I'm looking into whether or not this particular petition is still open for signatures; if not, I'll at least get us in the loop so that whenever the organizers take next steps we are alerted and can be involved.
Luis
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Geoff Brigham gbrigham@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I agree. Our policy for making such a decision may be found herehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy (summarized below).
I don't anticipate any issue for staff approval.
Does anybody on this list object?
If not, can someone start a quick RfC?
Collaborative Advocacy
We collaborate with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question.
- *Example: Signing a petition started by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation against Internet censorship.*
Review and Approval
- *Staff*: General Counsel (approval), CFA (approval), Head of
Communications (consultation), and Executive Director (approval)
- *Community*: Advocacy Advisory Group (consultation), RfC
(consultation if time permits), and General notice
- *Board*: Possible consultation
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de> wrote:
FYI. (it is my opinion that WMF should support any effort promoting such an amendment to the copyright act)
https://law.resource.org/pub/edicts.html
TEXT OF THE PETITION
To promote access to justice, equal protection, innovation in the legal marketplace, and to codify long-standing public policy, the Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C., should be amended as follows:
“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 language comes directly from Section 206.01, Compendium of Office Practices II, U.S. Copyright Office (1984). It reflects clear and established Supreme Court precedent on the matter in cases such as Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) and Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888). The law belongs to the people, who should be free to read, know, and speak the laws by which they choose to govern themselves.
-- Mathias Schindler Projektmanager Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de
Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam - http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Geoff Brigham General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6750 gbrigham@wikimedia.org
*California Registered In-House Counsel*
*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. For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors