Hi all,
As we have stated in our annual plan [1], “currently, community members
must search many pages and places to stay informed about Foundation
activities and resources.” We have worked in the past two quarters to
create a single point of entry. We call it the Wikimedia Resource Center,
and its alpha version is now live on Meta Wikimedia:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Resource_Center
As the movement expands to include more affiliates and more programmatic
activities every year, newer Wikimedians are faced with lack of experience
in the movement and its various channels for requesting support. In order
to expand Wikimedia communities’ efforts, we want to provide easy access to
resources that support their very important work. The [[m:Wikimedia
Resource Center]] is a hub designed in response to this issue: it is
intended to evolve into a single point of entry for Wikimedians all over
the world to the variety of resources and types of staff support they may
need to develop new initiatives or also expand existing ones.
This version of the Resource Center is only the beginning. For phase two of
the project, we will enable volunteer Wikimedians to add resources
developed by other individuals or organizations to the Wikimedia Resource
Center, and in phase three, the Wikimedia Resource Center will include
features to better connect Wikimedians to other Wikimedians that can
support them.
We want to hear what you think about this prototype and our plans for it!
If you have comments about the Wikimedia Resource Center, you can submit
your feedback publicly, on the Talk Page, or privately, via a survey hosted
by a third party, that shouldn’t take you more than 4 minutes to complete.
A feedback button is on the top right corner on every page of the hub.
Looking forward to more collaborations!
Best,
María
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/…
--
María Cruz
Communications and Outreach Project Manager, Community Engagement
Hi policy folks,
-----
tl;dr: Please check out and participate in the new copyright strategy on
Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_strategy>, and attend the
accompanying IRC office hour
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours> on
September 15.
-----
As you may have already seen on other mailing lists or through messages
on-wiki, we on the WMF legal team have been putting together a new strategy
for identifying, prioritizing, and addressing copyright issues that affect
Wikimedia <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_strategy>. The goal of
the strategy is to improve how Wikimedia does its copyright-related work by
providing a centralized place for everyone—staff and non-staff alike—to
organize and collaborate on that work. There’s more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_strategy
The strategy is designed to work with all sorts of issues, including things
like MediaWiki feature design, Creative Commons license compliance and
project copyright policies. I’m hoping the copyright strategy pages will
also become a place to track and discuss copyright-related public policy
opportunities and developments. If a copyright lawsuit is filed, copyright
legislation is proposed, or an opportunity arises to share Wikimedia’s
perspective on copyright with policymakers, it can be added to the
strategy’s list of issues
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_strategy/Issues>. We can then
all talk about it and propose responses or activism.
The goal of the strategy is not to replace this mailing list, the public
policy portal <http://policy.wikimedia.org>, or anywhere else where policy
discussions are already thriving, but to supplement existing forums. By
documenting discussions and keeping them active on-wiki, we can help make
sure we don’t lose track of anything.
If you have questions about all of this, I encourage you to leave a comment
on the copyright strategy talk page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copyright_strategy>. The legal team
will also be holding an office hour on IRC
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours>to
discuss the strategy on September 15 at 14:00 UTC.
I hope you’ll participate!
Best,
Charles M. Roslof
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
croslof(a)wikimedia.org
(415) 839-6885
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>.
Hi folks,
As has been mentioned on this list before, the US Librarian of Congress is
soliciting input to help her select the next Register of Copyrights
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Copyrights>[1]. The
deadline to submit
comments <https://www.research.net/r/RegisterOfCopyrights>[2] is January
31. I’m working on preparing comments for the Wikimedia Foundation, and I’m
interested to hear from you about the themes you think are important to
touch on.
The Register of Copyrights is in charge of the Copyright Office
<http://copyright.gov/>[3] in the US. In addition to maintaining (and
hopefully improving) the copyright registration system, the Copyright
Office plays an important role in advising Congress on copyright-related
matters. They gather information about copyright law and the functioning of
the copyright system and they analyze and interpret that information for
Congress. As such, they can have significant influence on the perspectives
and considerations that form the basis of proposed changes to US copyright
law.
I currently plan to emphasize that the Register should understand the full
scope of the copyright landscape and who the stakeholders are and will be.
