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.*
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.*
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/
>> 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/Surveyhttp://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. 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?
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
> 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?
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
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