Hi, all-
I thought I'd pass along this CC statement on copyright reform - strong and interesting statement, discussing both the key issues, the possibility for positive change, but also discussing some of the institutional constraints CC faces:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639
This statement was driven by the CC chapters, who wanted more activism on this issue and met together at the CC conference in Buenos Aires.
CC feels a particular responsibility on this issue because some people have said "CC licenses prove copyright is not broken". CC explicitly says in the policy that "CC licenses are a patch" to a broken system. I don't know if we have a similar unique obligation or role in copyright reform, but it may be something to think about.
FYI- Luis
Hi Luis and everybody else,
thank you so much for sharing this on the list! This is just so well stated, that I feel the need to quote it here: "CC licenses are a patch, not a fix, for the problems of the copyright system." One simply has to respect and love them for such a clear staement.
As to our own universe, no matter whether we are looking at creating and disseminating educational materials or pursuing the visionary staement of the WMF, we have to deal with the "problems of the copyright system", which simply wasn't created with the digital age in mind. There are certainly many issues on and off the internet, but copyright is our core concern and the one we can have the greatest impact on. We're just credible experts when it comes to copyright (trust me, Wikimedians know more about it than any other group I've seen, CC exluded).
I myself also particularly like that they included and described the diverse lobbying roles between HQ and the affiliates and also their limitation. With one document CC clarifies its external position and internal task sharing.
This would be definitely on my wishlist for Wikimedia and I'd be happy to do everything I can to make it happen. This being said, should we keep the discussion here or would it be perhaps a good idea to put this on Wikimedia-l?
Have a great day! Dimi
2013/10/17 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org
Hi, all-
I thought I'd pass along this CC statement on copyright reform - strong and interesting statement, discussing both the key issues, the possibility for positive change, but also discussing some of the institutional constraints CC faces:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639
This statement was driven by the CC chapters, who wanted more activism on this issue and met together at the CC conference in Buenos Aires.
CC feels a particular responsibility on this issue because some people have said "CC licenses prove copyright is not broken". CC explicitly says in the policy that "CC licenses are a patch" to a broken system. I don't know if we have a similar unique obligation or role in copyright reform, but it may be something to think about.
FYI- Luis
-- 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.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
This would be definitely on my wishlist for Wikimedia and I'd be happy to do everything I can to make it happen. This being said, should we keep the discussion here or would it be perhaps a good idea to put this on Wikimedia-l?
I would announce it here (and on wikimedia-l when we have some momentum) but the actual drafting and discussion should be on-wiki, I would think?
Along those lines, it would be awesome if all the great feedback on this thread late last week were migrated to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_laws (though maybe the page should be renamed?) so the knowledge isn't lost.
Luis
Hi again,
2013/10/23 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org
Along those lines, it would be awesome if all the great feedback on this thread late last week were migrated to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_laws (though maybe the page should be renamed?) so the knowledge isn't lost.
I moved the page to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Reform and added all the points from this thread. Since the list was really long and many items were near identical, I tried, in a second step, to condense it by defining general/universal goals rather than specific ones.
In a third step we will need to think really hard about what to prioritise and what could be dropped from the list, since the most valuable resource is attention and focus. We can't go ahead with a 20 point list, at least not as part of a general policy statement.
Dimi
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
In a third step we will need to think really hard about what to prioritise and what could be dropped from the list, since the most valuable resource is attention and focus. We can't go ahead with a 20 point list, at least not as part of a general policy statement.
I think the prioritization you guys have already done for your EU work makes sense as a starting point. I don't want to replicate or throw out that work. We'll inevitably have to adapt somewhat based on opportunity, but that's probably the right place to at least start the discussion.
Luis
So,
I will make the first pitch and suggest the following list, based on everything I have read so far:
*Fundamental goals:* Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms Raising treshhold for required added creativity Standardised limitations and exceptions Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
*Issue-oreiented goals:* Government Works (We need to discuss the relationship between government works/publicly funded works and what we want to go for.) Freedom of Panorama Orphan Works Open Access/Open Educational Resources (in OA we want freely licensed content, therefore I am grouping these two together)
As we're talking about a possible policy statement calling for a copyright reform, I am strictly excluding all issues like censorship and FoI (important, but not copyright).
Now, disucss! :)
Dimi
2013/10/23 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
In a third step we will need to think really hard about what to prioritise and what could be dropped from the list, since the most valuable resource is attention and focus. We can't go ahead with a 20 point list, at least not as part of a general policy statement.
I think the prioritization you guys have already done for your EU work makes sense as a starting point. I don't want to replicate or throw out that work. We'll inevitably have to adapt somewhat based on opportunity, but that's probably the right place to at least start the discussion.