Discussions of copyright law often involve simplified narratives of legacy
rightsholders like movie studios versus online platforms like YouTube. The
Register must see beyond those narratives. They need to recognize the
creativity and expression that online platforms for individuals and other
small creators. They also need to understand that copyright exists
ultimately to benefit the public—to encourage people to create and share
works in order for the rest of society to benefit from those works
(including by sharing, building on, and remixing them).
What other themes do you think are important to Wikimedia? What should the
Librarian of Congress be thinking about when looking for the next Register
of Copyrights? There are a lot of potential topics to discuss, so we won’t
be able to mention all of them, but your input will help us decide what to
focus on. If you’re interested, I encourage you to submit your own comments
as well.
- Charles
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Copyrights
[2] https://www.research.net/r/RegisterOfCopyrights
[3] http://copyright.gov/
==
Charles M. Roslof
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
croslof(a)wikimedia.org
(415) 839-6885
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>.
Hi all,
The year ahead will be mighty exciting in the European Parliament, as major
decisions about the European copyright framework will be made and a very
recently proposed e-Privacy Regulation could change the way we use cookies
and user data.
To give you the chance to be part of the front-line action and boost our
efforts for a free-knowledge-friendly reform, we will meet again in
Brussels for a think & do event.
I have set up a dudle letting you chose dates between 20-25 April. Ideally
we are looking for two full, consecutive days within this time frame. This
timing is dictated by the European Parliament schedule, public holidays,
Wikimedia events and other relevant conferences. Sorry if the dates aren't
good for you, there really was little space to manoeuvre!
Please chose preferred dates: https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/BFBM4/
A programme and further details will be announced after the dates are
selected.
Cheers,
Dimi
Is this more appropriate for the Public Policy or Wikimedia-l list?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/court…
Several permanent residents have apparently been tricked into signing
away their green cards while being detained without benefit of
counsel.
How many Foundation employees are affected by the travel ban?
Will the foundation join the calls for a general strike?
Sharing with the good folks at wikimedia public policy too.
----------------------
*A transition of power in the United States*
Prior to the inauguration, the Obama administration hustled to push
projects out the door. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
reported
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/01/09/making-federal-research-results-…>
on the status of the implementation of the 2013 Memorandum On Increasing
Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research: *"22 Federal
departments and agencies accounting for more than 99 percent of U.S.
Federal R&D expenditures now have public access plans in place." *The State
Department released
<https://creativecommons.org/2017/01/20/state-department-publishes-open-lice…>
the Federal Open Licensing Playbook, a list of considerations, use cases,
and recommendations for federal departments interested in developing and
implementing open license requirements on federally-funded grant projects.
There have also been some disturbing signs re: Trump administration. Many
news outlets reported
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/3157870/open-source-tools/fears-of-trump-p…>
that government-funded and affiliated scientists have been backing up their
data, due to the unknown and potentially hostile handling of government
science and data efforts, particularly around hotbed issues like climate
change. Immediately upon taking office, the White House website was reset,
scrubbing many issues and executive office department sites. For
example, *"Office
of Science and Technology Policy" and "Open Government Initiative" returns
a 404 on the new White House site*. Even though the web contents of the
Obama administration White House have been preserved, it's still TBD how
Trump will support (or not) key departments and projects related to
promoting access to research, data, and technology.
Also reported within the last few days is that some federal agencies have
been directed *not to communicate with the public*
<https://sunlightfoundation.com/list-of-federal-government-agencies-told-not…>
.
*European Copyright Reform*
The reform efforts continue, with MEPs on the relevant committees now
collecting textual amendments to the Commission's proposal for a Directive
on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Some EU library and research
organisations
<http://libereurope.eu/blog/2017/01/10/eu-copyright-reform-liber-joins-leadi…>
are chiming in to expand the exception for text and data mining, and
the FutureTDM
project
<http://www.futuretdm.eu/blog/legal-policies/futuretdms-policy-recommendatio…>
has an interesting set of policy recommendations regarding TDM. Meanwhile,
the arguments continue with regard to the controversial introduction of a
press publisher's right (also known as an ancillary copyright, link tax,
etc.). OpenForum Europe published a paper
<http://www.communia-association.org/2017/01/12/new-study-explores-possible-…>
which analyses the justifications for the proposed press publisher’s right,
and assesses how it would fit in the EU copyright framework. The EU
Commission--which has defending the press publisher's right and continually
claiming that it would not affect linking--apparently slipped up and
admitted that it would
<https://openmedia.org/en/european-commission-finally-admits-their-copyright…>
.
