Hi all
Many of you may have already seen it and we are really excited about the
transparency report that we released earlier this week:
https://transparency.wikimedia.org/
Highlights:
-
243 requests to alter or remove content from the projects. None were
granted.
-
13 requests to disclose nonpublic user information. None were granted.
-
22 requests under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act> to
remove copyrighted material from the projects. Six were granted.
Please find more info about the report in this blogpost
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/08/fifth-transparency-report/>.
Best,
Jan
==
Jan Gerlach
Public Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
jgerlach(a)wikimedia.org
Hi everyone,
I want to let you know about a recent victory for the WMF in Germany. The
German court of appeals dismissed the case of Evelyn Schels v. Wikimedia
Foundation. The court held that biographical information about Schels, such
as her birthdate, was appropriate for an article about her as a notable
figure when it was obtained from a public source. You can read more about
it on the blog
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/09/victory-germany-appeal-dismissed/>
as well.
Best,
Jacob
--
Jacob Rogers
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message 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. For more on what this means, please see
our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
Since there have been no objections, would anyone like to cosponsor this?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Copyright Information* <copyinfo(a)loc.gov>
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016
Subject: RE: General copyright
To: "jim(a)talknicer.com" <jim(a)talknicer.com>
Cc: Copyright Information <copyinfo(a)loc.gov>
You may petition the Copyright Royalty Board by mail:
Copyright Royalty Board
PO Box 70977
Washington, DC 20024-0400
Sincerely,
LG
U.S. Copyright Office
Attn: Public Information Office
101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20559-6000
Email: copyinfo(a)loc.gov <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','copyinfo(a)loc.gov');>
Phone: 877-476-0778 (toll free) or 202-707-5959
Fax: 202-252-2041
Website: www.copyright.gov
*From:* jim(a)talknicer.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');> [mailto:
jim(a)talknicer.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:50 PM
*To:* Copyright Information
*Subject:* General copyright
General Questions Form
Category: General copyright
Name: James Salsman
Email: jim(a)talknicer.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');>
Question: I would like to petition the Copyright Royalty Judges to
institute a sliding scale to redistribute top-40 windfalls from
consolidated artists\' publishers to small, developing, and emerging
artists in order to support the same number of gainfully employed
performing and writing artists prior to the introduction of mass consumer
copying technology. What are the email address(es) for petitioning the CRB?
Thank you. Sincerely, James Salsman tel.: 650-427-9625 email:
jim(a)talknicer.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');>
August has started and all of Brussels is going into its annual summer
slump. Only one small Directorate General is bravely working trough the
heat to prepare its copyright (reform) package on 21 September. Here’s a
very brief bulletin from Brussels that hopefully won’t keep you away from
the sun for too long.
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
----------------
----------------
Copyright Reform?: The European Commission will present its next reform
package on 21 September. It is supposed to include a revision of the
Information Society (Copyright) Directive. It seems that the conservative
side of the Commission is currently prevailing. There won’t a proposal
really worthy of the name “reform”. Instead we’re likely to receive an
ancillary copyright pitch and “something that will go against YouTube”.
Depending how wide the YouTube is cast, there might be plenty of bycatch,
including us. On the exceptions and limitations side only a very, very weak
text and data mining provision seems to be in the cards. All of this is bad
news and means the European Parliament will have to strongly modify the
text for us to be able to support it. Formally no decisions have been taken
yet and DG Connect is working throughout August (employees not allow to
take long leaves this summer). We’re working on it, but the fronts seem
deadlocked.
----------------
Privacy Shield: The European Commission has approved the so-called Privacy
Shield on 12 July. [1] This is an agreement between the US and the EU that
is supposed provide clear rules for the transfer of personal data, e.g.
when Facebook copies European users' profile information to its US-based
servers. This is necessary because European data protections laws don’t
allow transfers of personal data to third countries. There already was such
an agreement with the US called Safe Harbour, but it was struck down by the
Court of Justice of the European Union because it didn’t comply with
fundamental right to the protection of personal data and its control by an
independent authority. [2] The new agreement took just about 7 months to
come into force. Critics say the text is essentially the same and doesn’t
address the fundamental rights issues will too be struck down in court. [3]
The European Commission, on the other hand, believes this is now solved.
[4] Meanwhile we should keep in mind that the new General Data Protection
Regulation will become effective in two years’ time, which might require a
new agreement anyway. This concern is also shared by the European national
data protection authorities (a.k.a. Article 29 Data Protection Working
Party) [5] and the European Data Protection Supervisor. [6]
----------------
Net Neutrality: When the European Union adopted its network neutrality
rules last year, the decision in the trialogue (final negotiation round
between the Council, the Parliament and the Commission) was to avoid making
a decision. Instead, the burden wash shifted to the national regulatory
authorities (NRAs) and their European-level body (BEREC). [7] Needless to
say they weren’t very happy about the hot potato they had been handed over.
Still, BEREC ran a public consultation that received about half a million
contributions. [8] The resulting guidelines (i.e. the rules for net
neutrality in the EU) will be announced on 30 April. Meanwhile Europe's
telecoms industry seemed to refocus its attention and started asking for
special treatment with the development of 5G networks. [9]
----------------
----------------
[1]
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/international-transfers/eu-us-p…
[2]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-court-strikes-down-trans-atlantic-safe-harbo…
[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18f78fbS1GU
[4]
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/international-transfers/eu-us-p…
[5]
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinio…
[6]
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/C…
[7]https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/27/ep-telecoms-vote/
[8]
http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_and_publications/whats_new/3893-public-cons…
[9]
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commissioner-oettinger-w…