Luis
-- 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.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
El 23/10/13 12:36, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov escribió:
*Fundamental goals:* Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms Raising treshhold for required added creativity Standardised limitations and exceptions Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
Great Summary!! I'd rather say: Fundamental goal: * Strengthen the public domain.
For that we need:
Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms Raising treshhold for required added creativity Standardised limitations and exceptions Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
And I would like to add something related to Orphan works. Opt-in system if good for that, but we also need a clear policy for them.
Regards, Bea
Hello Dimi and Bea,
I agree, this is great start for a conversation. I posted the list to a talk page on Meta, so we can keep track of your suggestions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advocacy
Feel free to add to the list, discuss, or re-organize.
Stephen
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Beatriz Busaniche bea@vialibre.org.arwrote:
El 23/10/13 12:36, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov escribió:
*Fundamental goals:* Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms Raising treshhold for required added creativity Standardised limitations and exceptions Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
Great Summary!! I'd rather say: Fundamental goal:
- Strengthen the public domain.
For that we need:
Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms Raising treshhold for required added creativity Standardised limitations and exceptions Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
And I would like to add something related to Orphan works. Opt-in system if good for that, but we also need a clear policy for them.
Regards, Bea
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi Stephen,
we had the thing already posted in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copyright_reform, but I really don't mind using the general Advocacy meta-page for that. I will just put a notice on the Copyright Reform talk page.
And, yes, everyone, please don't be shy to comment! Looking forward to interesting debates. Two things I'd like to talk about already: -Should we concentrate on government created works or on government funded works or on publicly funded works? -Is it enough to talk about opt-in copyright or do we need to also specifically mention oprhan works?
I will post both questions on meta.
Dimi
2013/10/23 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org
Hello Dimi and Bea,
I agree, this is great start for a conversation. I posted the list to a talk page on Meta, so we can keep track of your suggestions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advocacy
Feel free to add to the list, discuss, or re-organize.
Stephen
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Beatriz Busaniche bea@vialibre.org.arwrote:
El 23/10/13 12:36, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov escribió:
*Fundamental goals:* Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms Raising treshhold for required added creativity Standardised limitations and exceptions Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
Great Summary!! I'd rather say: Fundamental goal:
- Strengthen the public domain.
For that we need:
Shorten (or prevent extension) of copyright terms Raising treshhold for required added creativity Standardised limitations and exceptions Opt-in copyright system (like patent law)
And I would like to add something related to Orphan works. Opt-in system if good for that, but we also need a clear policy for them.
Regards, Bea
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*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
El 16/10/13 22:42, Luis Villa escribió:
I don't know if we have a similar unique obligation or role in copyright reform, but it may be something to think about.
Hi Luis! In countries where we have no Freedom of Panorama, like Argentina and Uruguay, Copyright Reform is really needed for projects like Commons.
Most of the proposed reforms, like L&E for Blind people or for libraries are not fundamental to the scope of Wikimedia projects, but I guess we, at least, should join the efforts for a better copyright law and the freedom of culture, which, in the end is our main goal.
Regards from Buenos Aires! Bea
Hi, Bea!
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Beatriz Busaniche bea@vialibre.org.arwrote:
In countries where we have no Freedom of Panorama, like Argentina and Uruguay, Copyright Reform is really needed for projects like Commons.
What else would be on our copyright reform wishlist? Maybe putting together a list of such things would make for a good meta page? I can think offhand of:
- FOP - orphan works reform (if done correctly, could be useful for Wikibooks) - term reform/limitation (i.e., fighting the next wave of term extensions) - standardized limitations and exceptions: http://infojustice.org/flexible-use (possibly this approach is too vague to be useful for us)
I think Dimi had a list somewhere too?
Luis
2013/10/17 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
- FOP
- orphan works reform (if done correctly, could be useful for Wikibooks)
- term reform/limitation (i.e., fighting the next wave of term extensions)
- standardized limitations and exceptions:
http://infojustice.org/flexible-use (possibly this approach is too vague to be useful for us)
Each and every one is important, I would like to add the following:
- Copyright status of government works / official works (if done correctly, useful for all projects including Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise) - Database rights (A mostly European madness, should be repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive)
Hi Luis,
What else would be on our copyright reform wishlist? Maybe putting together a list of such things would make for a good meta page?
We do have https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_laws
(it was initally written a year ago following a thread on Commons-l about copyright of deep space objects)
Hope that helps,
At the intersection of copyright, freedom of government information, and deep space objects, can someone recommend a FOIA lawyer in Washington, D.C. who wants to make a few easy bucks?
Please see: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+jsalsman/posts/ZnR8BdoVamJ
The archive link for the original call for papers promising publication is at: http://web.archive.org/web/20121003071941/http://100yss.org/pdf/CallForAbstr...
Kel McClanahan at nationalsecuritylaw.org said he would take the case, but I'm really looking for someone more interested in swooping in and opening up the conference proceedings from all years than just filing some paperwork to remedy the initial denial.
