Mailing List Archive

As far as I'm aware the board needs to explicitely approve any use of
their logos. Last time it was asked for on IRC, Angela directed the
user to drop a line to board@wikimedia.org, so it might be sensible to
forward that to there.

On 14/07/06, Jack <jackdt@gmail.com> wrote:
> The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of
> Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
>
> They wish to
> 1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
> 2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
>
> They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all
> identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright
> statement, ownership, publication date
> <http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html>; so the GFDL requirements are
> met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission
> or refuse?
>
> WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086
> LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
>
> The College Art Association is also asking to reuse the Wikipedia logo
> in a news <http://www.collegeart.org/news/> article (OTRS
> 2006071110016751).
> --
> user:Jeandré
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Xyrael
sean@silentflame.com | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/14/06, Jack <jackdt@gmail.com> wrote:
> The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of
> Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
>
> They wish to
> 1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
> 2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
>
> They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all
> identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright
> statement, ownership, publication date
> <http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html>; so the GFDL requirements are
> met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission
> or refuse?
>
> WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086
> LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD

I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the
actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the
US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the
ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their
request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested
to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is
on dead trees or on a DVD.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Having just met with the Library of Congress two days ago, please forward it
to me directly.

-Brad

On 7/14/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/14/06, Jack <jackdt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of
> > Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
> >
> > They wish to
> > 1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
> > 2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
> >
> > They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all
> > identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright
> > statement, ownership, publication date
> > <http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html>; so the GFDL requirements are
> > met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission
> > or refuse?
> >
> > WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086
> > LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
>
> I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the
> actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the
> US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the
> ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their
> request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested
> to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is
> on dead trees or on a DVD.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf@gmail.com
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the
> actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the
> US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the
> ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their
> request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested
> to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is
> on dead trees or on a DVD.

I found a ticket where Jimmy forwarded the request for
<http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pablo_II> to OTRS (ticket 119314),
but the ticket doesn't include the permission. According to the email,
Jimmy gave permission for <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope> on
2005-04-13 by email (not thru OTRS).

This request <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> was also
forwarded by Jimmy to OTRS.

> As far as I'm aware the board needs to explicitely approve any use of
> their logos. Last time it was asked for on IRC, Angela directed the
> user to drop a line to board@wikimedia.org, so it might be sensible to
> forward that to there.
> -- Sean Whitton

I've forwarded it there, thanks. That was my first thought, but Jimbo
forwarded it to OTRS, so I tried juriwiki-l (no response yet) before
asking here.
--
Jeandré
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

It is important to keep the community informed about this. By making
it clear on the talk page that the article is being reproduced by LoC
the article may be kept to higher standards. I'm guessing the
community were not informed about Pope/Tsunami? Anyway, it's good
news.

On 14/07/06, Jack <jackdt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the
> > actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the
> > US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the
> > ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their
> > request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested
> > to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is
> > on dead trees or on a DVD.
>
> I found a ticket where Jimmy forwarded the request for
> <http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pablo_II> to OTRS (ticket 119314),
> but the ticket doesn't include the permission. According to the email,
> Jimmy gave permission for <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope> on
> 2005-04-13 by email (not thru OTRS).
>
> This request <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> was also
> forwarded by Jimmy to OTRS.
>
> > As far as I'm aware the board needs to explicitely approve any use of
> > their logos. Last time it was asked for on IRC, Angela directed the
> > user to drop a line to board@wikimedia.org, so it might be sensible to
> > forward that to there.
> > -- Sean Whitton
>
> I've forwarded it there, thanks. That was my first thought, but Jimbo
> forwarded it to OTRS, so I tried juriwiki-l (no response yet) before
> asking here.
> --
> Jeandré
> _______________________________________________
> 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 14/07/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/14/06, Jack <jackdt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of
> > Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
> >
> > They wish to
> > 1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
> > 2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
> >
> > They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all
> > identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright
> > statement, ownership, publication date
> > <http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html>; so the GFDL requirements are
> > met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission
> > or refuse?
> >
> > WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086
> > LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
>
> I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the
> actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the
> US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the
> ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their
> request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested
> to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is
> on dead trees or on a DVD.

