Publicpolicy February 2014

publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org

16 participants
16 discussions

[Advocacy Advisors] clarifying things for other advocacy groups
by Luis Villa 17 Mar '14

17 Mar '14

Hi, all- Since SOPA, we've seen a steady trickle of advocacy groups approaching us and asking us to banner or shut down for a variety of causes/events/etc. Not surprisingly, they usually come away frustrated.[1] I think that a lot of the frustration stems from two sources: - misunderstanding who we are/what we do - confusion about how best to ask us when there is a legitimate problem. To help address those points, I've put together a super, super-preliminary draft that we can point people at when they ask us to do advocacy for them, telling them better what to expect, how to help themselves, etc. It is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Asking_Wikimedians_To_Support_Advocacy Please feel free to edit/hack at it/tell me it is awful :) Luis [1] Recent example: https://thedaywefightback.org/letter-to-wikipedia/ -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*

3 5

[Advocacy Advisors] Fwd: Official Public Domain FAQ from Switzerland
by Luis Villa 11 Mar '14

11 Mar '14

Interesting example of small but real progress in educating by persuading government agencies to discuss facts that are important to us but not normally something they think about. Luis ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Boos <boos(a)pong.ch> Date: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 6:37 AM Subject: [communia-associates] Offical Public Domain FAQ from Switzerland To: communia-associates(a)lists.communia-association.org Hi all Last year we kindly asked the Swiss Intellectual Property Institute to write an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on questions concerning the Public Domain. They were supportive of our idea. Last week they published their answers (in German): https://www.ige.ch/service/haeufige-fragen/urheberrecht/public-domain.html Unfortunately they are in German. IPI/IGE will translate the FAQ and add some answers about international matters. Some of the answers have implications for archives, museums or libraries in Switzerland. For example the FAQ makes clear: - when works are not protected by copyright in Switzerland (e.g need for some individual creativity (geistige Schöpfung ohne Individualität), official protocolls and reports, scientific data, after 70 years (death of author or if author is not known 70 years after publication), many everyday photos) - what one can do with works in the public domian - that the digitalization of a work usually does not create new intellectual property rights - circumstances, when it is allowed to break DRM protecting public domain works. - it does not matter, if a work is published or not. They all fall in the public domain 70 years after the death of the author - ... It also contains a nice definition in about what the public domain is. I think it is important to have such a FAQ on the webpage of the official agency for intellectual property matters in Switzerland. It is probably the only FAQ on their side describing what is not protected by copyright. I wrote a short article on the Digitale Allmend Blog. http://allmend.ch/2014/02/ige-veroffentlicht-faq-zu-public-domain/ Please distribute it to those that might be interested. The Swiss Intellectual Property Institute welcomes feedback. We might discuss it on the list. If you wish, Beat Estermann and I can report back. Best regards Daniel Boos _______________________________________________ Communia-associates mailing list Communia-associates(a)lists.communia-association.org https://lists.communia-association.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/communia-as… -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*

3 3

[Advocacy Advisors] UK Government response to EU copyright consultation
by Michael Maggs 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

The Official UK Government response to the EU Commission’s copyright consultation can be seen here: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/policy-information/policy-notices/policy-n… It is surprisingly brief, and tends to the view that more EU legislation is not needed. Michael

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] Study request - OHIM
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

Hello, everybody! As reported previously [1], the OHIM (IP Observatory)[2] has picked up our request to commission a study on the benefits of public domain and open licenses. To get the process going we need to present a one-pager with our main ideas. This document has been worked out together with EDRi [3] and BEUC [4], as they will also request the same study in order to have more leverage. We have kept this intentionally broad at some points, as the OHIM needs to make a first step in specifying the exact form and methodology. I am sharing this with you now and asking for feedback and comments until the middle of next week. Please bear in mind, that this is really just a first pitch and the form of the study will be agreed upon in the months to come. Thank you! Dimi [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-December/129015.html [2]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home [3]http://edri.org/ [4]http://beuc.org/

5 6

Re: [Advocacy Advisors] [Wiki-research-l] General user survey: future plans?
by James Salsman 23 Feb '14