Best regards, James Salsman
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jean-Frédéric jeanfrederic.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Luis,
What else would be on our copyright reform wishlist? Maybe putting together a list of such things would make for a good meta page?
We do have https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_laws
(it was initally written a year ago following a thread on Commons-l about copyright of deep space objects)
Hope that helps,
Jean-Frédéric
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi all,
Here's a little bit of history:
When talking about efforts within the EU, we originally started with a very long list that was put together in various brainstorming sessions over the years, some of them as far back as 2009 [1]. It looked something like this:
- Reproductions of 2D works --> should make sure that the law/regulations are very clear that this is not a new work - Database rights - Software patents - Exceptions to circumvent rules (disability-DRM, archives etc) - Copyright on government works and publicly funded works - Incentives for Open Government Data - Orphan works (when the copyright owner cannot be identified) - Public sector information - Stated purpose for copyright and limit to that (art, sciences, creativity, innovation) - Shorten duration of copyright - Raising threshold for the required added creativity to have copyright - Commissioning studies of copyright impact - Collecting societies and Creative Commons: impact on collection societies when works are freely licensed (surtax, restrictions on their members) - Freedom of panorama/Panoramafreiheit (and cross-border compatibility) - Principle of the applying the most flexible law within the EU - General data protection regulation (and right to be forgotten)
At a meeting last April, we saw the need to distill it and focus our efforts, whereby we concentrated somewhat on the things that seemed feasible (a new, global document we're talking about would concentrate on the fundameltal issues).
Our current EU-related policy wishlist looks like this:
- Government created works as part of the Public Domain (after a discussion, we decided that Open Access falls under this category, i.e. we also support the publishing of scientific works unde free licenses) - Freedom of Panorama - Orphan Works
As I already said, this is a list born out of our meeting in April [2] and the question was to pick the low hanging fruits within the EU legislative framework. For a global position, we would need to think long-term and more fundamentally. Im my opinion things like copyright term (freezing or shortening) must be included.
Best,
Dimi
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_lobby#Wikimania.2C_August_2009.2C_Buenos_...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy/Big_Fat_Brussels_Meeting/minutes
2013/10/17 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org
Hi, Bea!
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Beatriz Busaniche bea@vialibre.org.arwrote:
In countries where we have no Freedom of Panorama, like Argentina and Uruguay, Copyright Reform is really needed for projects like Commons.
What else would be on our copyright reform wishlist? Maybe putting together a list of such things would make for a good meta page? I can think offhand of:
- FOP
- orphan works reform (if done correctly, could be useful for Wikibooks)
- term reform/limitation (i.e., fighting the next wave of term extensions)
- standardized limitations and exceptions:
http://infojustice.org/flexible-use (possibly this approach is too vague to be useful for us)
I think Dimi had a list somewhere too?
Luis
-- 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.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
All these are good examples. I would also like to add some:
- rules for free use of images of copyrighted product packaging (free use of book/CD/DVD covers, etc might be included here or separate) - some kind of clear rules for to what extent one has to rework a work to create a new, derivative work (at which point do new, separate rights for derivative works rise? this would help a bit with museums and archives claiming copyright on photos etc of their contents, like The Israel Museum claiming copyright on their images of Dead Sea Scrolls or The Smithsonian Institute on some high-quality, digitally cleansed images) - clear rules on what constitutes mass production and hence is not covered by copyright (mostly, this concerns product design and architecture) - I'd very much like an international agreement to put things like money, postage stamps, etc entirely out of copyright - some international agreement on more specific issues concerning countries with "interrupted history" (like the whole former Socialist block, but there are certainly many other examples): the status of works produced under occupation by state agencies, or by the juridical persons who ceased to exist (can author of an encyclopedia article published in 1939 claim any rights if all rights originally belonged to the publisher discontinued in 1940? which juridical persons can or can't claim to inherit the rights of such a publisher?) - the terms for media channels could be shorter than for other kinds of works (most media outlets do not earn money from their editions published 30 years ago, but historical media is an important part of a society's public memory)
Raul WMEE
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, Bea!
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Beatriz Busaniche bea@vialibre.org.arwrote:
In countries where we have no Freedom of Panorama, like Argentina and Uruguay, Copyright Reform is really needed for projects like Commons.
What else would be on our copyright reform wishlist? Maybe putting together a list of such things would make for a good meta page? I can think offhand of:
- FOP
- orphan works reform (if done correctly, could be useful for Wikibooks)
- term reform/limitation (i.e., fighting the next wave of term extensions)
- standardized limitations and exceptions:
http://infojustice.org/flexible-use (possibly this approach is too vague to be useful for us)
I think Dimi had a list somewhere too?
Luis
-- 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.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org