It's the major problem with web archiving - if you get 10% response
you're lucky. Most have grudgingly accepted they have to go with
"archive on spec" and take down afterwards if there's a complaint. I
strongly, strongly suggest we figure out a way to have a blanket
permissions policy for this sort of thing; it's exactly what we want
to encourage, though there's generally less need to archive us than
with most people...

Whilst I remember, the rather cunning trick developed to get around
permissions (at least for the biggest web archivers, the
national-level people), is to quietly redefine legal deposit, so that
the deposit libraries have the right to make and store copies of any
material published to the web in their jurisdiction. Defining
"jurisdiction" is fun, of course, but they seem to have knocked
something together; France is working on theirs, the UK has passed the
enabling legislation but hasn't put it into force yet, and I think
Denmark's got it up and running.

(I was lucky enough to attend a one-day conference on internet
archiving - it was a bit accidental, we hadn't quite realised it was
directed at the big players - which was remarkably interesting. It's
going to be a fun field to watch)

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You're absolutely right; as the Internet gets bigger and more and more
content is written, archival services are going to become more
powerful as people want to look for stuff that someone else has
pointed them at - the idea has been around for sometime with search
engine caches and the Wayback Machine, but it will be something
interesting to watch.

I think you're right on just archiving on site in order to avoid
difficulties, but right now they need to have that permission as soon
as possible and understand that they can have it again, which it'd be
good if Brad dealt with for us.

Brad: Have your got a hold of the e-mail, or do you still need it to
be forwarded?

On 14/07/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/07/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/06, Jack <jackdt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of
> > > Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
> > >
> > > They wish to
> > > 1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
> > > 2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
> > >
> > > They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all
> > > identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright
> > > statement, ownership, publication date
> > > <http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html>; so the GFDL requirements are
> > > met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission
> > > or refuse?
> > >
> > > WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086
> > > LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
> >
> > I remember a similar request from 2004 during the Tsunami (okay, the
> > actual request should have been from january-february 2005) from the
> > US LOC for a collection about this. Maybe someone is able to find the
> > ticket and how we reacted to this. As far as I am concerned, their
> > request is fine and I consider it a shame that libraries are requested
> > to ask for this to preserve the cultural heritage, no matter if it is
> > on dead trees or on a DVD.
>
> It's the major problem with web archiving - if you get 10% response
> you're lucky. Most have grudgingly accepted they have to go with
> "archive on spec" and take down afterwards if there's a complaint. I
> strongly, strongly suggest we figure out a way to have a blanket
> permissions policy for this sort of thing; it's exactly what we want
> to encourage, though there's generally less need to archive us than
> with most people...
>
> Whilst I remember, the rather cunning trick developed to get around
> permissions (at least for the biggest web archivers, the
> national-level people), is to quietly redefine legal deposit, so that
> the deposit libraries have the right to make and store copies of any
> material published to the web in their jurisdiction. Defining
> "jurisdiction" is fun, of course, but they seem to have knocked
> something together; France is working on theirs, the UK has passed the
> enabling legislation but hasn't put it into force yet, and I think
> Denmark's got it up and running.
>
> (I was lucky enough to attend a one-day conference on internet
> archiving - it was a bit accidental, we hadn't quite realised it was
> directed at the big players - which was remarkably interesting. It's
> going to be a fun field to watch)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Xyrael
sean@silentflame.com | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thank you to the several of you who contacted me offlist about this.

Danny, mindspillage, gmaxwell, and I met in DC with the Library of Congress
folks who are responsible for the digital harvesting and web archival
functions. LoC is a big place, and the folks we met with coordinate a lot
of different elements.

One of the folks pulled out a folder which included a sheaf of the emails
that end up in OTRS. She passed one over to me and was explaining how the
curatorial folks are interested in including a specific page or set of pages
as part of a discrete topic, etc. and before she was done speaking I had
written at the bottom in large letters in a blue pen, "BLANKET PERMISSION
GRANTED" s/BP and all that.

That there would be a moment's hesitation to cooperate fully with the
Library of Congress is beyond my comprehension. I only regretted that we
hadn't had an opportunity to meet with them earlier.