*Open Access/Open Education*
The open access policy at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is now in
effect
<https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/16/gates-foundation-open-access…>
(Jan
1 2017), meaning that *researchers that receive money from the foundation
must publish their scientific papers and data online under a CC BY license,
with zero embargo when it goes live.*
As reported last time, there's a trend with universities in several
countries that have been cancelling subscriptions to scholarly journal
content because their budgets can no longer afford to pay the access fees.
It's happening again
<http://www.thegauntlet.ca/the-rising-price-of-knowledge-university-of-calga…>,
this time at the University of Calgary. Researchers
are--understandably--upset.
Bloomberg has been reporting on the massive revenue drop
<https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-01-18/pearson-textbook-mista…>
at education publisher Pearson: *"revenue from U.S. college books fell some
30 percent in the fourth quarter, bringing the annual drop to 18 percent
... even if the recent spike in returns is a one-time adjustment, the days
of Pearson printing money by selling textbooks at astronomical prices are
history."*
*Copyright Week *
Last week was Copyright Week <https://www.eff.org/copyrightweek>, "a series
of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide
copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on
different elements of the law, and addressing what’s at stake, and what we
need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation."
There was great participation again this year, with *50 blog posts* on a
variety of topics from a great group of orgs, including Creative Commons
and affiliate teams.
--
Invest in an open future. Support Creative Commons today.
https://creativecommons.org/donate/
Hi Jan,
Petitions to Participate in proceedings before the Copyright to
determine rates and terms for recording ephemeral copies of sound
recordings for transmissions to business establishments are due
February 2
Please see 82 FR 143 for details.
Does the Foundation intend to participate?
Best regards,
Jim Salsman
P.S. Quoting https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/06/rethinking-digital-property-yale-isp/…
This is a disturbingly simplistic analysis. "Copyright holders" are
mentioned only four times, as if they are in opposition to the
consumers of their products, and without acknowledging that they are
creating the works that the consumers clearly value as evidenced by
their desire to make, lend, and sell copies of the works.
The reality of our modern information economy is that large corporate
intermediaries like Apple (iTunes), Google (YouTube, Google Books and
Music), Pandora, Spotify, and the like are given free rein to make,
monetize, and sell as many copies of artists' and authors' works as
they wish, while three federal judges on the Copyright Royalty Board
very occasionally set "compulsory license" requirements whereby they
must pay the copyright holders -- usually publishers instead of
authors and artists -- for what would otherwise be considered rampant
abuse of the constitutionally motivated copy right to advance the
useful arts and sciences. But because these compulsory royalties
rarely see the pockets of the original artists and authors, very
little incentive to create outside the corporate top-40 and celebrity
author hegemony is ever generated.
When will the Wikimedia Foundation take a stand for a more equitable
distribution of compulsory license royalties to artists and authors,
who include thousands of their own volunteers who work commercially in
addition to giving away their time which allows the Foundation's
employees to take home their paychecks?
According to Department of Labor, in the 1970s, before the advent of
mass consumer copying, the U.S. economy supported three times as many
small and emerging artists and performers. There is no reason that the
Copyright Royalty Judges can not produce an intelligent, informed,
progressive, and humane compulsory license distribution incidence
schedule which will return our culture to its former glory. Where will
the Wikimedia Foundation be on that question?
Hello all,
Some of you may have read about a new law in California, AB 1687, which
would require websites that offer employment services (like IMDB) to remove
information about an actor's age or birthday upon request.[0] IMDB is now
protesting the law's restriction on free speech, arguing that it limits
their ability to share truthful information.[1]
While this law would not apply to a website like Wikipedia directly—we do
not provide employment services, like IMDBPro—we are still concerned with
the breadth of the law and important free speech principles that underlie
this case. Restricting websites' ability to write truthful facts about
notable people will make it harder for Wikipedians to do research and write
articles.
We've joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation in an amicus brief that
explains these free speech issues.[2] This case is still in a lower court,
so it will likely continue.
Best,
Jan
0.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/california-enacts-law-requiring-imdb-…
1.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/nov/11/imdb-sues-california-to-overtu…
2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/eff-dont-gag-imdb
==
Jan Gerlach
Public Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
jgerlach(a)wikimedia.org