23 Feb '14

>> Is anyone working on a general user survey? Sorry I left the 'l' off the end of this link: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000394… Here are some related links: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000388… http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000390… > Our advocacy orientation isn't well aligned with the issues that most > affect Wikimedians at present, because previous surveys had ... flaws. Here are 16 proposed additions followed by the earlier list of 24 from the EU policy survey: 1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to fixmyjob.com 2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its protocols without reservation 3. Increase infrastructure spending 4. Increase education spending 5. Public school class size reduction 6. College subsidy with income-based repayment terms 7. More steeply progressive taxation 8. Negative interest on excess reserves 9. Telecommuting 10. Workweek length reduction 11. Single-payer health care 12. Renewable power purchase 13. Increased data center hardware power efficiency 14. Increased security against eavesdropping 15. Metropolitan broadband 16. Oppose monopolization of software, communications, publishing, and finance industries --- A. Open Access (Scientific Research) B. Database Rights C. Freedom of Information D. Orphan Works E. Broadband Internet Access F. Data Protection G. Human Rights H. Freedom of Panorama I. Open (Government) Data J. Censorship K. Copyright on Government Works L. Internet Neutrality M. Three-strikes laws N. Cultural Heritage O. Data Retention P. Provider/Hoster Liability Q. Copyright Enforcement R. Geodata S. Open Educational Resources T. Software Patents U. Research Funding V. Surveillance W. Public Broadcasting X. Frequency Allocation Best regards, James Salsman

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] quantification and polling
by James Salsman 19 Feb '14

19 Feb '14

1. Does anyone object to requiring quantitative comparison of Wikimedian outcomes when selecting advocacy issues? 2. Does anyone object to quantitative thresholds for Foundation action? 3. Does anyone intend to re-do the priorities poll where several categories of issues, all likely to have superior outcomes for Wikimedians than several other options listed on the poll, were conflated in the single "human rights" response?

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] European Commission Study on New Business Models
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 19 Feb '14

19 Feb '14

Hello! I have been approached by the European Commission's Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) with a to-be-released study they have conducted. It is about "New Business Models" delivering copyrighted content online and they are running something like a non-public RfC. We have the chance to comment on the draft if we wish to do so. I am not convinced this document falls strictly within our focus, but nontheless, please let me know if you want to take a look at the report and come up with some remarks. I can still communicate comments until the end of the week. Later than that the OHIM can't promise they will take our opinion into account. NB: The OHIM is the institution that is going to conduct a study requested by us on "Benefits of public domain and open licensed works to the European economy" in the coming year. Their reports are published by the Commission and form part of the political narrative surrounding IP rights in Brussels, which gives them some importance when talking about copyright legislation. Cheers, Dimi

3 4

[Advocacy Advisors] Responding to government requests
by James Salsman 14 Feb '14

14 Feb '14

> we've got a lot of growing to do as an organization ... > becoming more sophisticated in how ... we ... > respond to government requests Is there any downside to responding as if the Forth Amendment is constitutional?

2 1

[Advocacy Advisors] Federal Register RfC on orphan works
by Ryan Kaldari 14 Feb '14

14 Feb '14

Hey guys, The U.S. Federal Register is doing an RfC and Public Roundtable on the issue of orphan works. I would really like for us to take this as an opportunity to push for U.S. adoption of the "rule of the shorter term", as this would solve our URAA problems on Commons and free millions of orphan foreign works in the U.S. I've already submitted a formal comment as an independent citizen, but it would be great if the WMF also submitted a comment. The RfC page is at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/10/2014-02830/orphan-works… Note that the page doesn't mention the rule of the shorter term at all, and I imagine the issue isn't even on their radar. Let's fix that! Here is the text of the comment I already submitted in case it is useful: Due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), there are now millions of orphan copyrighted works in the United States that are public domain in their country of origin, for example, the writings of Mahatma Gandhi. These works were previously public domain in the United States but have had their copyrights restored by the URAA. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to find out who technically retains the copyright since few people are even aware that the copyrights on these works have been restored in the US. There is a simple legal solution to this situation. The United States should adopt the "rule of the shorter term" as set out in the Berne Convention (art. 7-8): "the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work." Although the US is a signatory of the Berne Convention, we have opted out of the rule of the shorter term (See 17 U.S.C. 104), and are one of the few Berne Convention countries that does not practice it (along with China and Venezuela). By refusing to adopt the rule of the shorter term we are hurting the interests of all Americans in order to benefit a small handful of foreign authors (or more accurately, the companies and estates who control their copyright interests). In light of the URAA, we should balance the interests of the public with the interests of copyright holders by following the suggestions of Berne Convention and adopting the rule of the shorter term. Ryan Kaldari

5 8

[Advocacy Advisors] Copyright for government works
by Mathias Schindler 13 Feb '14

13 Feb '14

Greetings, I'd like you to take a few moments to have a look at https://public.resource.org/edicts/ and the discussion about whether copyright protection should be awarded to government works. The wording suggested on this page calls for the amendment of the US copyright code: "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." This definition is narrower than the wording regarding *federal* works, which are not copyrightable at all, regardless of their "edictive" (no such word exists in my dictionary) nature. Mathias

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Publicpolicy February 2014