Working with LoC will likely be a two-way street. They have 40 TB (that's
terabytes - 10 million items) of digital collection which is of great
interest to us. They also are interested in the full archival approach,
given what the projects have become as part of the American internet
phenomenon. How that will be accomplished is still being discussed and will
involve several different elements within LoC.

Part of the reason I took this job was to be able to sit across the table
from other organizations and do something for the betterment of the
projects. Largely, such ideas of working together has been stifled by a
simple lack of time and bandwidth from board members and Jimmy. I'm glad
that we are moving in this direction.

Oh, and we're going to get the whole digital archive of the US Holocaust
Memorial Museum too. =) Thanks to Danny Wool.
--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf@gmail.com
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thanks, Brad, for breaking the news to Foundation. I will just ad that it
was a very exciting trip, which will open many new opportunities for all of us,
and I feel fortunate to have been able to participate.

With regard to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, I just want to add a quick
note that their remarkable collection includes images, testimonies, videos,
and audio. They are also compiling an online encyclopedia in seven languages,
and that material will be there for us to harvest as well, according to the
terms of the GFDL. They have some amazing material on other genocides as well,
including Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur.

I will suggest, however, that people wait a few more days before taking
material from their site, so that our discussions can be formalized in a written
agreement. I hope that this can set a precedent and serve as a model for
future cooperation with other museums and educational institutions. After all, we
all have the same goal--sharing the sum of human knowledge with all people
who seek it.

Special thanks to Mindspillage who helped me with the USHMM meeting. It goes
without saying that I am ever grateful to Brad for coordinating and leading
this amazing effort and to Mindspillage and NullC for all of their technical
insights and great ideas and advice before, during, and after these meetings.

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

Brad, I must say that this is amazing news! I for one am very happy to hear
this went so well.

I'm sorry that I don't have much else to add, but I just wanted you to know
that some of us do in fact lurk on this mailing list and love to hear very
good news every now and then :-)

-alex

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak
Wikimania 2006 - MIT & Harvard - Staff
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I wasn't aware the Library of Congress needed copyright permissions. I was
under the impression they were immune to such things for the sake of
preservation.

Oh and Brad, that's awesome that we can work so closely with them.
Hopefully they will have even more resources to keep our content safe in the
future.

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

Hoi,
Can I understand that this permission for using our content can be seen as a
precedent for similar organisations like the Library of Congress..
organisations like the Koninklijke Bibliotheek .. ?? (
http://www.kb.nl/index-en.html )
Thanks,
GerardM

On 7/15/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you to the several of you who contacted me offlist about this.
>
> Danny, mindspillage, gmaxwell, and I met in DC with the Library of
> Congress
> folks who are responsible for the digital harvesting and web archival
> functions. LoC is a big place, and the folks we met with coordinate a lot
> of different elements.
>
> One of the folks pulled out a folder which included a sheaf of the emails
> that end up in OTRS. She passed one over to me and was explaining how the
> curatorial folks are interested in including a specific page or set of
> pages
> as part of a discrete topic, etc. and before she was done speaking I had
> written at the bottom in large letters in a blue pen, "BLANKET PERMISSION
> GRANTED" s/BP and all that.
>
> That there would be a moment's hesitation to cooperate fully with the
> Library of Congress is beyond my comprehension. I only regretted that we
> hadn't had an opportunity to meet with them earlier.
>
> Working with LoC will likely be a two-way street. They have 40 TB (that's
> terabytes - 10 million items) of digital collection which is of great
> interest to us. They also are interested in the full archival approach,
> given what the projects have become as part of the American internet
> phenomenon. How that will be accomplished is still being discussed and
> will
> involve several different elements within LoC.
>
> Part of the reason I took this job was to be able to sit across the table
> from other organizations and do something for the betterment of the
> projects. Largely, such ideas of working together has been stifled by a
> simple lack of time and bandwidth from board members and Jimmy. I'm glad
> that we are moving in this direction.
>
> Oh, and we're going to get the whole digital archive of the US Holocaust
> Memorial Museum too. =) Thanks to Danny Wool.
> --
> Brad Patrick
> General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> bradp.wmf@gmail.com
> 727-231-0101
> _______________________________________________
> 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