[Foundation-l] Commons Usurp issue

[geni]

2008/6/4 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:46 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/6/4 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>:
>>> You cannot hold copyright anonymously,
>>
>> TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 3 > § 302 (c)
>>
>> "In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made
>> for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year
>> of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its
>> creation, whichever expires first."
>
> You are right, copyright can be held anonymously. I should have said
> "it cannot be enforced anonymously". That is, you can't log in to
> court with your wikimedia user name.
>

That doesn't matter though.

>> Okey if you want a really formal phrasing. When you release work under
>> the GFDL you are free to chose what author name you put in the history
>> section any anyone who wants to use your work or create a derivative
>> of that they are stuck with your choice. Yes I am aware of the many
>> many ways this can be abused.
>
> Where in the GFDL does it say that the author can choose the method in
> which they must be attributed? The GFDL says only:

I didn't say that although in practice the GFDL does allow that due to
the preserve copyright notices bit but that is of no importance to the
current debate.

> "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
> responsible for authorship ..."
>
> Listing "Whiteknight" on the title page as an author does not give me
> proper attribution. Hell, I'm not even the only Whiteknight in all of
> wikimedia (hence my interest in SUL conflict resolution). The GFDL
> says you must list a person or an entity, and your pseudonymous
> account name on a particular webserver counts as neither. The GFDL
> says that it must list authors, but does not say that we must list
> them in a manner that the authors themselves choose.  This
> stipulation, while nice, is not included in the license itself and so
> is just wishful thinking.

"Preserve the section Entitled "History""


>> The author lets you use those contributions as long as you do not
>> modify the ah author name they put in the history section.
>
> Again, nice but not specified in the license. The author lets you use
> those contributions as long as you properly attribute the author.

No they let you use them as long as you follow the GFDL. You appear to
be describeing CC-BY.

> Whether you attribute the author using one pseudonym or another (so
> long as both can be traced back to the author uniquely) makes no
> difference.

"Preserve the section Entitled "History"" You got that yet? You want
to make of derivative of a work someone has released under the GFDL
you "Preserve the section Entitled "History"".

There is no way around this. That you are also trying to take a course
of action that will put you in breach of most common law based legal
systems let alone Napoleonic code based legal systems doesn't help.

-- 
geni