or any of the other projects again. (I suppose
>I'd make an exception for those things that I'm willing to give to the
>public domain).
>
If it's in the public domain, there's no copyvio, and no rights to give.

>I don't want the WMF to have the option to sue or not sue based on the
>circumstances of the situation. I obviously can't stop others from
>giving them this right, but I won't give it to them for my own
>content.
>
Circumstances to me mostly have to do with the severity of the copyvio,
or whether a particular case is practical or worth it.

It may be enough for one editor on a page to give them the right to sue.

Ec



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

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>>At the moment, however, I don't know of any specific content for any
>>Wikimedia project that has had formal copyright registration occur. And
>>you are correct that trying to prove damages that a free project like
>>this would be difficult at best for any monitary amount, although I
>>think a judge could still come up with at least some modest amount just
>>to prove a point that copyright violations are wrong to do, even for
>>free content.
>>
>>
>>
>I don't know that a judge would do that. Imposing punitive damages
>without legal authority is something that could be easily reversed on
>appeal. The statutory damages provisions in effect are what provides
>the authority. The judge then has flexibility within the numerical
>boundaries in the law.
>
>
What I was trying to imply here is that a case for some damages might
still be made, even though by being made available for "free" would
certainly made such award astonishingly small compared to what you would
have gained from trying to publish content with a more conventional "all
rights reserved" copyright. The formula for determining that award
would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis and would be something
close to a nightmare for a judge to determine, or a plaintiff to present
as reasonable for copyleft content. Copyleft content does have some
restrictions, and a violation of copyleft principles can potentially
show some damage depending on how blatant of a copyright violation was
done that completely ignored the license but treated it as public domain
content instead.

Having statutory damages available would act as a much better deterant
from people who wouldn't care about any copyright infringement or
violations of the terms of a license like the GFDL. I think on this
point we are agreed.

--
Robert Scott Horning



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

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Anthony wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>>court would agree with that...."
>>>
>>>Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
>>>that receives it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get
>>transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets
>>transferred? Bits?
>>
>>
>>
>I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
>
>
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does).
And may qualify
as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT.
People
just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If
you grant someone unlimited
RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some
period of time,
it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.

There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be
transferred on the back of a bubble gum
wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give
someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY
something.

Jeff

>Ec
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

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

Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>
>>Anthony wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>>>court would agree with that...."
>>>>
>>>>Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
>>>>that receives it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get
>>>transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets
>>>transferred? Bits?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does).
>And may qualify
>as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT.
>People
>just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If
>you grant someone unlimited
>RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some
>period of time,
>it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
>
>There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be
>transferred on the back of a bubble gum
>wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give
>someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY
>something.
>
>Jeff
>
>
What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the
content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say
something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did
not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of
a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY".
I think you can see the logic. If folks
want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these
GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not
be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES" and the words
"RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."

Jeff

>
>
>>Ec
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

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

Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no
>>>>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>>>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>>>>court would agree with that...."
>>>>>
>>>>>Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
>>>>>that receives it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get
>>>>transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets
>>>>transferred? Bits?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
>>>
>>>
>>It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does).
>>And may qualify
>>as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT.
>>People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If
>>you grant someone unlimited
>>RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some
>>period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
>>
>>There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be
>>transferred on the back of a bubble gum
>>wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give
>>someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
>>
>What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the
>content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say
>something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did
>not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of
>a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY".
>I think you can see the logic. If folks
>want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these
>GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not
>be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL
>PURPOSES" and the words
>"RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."
>
>
It's more subtle than that. It's free distribution not free contents.
Free is an adjective, and as such does not stand in isolation. If
someone gives you a new hat with a logo on it the right to reproduce the
logo does not come with ownership of the hat. Intangible properties
such as rights are not treated the same way as tangible properties such
as hats.

GFDL allows for downstream reuses by all persons, not just for
educational purposes. It is also not an unconditional granting of
rights. It requires users to pass those same conditions on to
subsequent users, and provides that derivative works also be licensed in
the same way. In simple terms a user who does not do this is in breach
of license.

Ec

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